Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

should the West invade and/or bomb the fuck out of Iran?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (316 of them)
View Previous Page...
all bush needs is a catalyst and he'll get his war. worked before, and america's practice of never admitting mistakes means america never learns from mistakes.

― GOD PUNCH TO HAWKWIND (yournullfame), Thursday, 21 September 2006 03:23 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't know if it's going to happen or not, but it sure feels like they're trying.

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Thursday, 21 September 2006 03:56 (seventeen years ago) link

If they're serious about ensuring that Iran doesn't obtain nukes, invading would do the trick, and bombing wouldn't do jack. too bad the latter is more politically feasible than the former.

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:36 (seventeen years ago) link

Right, cause if it was politcally feasible, it'd be really awesome to invade Iran! Right?

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:38 (seventeen years ago) link

We're just being primed and primed, and then there's going to be some trigger event, perhaps staged, perhaps provoked, and then boom, draft.

a draft is not that likely, I do not think the USA will ever fight another meatgrinder war again. Or at least, not one where it's meat is being ground.

as to war with Iran... I don't really see it. Iraq is such a fuck up, and the Iran dress rehearsal in Lebanon did not go that well, so it is hard to see bombing Iran accomplishing anything and hard to see the USA invading.

I wonder will the world just have to learn to live with Iranian nuclear weapons, like it has had to live with those of the USA, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel?

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:41 (seventeen years ago) link

In defense of not caring about Iran's offensive intentions
> I mean, if random country A invaded or bombed the fuck out of >random country B, they would be looking at at Security Council >resolutions, sanctions, possible international coalition to stop >their invasion

Ha ha ha! Don't worry about anything, leave it all to the security council. THAT'S a proven strategy, alright.

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:43 (seventeen years ago) link

politically feasible

Political feasibility is not the issue. Military feasibility is the issue. America doesn't have the resources to invade Iran. Bomb Iran, maybe. Invade, no way.

This is a non-starter. America is not going to invade Iran.

― Super Cub (Debito), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:43 (seventeen years ago) link

the political, financial, and military capital for the US to invade Iran do not exist. we don't have the money, we don't have the troops, the public isn't exactly gung-ho about it - there's just no way to do it. altho yes watching CNN or whatever def. gives the impression that the "ARE YOU READY TO RUMBLE!?!" invasion-priming bullshit is being ladled out with furious abandon.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:43 (seventeen years ago) link

The last invasion of Iran.

― M. White (Miguelito), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:44 (seventeen years ago) link

A-ron, where did you get the idea that I support foreign adventurism? I'm an isolationist. I'm just saying, invasions are generally more militarily effective AND more humane than massive bombing campaigns. But for some reason, dipshit america will sign on for bombing at the drop of a hat.

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:45 (seventeen years ago) link

America can't invade Iran, so the threat of force is diminished. The threat of force is essential in America's "negotiations" with Iran. Thus, the need for warlike bluster.

― Super Cub (Debito), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Obv. the answer is to spark a second Iran/Iraq conflict and use the Iraqis as cannon fodder!

― rock u like a � (ex machina), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:47 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, if you believe that bushco engjineered 9/11 (who knows who did it, I suspect riyadh but the official version could be OTM for all I know), all they have to do is fire off 9/11 mark two, preferably just before the 2008 election. And since most americans are ideologically SUPPORTIVE of using the draft in times of emergency...voila! no more troop shortages!

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:49 (seventeen years ago) link

When did we all sign on to the idea that Iran is just using their nuclear program as a negotiating ploy? What if they simply want a pocketful of nukes, and we can't buy/threaten them off? If Iran calls our bluff and manufactures/acquires a few nukes, what then?

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:51 (seventeen years ago) link

I like that the wikipedia entry immediately refers back to the 17th century for background.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:52 (seventeen years ago) link

>I wonder will the world just have to learn to live with
>Iranian nuclear weapons

The problem being, the Iranian leadership's worldview is even MORE apocalyptic then Bush's. They're like, the Pat Robertsons of Islam.

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:55 (seventeen years ago) link

It's like, everyone thinks "don't worry, the neocons do crazy things, but they can't get TOO crazy, the american people won't allow it" well, maybe in YOUR state...try living in Idaho...

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Thursday, 21 September 2006 20:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, sorry, but I think a draft is possible. Maybe not immediately likely, but there is some x event that would be enough to galvanize people in support of a draft. As for money, we can just go into more debt, right? Not to mention all the oil profit that will be reaped! (sure, didn't work last time, but THIS time it's for sure!)

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Thursday, 21 September 2006 21:18 (seventeen years ago) link

pentagon not so interested in a draft.

― geoff (gcannon), Thursday, 21 September 2006 21:19 (seventeen years ago) link

Gareth and I were discussing Iran earlier. Iran probably has the best model there is for a middle eastern islamic democracy. I don't think it has to be our friend, not everyone wants or needs to be a friend of the US or the western world for there to be peace. Iran has got to be better for the world and its people than saudi arabia, ba'athist iraq or syria, taliban afghanistan or even post-ba'athist iraq.

Iran and the Us are much alike. big democracies, both with faults in their democratic process. Both with a history of state sponsorship of terror (Iran with hezbollah and in Iraq now, the US all over south america in the past, in afghanistan in the 80s the hot wars could be called terror as well). Both have a strong religious leaning, both are naturally conservative with a very dynamic youth culture.

Think about it. No matter how you can point to how the Iranians gerrymandered their last election, a hell of a lot of people voted for Amedinhejad. They made a choice.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 21 September 2006 21:38 (seventeen years ago) link

been reading the lastest atlantic monthly which has a very great, detailed article about what shit will hit the fan when north korea inevitably collapses, that'd be fun if it happens right after we invade iran.*

*tho i don't think the latter is likely to happen.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 21 September 2006 21:41 (seventeen years ago) link

I dunno if Iran really qualifies as a democracy with unelected theocrats holding the ultimate authority...? altho the parallels Ed draws are certainly interesting.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 September 2006 21:47 (seventeen years ago) link

Imperfect democracy. the people of Iran certainly have more say in what goes on that the people of Kuwait, Syria or Saudi Arabia, maybe even more so that Egypt.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 21 September 2006 21:48 (seventeen years ago) link

The appointed supreme court in the US wields a lot o power as well, (yes I realise that supreme court appointments are scrutinised and that in Iran the theocrats appoint each other)

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 21 September 2006 21:50 (seventeen years ago) link

True dat. Egypt's "democracy" is kind of a joke. Saudi Arabia's "system" of gov't is inexcusable.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 September 2006 21:52 (seventeen years ago) link

Huge amounts of interest here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/iran/

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 21 September 2006 21:53 (seventeen years ago) link

The appointed supreme court in the US wields a lot o power as well, (yes I realise that supreme court appointments are scrutinised and that in Iran the theocrats appoint each other)

-- Ed (dal...), September 21st, 2006.

Sure, and I guess the Constitution isn't that different from the Koran either.

We're stretching things a little though, aren't we?

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Thursday, 21 September 2006 21:58 (seventeen years ago) link

>Iran probably has the best model there is for a middle
>eastern islamic democracy.

If a certain elite holds the ultimate veto power on anything and everything, how could their system be described as democracy? it would be oligrachy.

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Friday, 22 September 2006 02:34 (seventeen years ago) link

and i suspect that the oligarchs aren't just using religion as a tool to control the populace...i think they really ARE wacky.

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Friday, 22 September 2006 02:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Oligarchy or no, its the most democratic middle eastern country.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 22 September 2006 04:23 (seventeen years ago) link

israel?

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 22 September 2006 06:46 (seventeen years ago) link

i know, i know.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 22 September 2006 06:46 (seventeen years ago) link

The Nation says this is almost a done deal. I'm getting very afraid.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

― schwantz (schwantz), Friday, 22 September 2006 17:00 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, but given that his popularity is most directly correlated to the cost of oil, why would Bush mess up the midterms with this just right now?

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 22 September 2006 17:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Christ, we're fucked. Don't have kids.

― Venga (Venga), Friday, 22 September 2006 18:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Let's see. The Nation's article consists of two elements:

1. America sending warships to the Middle East (shocking)
2. Partisan hacks denouncing Bush

I'm not convinced.

― Super Cub (Debito), Friday, 22 September 2006 18:46 (seventeen years ago) link

Maybe "hack" is too strong. How about just "partisans"

― Super Cub (Debito), Friday, 22 September 2006 18:51 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.dickdestiny.com/bighello.JPG

― Urnst Kouch (Urnst Kouch), Friday, 22 September 2006 19:00 (seventeen years ago) link

From today's NYT:

Strained, Army Looks to Guard for More Relief

By THOM SHANKER and MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 — Strains on the Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become so severe that Army officials say they may be forced to make greater use of the National Guard to provide enough troops for overseas deployments.

― Super Cub (Debito), Friday, 22 September 2006 19:07 (seventeen years ago) link

i actually completely fail to understand why the bush administration would even contemplate doing this or what they actually think is the immediate threat from iran. they're well aware of the unstoppable carnage such an action would cause, right?

is it too much to ask generals not to obey their orders? is that a remote possibility?

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 22 September 2006 20:32 (seventeen years ago) link

i actually completely fail to understand why the bush administration would even contemplate doing this or what they actually think is the immediate threat from iran. they're well aware of the unstoppable carnage such an action would cause, right?

is it too much to ask generals not to obey their orders? is that a remote possibility?

i have long felt as though, through its actions, the bush administration have effectively been waging a kind of proxy war against americans, because they've made us all considerably *less* safe for generations. if they do anything to iran you can be sure this will get much worse.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 22 September 2006 20:33 (seventeen years ago) link

haha - an American military coup would be... interesting.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 22 September 2006 20:34 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't see where the troops to invade iran would come from right now. The US is stretched, the UK is over-stretched. Amedinhejad can just get on and do whatever he likes right now. All a bombing campaign will do is piss off ordinary iranians and convince a fair few of them to go and be reinforcements in Iraq.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 22 September 2006 21:00 (seventeen years ago) link

Send in the Swiss.

― mr. brojangles (sanskrit), Friday, 22 September 2006 21:05 (seventeen years ago) link

we've had this thread like 5 times now, right?

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 22 September 2006 21:06 (seventeen years ago) link

Every time it comes round, invading iran looks less and less likely

― Ed (dali), Friday, 22 September 2006 21:08 (seventeen years ago) link

We may not have enough troops to occupy Iran indefinitely, but how about a raid? More than enough for that.

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Friday, 22 September 2006 21:57 (seventeen years ago) link

you are out of your fucking gourd

― geoff (gcannon), Friday, 22 September 2006 22:00 (seventeen years ago) link

Ah yes, Iranian raids. Smash successes, those.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 22 September 2006 22:04 (seventeen years ago) link

It would be counter-productive, SP. Considering how lousy our intel was in Iraq, imagine how lousy it's likely to be in larger and topographically more complicated Iran. We'd need enough troops and time to scour the place for any hidden sites. A raid would earn us more ill-will and casualties and would be very, very far from predictably ridding Iran of the capacity to build nukes.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 22 September 2006 22:05 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 216 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login