NationStates Jolt Archive

So, US forces are already overstreched in Iraq/Afghanistan, and the solution is to...overstreach them even more!

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/9597/2ry4oyhrt3.jpg

No, not because of their nuclear program but because they are training insurgents in Iran and sending them across the border to attack American troops in Iraq. Reminds me of Korea and Vietnam when the enemy fighter aircraft would disappear across the Chinese border every night so the U.S. and allied forces couldn't attack them.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
"We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons
He added, "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280073,00.html

Surprise Surprise.

Shame on Connecticut for electing this turncoat.

Ah yes, the old terrorist-supporting, slash WMD developing excuses.

Funny, haven't I heard those reasons before when invading a random Middle Eastern nation?

Am I the only one who feels that Iran hasn't even done anything bad? I don't care if they have a nuclear program, they have every right to do it.

All I hear is, "IRAN IS BAD! They are A-rab Terrorists!!!11"

Aside from being Persian of course, I think we (USA, EU, UN) should let them do whatever they want. Besides, they're probably more of a danger to themselves then they are to anyone else.

Even if we did bomb them, it would be like shoving your hand in a fire ant pile, and fire ants hurt like a bitch.

Bad idea. That sort of thing would warrant retaliation, which would escalate the conflict to hopeless levels. For now we must continue to try to close the border of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Am I the only one who feels that Iran hasn't even done anything bad? I don't care if they have a nuclear program, they have every right to do it.

They have done something bad, namely fueling the current conflict in Kurdistan and repressing various ethnic and religious (or "irreligious") groups in their own country. Unfortunately, for now all we can really do is not drive them to greater extremes.

dammit why isnt he running for president?

we need the kind of man who will get us into yet another war that we cant possibly win.

So, US forces are already overstreched in Iraq/Afghanistan, and the solution is to...overstreach them even more!

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/9597/2ry4oyhrt3.jpg

He wants to use air power rather than ground troops. I wonder what Iran would do if we did that?

Going against the majority here on NSG I support attacking Iran also. In fact we should have attacked Iran and not Iraq. We had Iraq contained and with an attack on Iran we would have the region under control for the most part.

Now though I would pull the troops out of central Iraq and move them east towards Iran. Shore up the Iranian-Iraqi border on both sides of Iran. Then launch an air offensive as we did in the Balkans. Fund and supply Iranian dissident forces such as we did in Afghanistan.

Anyone that thinks we need to find a reason to attack them they just need to look a little more. The list is a mile long against Iran.

He wants to use air power rather than ground troops. I wonder what Iran would do if we did that?

The Iranian people, already very disenchanted with thier government and relatively Pro-American, would rally around and galvanise nationalistic support for the Iranian regime. Local support for Iranian dissident groups will decrease to near zero. Iran and Iraq will become hopelessly lost causes, as they continue to train insurgents and actually develop nuclear weapons, if they are not doing that already (highly unlikely).

I voted yes 'cuz I wanna see WW3 erupt already! :p

At the same time though, I should've voted no... silly me.

Fund and supply Iranian dissident forces such as we did in Afghanistan.

Oh you mean like Osama bin Laden? That kind of "dissident forces?"

Anyone that thinks we need to find a reason to attack them they just need to look a little more. The list is a mile long against Iran.

Yeah how silly to imagine that a reason might be needed, or that it should even be discussed. War's like Jell-O. There's always room for more.

He wants to use air power rather than ground troops. I wonder what Iran would do if we did that?
I would say that Iraq would become hopeless. But that would suggest that it isn't at the minute. Whether air or gound forces are used, the resulting conflict will need ground forces in the ensuing bloodbath.

War's like Jell-O. There's always room for more.
:D

No, not because of their nuclear program but because they are training insurgents in Iran and sending them across the border to attack American troops in Iraq. Reminds me of Korea and Vietnam when the enemy fighter aircraft would disappear across the Chinese border every night so the U.S. and allied forces couldn't attack them.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
"We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons
He added, "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280073,00.html

Yay excuses to preform more neocolonialism!

Oh you mean like Osama bin Laden? That kind of "dissident forces?"

I'm pretty sure he meant the dissident forces against the Taliban, not the Soviet Union.

just about the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

Oh you mean like Osama bin Laden? That kind of "dissident forces?"



Yeah how silly to imagine that a reason might be needed, or that it should even be discussed. War's like Jell-O. There's always room for more.

No, like the northern alliance. We never funded Osama. Find the information that proves that.

Am I the only one who feels that Iran hasn't even done anything bad? I don't care if they have a nuclear program, they have every right to do it.

All I hear is, "IRAN IS BAD! They are A-rab Terrorists!!!11"

Aside from being Persian of course, I think we (USA, EU, UN) should let them do whatever they want. Besides, they're probably more of a danger to themselves then they are to anyone else.

Even if we did bomb them, it would be like shoving your hand in a fire ant pile, and fire ants hurt like a bitch.

one of my co-workers is iranian... really nice guy. even he is nervous about the idea of iran getting the bomb. why? amanidinajan is a twelver. if you don't know what that means google it. and be very afraid

Anyone that thinks we need to find a reason to attack them they just need to look a little more. The list is a mile long against Iran.

yup. and its a mile long against the u.s. as well.

Thank Jeebus that fucker isn't a Democrat anymore.

yup. and its a mile long against the u.s. as well.

Anyone wants to attack the US then do it I say. Easier to fight your enemy when they are "out of the closet".

Thank Jeebus that fucker isn't a Democrat anymore.

What would you say if let's say Hillary or Obama attack Iran if they get elected? Would they then be a fucking Democrat?

He wants to use air power rather than ground troops. I wonder what Iran would do if we did that?

Bitch and realize if they retaliate, they are fucked even more.

one of my co-workers is iranian... really nice guy. even he is nervous about the idea of iran getting the bomb. why? amanidinajan is a twelver. if you don't know what that means google it. and be very afraid

Nothing popped up. Could you give me a link please?

Nothing popped up. Could you give me a link please?

Look for resources discussing the 12th Imam

What would you say if let's say Hillary or Obama attack Iran if they get elected? Would they then be a fucking Democrat?

They'd be dead, or at least forcefully removed from office, democrat or not. America is very unstable right now. Politics is very polarized, and the people are tired of war.

Look for resources discussing the 12th Imam

Even still, he isn't the one with the power in Iran. The mullahs don't want war with the US. they know that if that occurs, then the sizable opposing force inside Iran would have a chance to over throw them.


Plus, as we all know, the Shiites are wrong. The 12th imam is supposed to be born around the time of Prophet Isa's(AS) return to earth. :p

What would you say if let's say Hillary or Obama attack Iran if they get elected? Would they then be a fucking Democrat?

im pretty sure they would still be fucking democrats.

if the circumstances between the US and iran were the same, they would be very unpopular fucking democrats who couldnt get a declaration of war out of the even more democratic congress.

If the US wants to bomb Iran, what they should do is pull out most of the troops in the middle east, leaving only a couple hundred to advise the local military/police. Only then should they focus on bombing the strategic targets (they better bomb carefully).

He added, "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

I wonder what 'rules' he is on about. Are they same rules of international law that the US broke to attack Iraq?

Thought so.

Or are they the rules the US made up for the rest of the world?

US Rule Number One:

Do what we say or we starve/bomb your country.

US Rule Number Two:

See Rule Number One.

Why not? Iran can't get much worse, and there is very little her government can do to retaliate and expect to survive.

Why not? Iran can't get much worse, and there is very little her government can do to retaliate and expect to survive.Very funny. The US cannot even deal with a tiny country like Iraq.

What would you say if let's say Hillary or Obama attack Iran if they get elected? Would they then be a fucking Democrat?

Whether or not they attack Iran has nothing to do with their membership in the Democratic party. I would be screaming for their heads, if that makes you feel any better. Lieberman's not a Democrat anymore because the Connecticut Democratic party tossed him out in a primary and he ran as an "independent." Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat either and I like him.

No, not because of their nuclear program but because they are training insurgents in Iran and sending them across the border to attack American troops in Iraq. Reminds me of Korea and Vietnam when the enemy fighter aircraft would disappear across the Chinese border every night so the U.S. and allied forces couldn't attack them.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
"We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons
He added, "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280073,00.html

Why send troops? I think using a missile campaign on them and targeting the training camps as well as their nuclear facilities would teach them.

Surprise Surprise.

Shame on Connecticut for electing this turncoat.

Don't look at me, I didn't vote for him.

Why send troops? I think using a missile campaign on them and targeting the training camps as well as their nuclear facilities would teach them.Why not send Barney? Iran will be finished within a year.

Why not send Barney? Iran will be finished within a year.

US sends Barney and Britney, UK sends the teletubbies and spice girls = game over

Why not send Barney? Iran will be finished within a year.

Barney Gumble or the purple dinosaur? :confused:

If it's Barny Gumble then I understand, he'd drain their alcohol supply causing the troops to strike or go insane, troops can't go on without alcohol. ;)

No, not because of their nuclear program but because they are training insurgents in Iran and sending them across the border to attack American troops in Iraq. Reminds me of Korea and Vietnam when the enemy fighter aircraft would disappear across the Chinese border every night so the U.S. and allied forces couldn't attack them.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
"We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons
He added, "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280073,00.html

Oh, brilliant. :rolleyes:

Well, a Bushevik is a Bushevik is a Bushevik is... etc.

Lieberman wants to attack iRan... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcjLEwZqcQI)

Lieberman wants to attack iRan... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcjLEwZqcQI)

That was an awesome skit.

If Lieberman wants to attack Iran, then he should go and do that. I'll even lend him a baseball bat -- and move into his house.

If he wants the rest of us to attack Iran for him, then he can kiss my ass with his neo-con-in-dem-clothing bull.

Very funny. The US cannot even deal with a tiny country like Iraq.

We're talking about an attack, not an invasion and occupation. The US can very easily send a few jet fighters into Iran and bomb wherever the hell it feels like. Iran cannot seriously launch an attack back, though they will bitch, and the US will likely bare scorn from the int'l community.

Surprise Surprise.

Shame on Connecticut for electing this turncoat.

*Is from CT*

*Supported Lamont*

Doesn't surprise me at all. He only got elected because a few of the Democratic votes which should have won it for Lamont went to Leiberman, and he got all of the Republican votes because the Republican candidate was about as conservative as Leiberman.

Why send troops? I think using a missile campaign on them and targeting the training camps as well as their nuclear facilities would teach them to use AA weaponry.

Fixed.

*Is from CT*

*Supported Lamont*

Doesn't surprise me at all. He only got elected because a few of the Democratic votes which should have won it for Lamont went to Leiberman, and he got all of the Republican votes because the Republican candidate was about as conservative as Leiberman.
More importantly, however, is that Lieberman is a big name in both Connecticut and the Senate. No one else comes to my mind when I think of Connecticut politics.

More importantly, however, is that Lieberman is a big name in both Connecticut and the Senate. No one else comes to my mind when I think of Connecticut politics.

*Thinks*

Crap, me neither.

while i did not feel we should have invaded iraq,not in a million years,we are there and we broke it,so we have to fix it somehow.
i was absolutely for going after the taliban and i think we can help afghanistan with help from others.
iraq was contained and could have been kept in line by slapping them with tactical airstrikes,humane sanctions and help from the world,which we have had if we did not act unilaterrally.
as for iran,i also know quite a few iranians,al good people.they hate the mullahs and ahmanutjob.
there is no way the u.s. would invade iran,i think most iranians want a more western culture and a more permissive society.
however,some say that is none of the worlds biz if the nuts in charge have the bomb,there i disagree,not with the funding of countless terrorists,the fatal meddling in iraq to destabilize iraq,iran cant be allowed to have a bomb.
i think we should do with iran what we should have done with iraq.
spare the population as much as possible,tell the nuts in charge if they dont back off in iraq and with the bomb,they will start losing assets at a high rate which will implode the economy,and quite possibly threaten their grip on the masses.
you cant pull on a big dogs tail all the time and not exspect to get bitten.
probably wouldnt hurt to fund the homegrown dissenters either.
this is not because we started with them,they are fucking with us at every turn,behavior has consequences.we have offered to play nice,offer them incentives both economic and political,but i suspect the ones in charge have their eyes on a bigger prize,regional influence and control,the destruction of isreal,and dominance of the region.
and they say we are the colonialists..lol
they need to back off or bad things are coming,and it will be their fault,not the u.s.'s

If Lieberman wants to attack Iran, then he should go and do that. I'll even lend him a baseball bat -- and move into his house.

If he wants the rest of us to attack Iran for him, then he can kiss my ass with his neo-con-in-dem-clothing bull.

Just a reminder--he's not a Dem anymore. He's a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party. And he can go fuck himself.

Very funny. The US cannot even deal with a tiny country like Iraq.

Are you kidding me? The US defeated the Iraqi regime in less than 2 months. I believe they defeated the ruling Afghan regime in less time than that. In both cases, the US 'won' the war.

The problems you are seeing now in both places are to be expected. Used to be, you defeated a country's regime, broke a bunch of stuff, and left them to sort through the misery. Nowadays, we try to help them do all the hard stuff after the war is over.

Don't get me wrong, Iran is MUCH stronger than Iraq was. And Iran has much better air defense. But the fact remains that the US could turn Iran into a parking lot. It would take alot more US lives, but it would happen. Fortunately, not even the current administration is THAT evil to just destroy the place and let them rebuild themselves. (Either that, or they are that evil but realize that even they don't want to deal with the international backlash of doing such a thing)

Well if war came, as in if the US attacked Iran, any internal opposition to the government would instantly disappear and millions of Iranians would unite behind the Supreme Leader. In situations where your own country is bombed and your own people killed, people are more likely to want to attack the US than somehow feel disenchanted with their government, this is generally what happens. Iran could easily retaliate to bombings, mainly by using their vast SSM stockpiles against US military positions in Iraq and ships in the Gulf. The Iraqi government would just fall to bits if Iran and Syria invaded Iraq, and the US would be forced to withdraw. US ships would have to watch out for the Iran submarine fleet which could wreak havoc on naval vessels, as well as the new Chinese anti-ship missiles Iran just got. Sure they only have a few dozen Migs, but their strategic air defense is pretty good, plus the whole world would pretty much turn against the US if they attacked, and they would be isolated from the entire world.

We're talking about an attack, not an invasion and occupation. The US can very easily send a few jet fighters into Iran and bomb wherever the hell it feels like. Iran cannot seriously launch an attack back, though they will bitch, and the US will likely bare scorn from the int'l community.all the US forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf are very easy targets, and just don't think Iran won't retaliate effectively. and on a global scale, no US citizen around the world could ever feel safe again.

Send Sen. Leiberman into Iran with an AK-47 and some C4 and let him take care of those camps. Don't they always say that if you want something done right, you had better do it yourself?

New personal rule: no taking part in Iran threads. There is a great temptation to flame.