NationStates Jolt Archive

...to Iran, unless Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, or maybe McCain are elected. Hell, it might even start before Bush leaves. I'm watching this crap escalate and escalate as Bush builds the case for a war bit by bit. Congress better be strong against this. I don't care if Iran has nukes aimed at my backyard, they can have them for all I care.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080113/ts_nm/usa_iran_dc)

ABU DHABI (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush accused Iran on Sunday of threatening security around the world by backing militants and urged his Gulf Arab allies to confront "this danger before it is too late."

Iran said it rejected such efforts to isolate Iran among its Gulf neighbors, adding that "such policies of fooling the people in the region" had already fallen flat.

Speaking in Abu Dhabi, the third stop of his tour of Arab allies, Bush said Shi'ite Muslim Iran was the world's number one sponsor of terrorism and accused it of undermining peace by supporting the Hezbollah guerrilla group in Lebanon, Palestinian Islamist group Hamas and Shi'ite militants in Iraq.

"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. So the United States is strengthening our longstanding security commitments with our friends in the Gulf and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late.

"Iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrop. It sends hundreds of millions of dollars to extremists around the world while its own people face repression and economic hardship at home," he said in his keynote speech.

Iran, which blames sectarian violence in Iraq on the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003, said Washington's efforts to isolate Tehran "fell flat."

"We advise them not to pursue such policies of fooling the people in the region," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told a news conference. His comments were translated into English by Iran's Press TV satellite station.

NUCLEAR AMBITIONS

The Bush administration has kept up a campaign of rhetoric against Iran, including accusing it of seeking a nuclear capability despite a U.S. intelligence report that concluded Iran had halted its nuclear arms program in 2003.

Bush last year said a nuclear-armed Iran could mean "World War Three," and Washington is pushing for a third set of sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment work, as demand by the United Nations.

Highly enriched uranium can be used in bombs. Tehran says it wants nuclear technology for civilian reasons and agreed on Sunday to clarify remaining questions about its nuclear work in the next month, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a statement Tehran also gave the watchdog's head, Mohamed ElBaradei, information about work to develop an advanced centrifuge able to enrich uranium much faster than the antiquated model it uses now.

But diplomats said Tehran was stalling.

"Answering questions about their past nuclear activities is a step, but they still need to suspend their enrichment and reprocessing activity. Another declaration is no substitute for complying with the U.N. sanctions," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

ElBaradei, who met top Iranian leaders over two days last week, is anxious to see the standoff between Iran and Western powers settled peacefully, a concern underscored by a U.S.-Iranian naval incident in the Gulf a week ago.

The United States says Iranian boats threatened its warships on January 6 along the vital route for crude oil shipments from the world's biggest producing region.

Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the Fifth Fleet, made it clear to Bush his forces took the incident "deadly seriously," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters.

During a stop in Israel at the start of Bush's Middle East trip last week, he warned Iran of "serious consequences" if it attacked U.S. ships and said all options were on the table.

Tehran has dismissed the incident as routine and accused the United States of exaggerating it for propaganda purposes.

"We exercised restraint and we very calmly announced that this was a routine procedure but they tried to ... raise this issue at the same time when Mr. Bush was traveling to the region in order to paint Iran in a negative light," Iran's Hosseini told reporters.

I doubt it. Drafts make too little sense on today's precision battlefield. More likely they'd just bomb the nuclear sites. Then if Iran tries to invade Iraq, we can open fire at the border with a wall of fire, composed of artillery, aircraft, missiles, and fight the exact kind of war that America is good at, while Teheran is disgraced militarily in front of it's own native sons. The fact that America has already been disgraced will only make it hurt more. Think Tsarist Russia before the revolution.

Another war would be a very bad idea, politically speaking, the US and UK have received a huge amount of criticism over Iraq, should US want to fight Iran, it could make things worse and if the UK don't want to go in with the US it would make it clearer who rules the world, by throwing it's wieght around.

Don't be stupid. Not going to happen.

More likely they'd just bomb the nuclear sites. Then if Iran tries to invade Iraq, we can open fire at the border with a wall of fire, composed of artillery, aircraft, missiles, and fight the exact kind of war that America is good at, while Teheran is disgraced militarily in front of it's own native sons. The fact that America has already been disgraced will only make it hurt more. Think Tsarist Russia before the revolution.

I lol'd at this answer.

I doubt it. Drafts make too little sense on today's precision battlefield. More likely they'd just bomb the nuclear sites. Then if Iran tries to invade Iraq, we can open fire at the border with a wall of fire, composed of artillery, aircraft, missiles, and fight the exact kind of war that America is good at, while Teheran is disgraced militarily in front of it's own native sons. The fact that America has already been disgraced will only make it hurt more. Think Tsarist Russia before the revolution.

you know, if you replaced all examples of "Iran" with relevant examples of "Iraq", this little exposition seems scarily familiar.

you know, if you replaced all examples of "Iran" with relevant examples of "Iraq", this little exposition seems scarily familiar.
...

Jesus Christ.

What's going to happen is that the Israelis will just grow tired of it all and bomb the reactor site as soon as the Persians get it about 90% sorted, so that they've wasted a whole bunch of money and time, as well as getting their best nuclear scientists killed. Mossad will then track down the remainder of the people involved, and it'll be back like it was in 2002-ish.

you know, if you replaced all examples of "Iran" with relevant examples of "Iraq", this little exposition seems scarily familiar.

Not entirely.

If Iran attacks Iraq, for example, then the occupying US forces can fight away the Iranian forces with ease, without having to in any way begin to occupy Iran. Iran would be humiliated, as explained and essentially, it means that Iran would be stupid to attack.

Draft or no draft, Bush is definitely being nice to the next president. He is paving the way for a foreign war so that the next president can have the option to do that, instead of little things like governing the US. Because then the "issue" will be Iran, just like the current main issue is Iraq. It is never about a warmongering, messianic, authoritarian president - it's about the furreners. Even if you're not for the war, now you're thinking about how to get out of the war while still accomplishing the goals you think we have. Similarly with Iran. It's a big tar baby, and we all get stuck to it.

Draft or no draft, Bush is definitely being nice to the next president. He is paving the way for a foreign war so that the next president can have the option to do that, instead of little things like governing the US. Because then the "issue" will be Iran, just like the current main issue is Iraq. It is never about a warmongering, messianic, authoritarian president - it's about the furreners. Even if you're not for the war, now you're thinking about how to get out of the war while still accomplishing the goals you think we have. Similarly with Iran. It's a big tar baby, and we all get stuck to it.

mmmm, it seems Bush is playing the kill the enemy look they used terrorists to attack us card, to unify people behind one cause to brush over any mistakes made.
I think arnold Schwartzeneger should be president, cos then he'd make an army of terminators and use cool catchphrases before declaring war (which is a vital asset to anyone wishing to aspire as a US president).
And he'd give people more space the "GIVE THESE PEEPLE AIYR! THESE PEOPLE NEED AIYR!".

Not entirely.

If Iran attacks Iraq, for example, then the occupying US forces can fight away the Iranian forces with ease, without having to in any way begin to occupy Iran.

Sure...if you want Iraq to decend into full blown civil war. The current US force level is barely adequate, if adequate at all, to do the job they have to do.

We can't even successfully keep the peace with current troops and resources, you expect us to keep the peace and fight off an Iranian invasion?

if the US invades iran I will drop my scholarship, quit school, and fucking walk to canada. I might stop in DC to piss on the white house lawn first.

Congress maz not be able to stop Bush from going to war, but they can withhold funding. Bush would need good evidence in favor of attacking Iran, evidence that trumps the report on the unlikelihood of an Iranian weapons program and that people would be willing to believe given his track record.

Unlikely.

With Iran pulling more bullshit by the year, then I'd say 2 years.

However they might stop or the US might get a pussy president like Obama or Hillary that wouldn't stand up for shit against the #1 supporter of terrorism.

I expect that, if Iran were to attempt to invade Iran, ...That's not going to happen :p

Sure...if you want Iraq to decend into full blown civil war. The current US force level is barely adequate, if adequate at all, to do the job they have to do.

We can't even successfully keep the peace with current troops and resources, you expect us to keep the peace and fight off an Iranian invasion?

I expect that, if Iran were to attempt to invade Iran, then Europe should help. I can't honestly claim what will happen, but if Iran is the aggressor, then the US can expect support from some countries at least.

However, I don't expect anyone to help if the US invades Iran.

So, therefore, I am not wholly worried. The US is more than capable of fending off an Iranian invasion, even if they can't deal with insurgents. After all, as was pointed out, the US was made to do the sort of fighting that Iran would do if they tried to invade.

I expect that, if Iran were to attempt to invade Iraq, then Europe should help. I can't honestly claim what will happen, but if Iran is the aggressor, then the US can expect support from some countries at least.
I hope no other European country would help (remember, Europe isn't a single entity). Christ, I can see the US going to war with Iran sometime soon, but I kind of expect it to be a series of bombing campaigns, rather than an invasion. Lord only knows what would happen if the US attempted to invade Iran with the situation in Iraq on going. It would be a hell of a mess, and one which I hope Brown (or, if its after a general election, whoever his successor is) does blindly follow the US in Iran like Bliar did to kick of the Iraq war, admite all the lies that would undoubtedly have to be fabricated to drag Britain into another unpopular war.

I hope no other European country would help (remember, Europe isn't a single entity). Christ, I can see the US going to war with Iran sometime soon, but I kind of expect it to be a series of bombing campaigns, rather than an invasion. Lord only knows what would happen if the US attempted to invade Iran with the situation in Iraq on going. It would be a hell of a mess, and one which I hope Brown (or, if its after a general election, whoever his successor is) does blindly follow the US in Iran like Bliar did to kick of the Iraq war, admite all the lies that would undoubtedly have to be fabricated to drag Britain into another unpopular war.

I don't want the US or Iran to go to war. However, if Iran is foolish enough to invade Iraq in an effort to attack the US and try to conquer Iraq, then I damn well expect a retaliation.

I certainly would stop supporting the US the moment they began to contemplate the idea of occupying Iran. That is Not something I would ever want, regardless of how anything plays out.

But meh, I don't think I can make my opinion clear, so I'll just leave now.

*sighs*

To resolve this all, I made NSG a picture of what will obviously happen -

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9813/probableconclusionjm6.png

Do you accept commissions are your artwork? :)
As someone extremely bored, yes.

Yep, and we all know that popular opinion is enough to make otherwise right action into wrong action. After all, if you can't mindlessly follow the over-pacifist masses, you might have to reason for yourself!

Seriously though, I say right-on to war with Iran, they are only gonna be trouble.

Also, I would never dodge a draft if they instituted it, I live, vote, and pay taxes in America, knowing that I could be drafted is part of the 'price' that I pay for the freedoms that I get while living here. If I were incomfortable with the draft, I would leave the country now.


my god...it's a talking Bush sock-puppet.

Incredible.

Another war would be a very bad idea, politically speaking, the US and UK have received a huge amount of criticism over Iraq, should US want to fight Iran, it could make things worse and if the UK don't want to go in with the US it would make it clearer who rules the world, by throwing it's wieght around.

Yep, and we all know that popular opinion is enough to make otherwise right action into wrong action. After all, if you can't mindlessly follow the over-pacifist masses, you might have to reason for yourself!

Seriously though, I say right-on to war with Iran, they are only gonna be trouble.

Also, I would never dodge a draft if they instituted it, I live, vote, and pay taxes in America, knowing that I could be drafted is part of the 'price' that I pay for the freedoms that I get while living here. If I were incomfortable with the draft, I would leave the country now.

*sighs*

To resolve this all, I made NSG a picture of what will obviously happen -

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9813/probableconclusionjm6.png

Do you accept commissions are your artwork? :)

Yep, and we all know that popular opinion is enough to make otherwise right action into wrong action. After all, if you can't mindlessly follow the over-pacifist masses, you might have to reason for yourself!

Seriously though, I say right-on to war with Iran, they are only gonna be trouble.

Also, I would never dodge a draft if they instituted it, I live, vote, and pay taxes in America, knowing that I could be drafted is part of the 'price' that I pay for the freedoms that I get while living here. If I were incomfortable with the draft, I would leave the country now.

I wouldn't either, that is one of the responsibilities every citizen has for living here. Though I do think war with Iran would be extremely bad for our public image in the Mid-East. Not to mention our collapsing budget.

With Iran pulling more bullshit by the year, then I'd say 2 years.

However they might stop or the US might get a pussy president like Obama or Hillary that wouldn't stand up for shit against the #1 supporter of terrorism.

Yes. Because we all know that Iraq actually did have WMD's, and we all know that Iraq did have an alternative purpose apart from oil. And apart from trying to scare terrorists into submission. Which didnt work. :rolleyes:

There won't be a draft...I hope.

*Kyronea makes a mental note to ensure he is already in the Navy before any sort of draft can happen.

I hope no other European country would help (remember, Europe isn't a single entity).

Right, because there isn't such thing as the EU. (which is an attempt to make all of Europe a lot closer to a single entity).

Also, what is clear by the context of his post is that he was referring to the continent as a whole, not the individual nations, it is clear that he meant at least some nations, rather than all of Europe as one unified conglomerate.

*sighs*

To resolve this all, I made NSG a picture of what will obviously happen -

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9813/probableconclusionjm6.png

It was all confusing to me until you drew this very accurate military depiction. :D

Iran truthfully has done nothing majorly wronge. Bad thing is, were too afraid of this Islamic nation to really pay attention to what things that make them so "scary" I believe the "They have nuclear weapons of mass destruction." card has already been played once and it was a bluff that left us in a war where were loosing a good amount of troops monthly even though operations were declared over.

Sure we could end up going to Iran, if bush wants his entire administration to be impeached. But otherwise whichever president we get next should be smart enough to talk to this nation and actually give them a voice rather then us yelling loudly over them then flaunting the video's of them shouting "death to america". Fuck I'de say that too if I didn't live here, this current administration has given our nation a bad name and lowered any respect we might have had before hand.

The US needs to really rethink its foreign policy. We arn't gunna get anywhere by throwing out the "WMD" card at every nation then attacking it when they dont give up these imaginary weapons. And we certainly wont get any respect by ignoring these threatening nations and piling them into an axis of evil.

I wouldn't either, that is one of the responsibilities every citizen has for living here. Though I do think war with Iran would be extremely bad for our public image in the Mid-East. Not to mention our collapsing budget.

I like you :).

I don't want the US or Iran to go to war. However, if Iran is foolish enough to invade Iraq in an effort to attack the US and try to conquer Iraq, then I damn well expect a retaliation.

I certainly would stop supporting the US the moment they began to contemplate the idea of occupying Iran. That is Not something I would ever want, regardless of how anything plays out.

But meh, I don't think I can make my opinion clear, so I'll just leave now.
Well, yes. If they are foolish to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq, then to hell with them. But, for all their rhetoric, I don't think they'll pull such a move. If anything, they'll attempt to draw the US to attack it first, as that would mean they would look a lot better - bar the smoking craters.

I was kind for a move against them when they took those Royal Navy personel hostage last year, but happily that was sorted out peacefully.

With Iran pulling more bullshit by the year, then I'd say 2 years.

However they might stop or the US might get a pussy president like Obama or Hillary that wouldn't stand up for shit against the #1 supporter of terrorism.

You remind me of the Onion.

Yep, and we all know that popular opinion is enough to make otherwise right action into wrong action. After all, if you can't mindlessly follow the over-pacifist masses, you might have to reason for yourself!

Seriously though, I say right-on to war with Iran, they are only gonna be trouble.

Also, I would never dodge a draft if they instituted it, I live, vote, and pay taxes in America, knowing that I could be drafted is part of the 'price' that I pay for the freedoms that I get while living here. If I were incomfortable with the draft, I would leave the country now.

I wouldn't dodge the draft if it were for a legitimate war like we were being invaded or some nutcase was rampaging around Europe or something and it was a serious threat to the world AND if there was the world united against it. I would dodge a draft far a stupid war against a country that hasn't even remotely threatened us ever: Vietnam, Iraq, Iran. I support conscription even.

Iran truthfully has done nothing majorly wronge. Bad thing is, were too afraid of this Islamic nation to really pay attention to what things that make them so "scary" I believe the "They have nuclear weapons of mass destruction." card has already been played once and it was a bluff that left us in a war where were loosing a good amount of troops monthly even though operations were declared over.

Sure we could end up going to Iran, if bush wants his entire administration to be impeached. But otherwise whichever president we get next should be smart enough to talk to this nation and actually give them a voice rather then us yelling loudly over them then flaunting the video's of them shouting "death to america". Fuck I'de say that too if I didn't live here, this current administration has given our nation a bad name and lowered any respect we might have had before hand.

The US needs to really rethink its foreign policy. We arn't gunna get anywhere by throwing out the "WMD" card at every nation then attacking it when they dont give up these imaginary weapons. And we certainly wont get any respect by ignoring these threatening nations and piling them into an axis of evil.

Iran is just applying Newton's Third Law. We're poking them, so they're poking back. It might not even be that. I'd say there's a good chance this crap was fabricated.

It was all confusing to me until you drew this very accurate military depiction. :D
I'm employed as an official NATO PR Officer, so I'd hope so.

Also, I would never dodge a draft if they instituted it, I live, vote, and pay taxes in America, knowing that I could be drafted is part of the 'price' that I pay for the freedoms that I get.

I wouldn't either, that is one of the responsibilities every citizen has for living here.

Why is it the duty of every citizen to die in a war against a country that is no threat to America? Why should every citizen have a responsibility to give up their life to die in a war started by an imbecile who has a proven record of going to war for the wrong reasons? Do you believe American citizens are nothing but chattel to be used at the whims of their leaders? Does anyone else find statements like these frightening?

Iran is just applying Newton's Third Law. We're poking them, so they're poking back. It might not even be that. I'd say there's a good chance this crap was fabricated.

You mean those blue speed boats do not send a streak of terror running down your spine? How is the most advanced and powerful navy that has ever existed going to deal with blue speed boats?

Meanwhile...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7185985.stm
Iran nuclear answers 'in a month'

Iran has agreed to clarify all outstanding questions over its past nuclear activities within a month, the UN nuclear watchdog has announced.

Probably the most influential military man at the moment is General Petraeus. And he's gonna tell anyone who wants to use troops to invade Iran to shove it where the sun don't shine.

I've been hearing for over a year that the draft is coming back.

I don't think it will.

well if the UK doesn't get involved your all welcome to be my bitches, however if the UK does I will be glad the E.U has freedom of movement (if only nobody catches on before I choose where to go/what to wear)

well if the UK doesn't get involved your all welcome to be my bitches, however if the UK does I will be glad the E.U has freedom of movement (if only nobody catches on before I choose where to go/what to wear)
If the Government decided to join in another of America's adventures, they'd probably have to bring back in National Service, as there's too few soldiers at the moment. But then, last time around, it buggered the economy.

If the Government decided to join in another of America's adventures, they'd probably have to bring back in National Service, as there's too few soldiers at the moment. But then, last time around, it buggered the economy.

being in the territorials I can expect to be called up rather quickly in such an event :(

Germany might be friendly

Let`s go in, get the job done and look for the next tin-horn dictator and kick his ass too. I`m old enough to remeber Iran holding Americans hostage for 444 days. If Iran has the ability to stirke Israel or the US with Nukes, they will try. Knocking them off would be a good victory in the War on Terror. Besides, we`ve technically surrounded them in the past seven years-troops in Iraq and Afganistan. They are the next logical candidate to take on.

Bush wouldn`t seem like such a warmonger if Clinton wasn`t such a pussy.

Sure...if you want Iraq to decend into full blown civil war. The current US force level is barely adequate, if adequate at all, to do the job they have to do.

We can't even successfully keep the peace with current troops and resources, you expect us to keep the peace and fight off an Iranian invasion?


It already is a full blown civil war...

No we are not going to get drafted. I love these scare tactics.

No we are not going to get drafted. I love these scare tactics.

Isn't scaremongering fun? I mean they are worried about getting drafted when come to find out that an asteroid is suppose to hit Earth in two weeks. At least that is what I was reading on the "news" today.

Isn't scaremongering fun? I mean they are worried about getting drafted when come to find out that an asteroid is suppose to hit Earth in two weeks. At least that is what I was reading on the "news" today.

We're going to die in 2 wks from an asteroid? HOLY SHIT!!!!

God I hate scaremongering from both sides of the spectrum.

this Iran shit freaks me out. They've got nukes man! I will only vote for a presidential candidate who will invade Iran and make us safe!

well, remember this.

The President of the USA cannot authorize the use of military force in foreign land without the approval of Congress.

and we all know which party got control of Congress.

so if such a fear is really that great...

perhaps it's time to look at and support a third or maybe fourth party.

well, remember this.

The President of the USA cannot authorize the use of military force in foreign land without the approval of Congress.

and we all know which party got control of Congress.

so if such a fear is really that great...

perhaps it's time to look at and support a third or maybe fourth party.

Uh no, if the war is done within 60 days, then it doesn't have to be authorized, like an air campaign. However anything over that and it has to be authorized.

this Iran shit freaks me out. They've got nukes man! I will only vote for a presidential candidate who will invade Iran and make us safe!

Let me guess...you were dropped on your head as a child right? There is no evidence that Iran actually has a nuclear bomb.

well, remember this.

The President of the USA cannot authorize the use of military force in foreign land without the approval of Congress.

and we all know which party got control of Congress.

so if such a fear is really that great...

perhaps it's time to look at and support a third or maybe fourth party.

I thought the president could do whatever he wanted to for 30 days before he has to ask congress. And thats only if war is declared. If the president can avoid declaring war, then he can just do whatever without asking congress. Is that right?

Uh no, if the war is done within 60 days, then it doesn't have to be authorized, like an air campaign. However anything over that and it has to be authorized.

I thought the president could do whatever he wanted to for 30 days before he has to ask congress. And thats only if war is declared. If the president can avoid declaring war, then he can just do whatever without asking congress. Is that right?

the main point of the thread (to me) was the US invading another country and the possiblity of a Draft. both would require Congress's approval.

An air strike is not invasion, and if the US was invaded or war declared on the US... then that would be different but not in line with the main point of this thread.

well, remember this.

The President of the USA cannot authorize the use of military force in foreign land without the approval of Congress.

I suggest you look up the War Powers Act of 1973.

Let me guess...you were dropped on your head as a child right? There is no evidence that Iran actually has a nuclear bomb.

I may also have had my cranium damaged as a lad, but I am almost i% sure he is being sarcastic.

I thought the president could do whatever he wanted to for 30 days before he has to ask congress. And thats only if war is declared. If the president can avoid declaring war, then he can just do whatever without asking congress. Is that right?

Actually its 90 days without a declaration of war or an authorization from Congress. The War Powers Act brought that about.

I suggest you look up the War Powers Act of 1973.

Interesting read...

Actually its 90 days without a declaration of war or an authorization from Congress. The War Powers Act brought that about. Actually it's 60 days and a congress approved 30 day extension (according to the Act)

Realize that President Bush still sought Congressional approval for Pakistan, Iraq and his father sought congressional approval for Operation Desert Storm.

Can anyone state a time (outside of national emergency/US citizens were in immediate danger) where troops were sent in for combat then sought congressional approval?

Interesting read...

Actually it's 60 days and a congress approved 30 day extension (according to the Act)

Realize that President Bush still sought Congressional approval for Pakistan, Iraq and his father sought congressional approval for Operation Desert Storm.

Don't you mean Afghanistan?

There are bigger problems in the world than Iran...Russia's Big Brother could be one of them unlike the Iranian government their paranoid president already has nukes...not that I'm advocating invading Russia that would be stupid...not much more stupid than invading Iran though. If the US invades Iran, I will be less than happy. If the UK joins in I'm moving to France, can't be arsed with pointless wars any longer.

You mean those blue speed boats do not send a streak of terror running down your spine? How is the most advanced and powerful navy that has ever existed going to deal with blue speed boats?

Oh for the love of FUCK!

The speedboats were within the one mile exclusion zone of the destroyers. Do you understand what that means? That exclusion zone exists because anyone within that range can strike before the destroyer can react. Meaning that they could have blown huge holes in the destroyers before anything was done. That's why the incident was so serious.

And if you don't think they could do some serious damage, look up the U.S.S. Cole. That ship only managed to stay afloat because no fires broke out. Had fires broken out, the crew would not have been able to save it, and the damage was dealt by armament carried on more or less the exact same kind of boat as those speedboats.

Don't you mean Afghanistan?

yes... I really don't know where my mind is today. :p

yes... I really don't know where my mind is today. :p

Already drafted and gearing up for war, thanks to Government Issue chips implanted in our soft skulls at birth.

...to Iran, unless Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, or maybe McCain are elected. Hell, it might even start before Bush leaves. I'm watching this crap escalate and escalate as Bush builds the case for a war bit by bit. Congress better be strong against this. I don't care if Iran has nukes aimed at my backyard, they can have them for all I care.
WTF have you been smoking? I want some!

How is the most advanced and powerful navy that has ever existed going to deal with blue speed boats?
how? simple, thanks to the lession learned by the USS Cole, those boats would've been redesigned and reclassified by the US Navy from Boats to Driftwood had they gotten too close.

Already drafted and gearing up for war, thanks to Government Issue chips implanted in our soft skulls at birth.
Can't be. I still have no violent thoughts of hurting anyone and I know I won't be drafted. If anyone tries to tell me different, I will personally tear out their spleen, rip out their heads and piss down their neck.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to pick up more MRE's... I'm running low. :p

Can't be. I still have no violent thoughts of hurting anyone and I know I won't be drafted. If anyone tries to tell me different, I will personally tear out their spleen, rip out their heads and piss down their neck.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to pick up more MRE's... I'm running low. :p

Yes.. YES!

We have created....the Ultimate...SUPERSOLDIER!!!!!!

Muahahahahaha!

Don't be stupid. Not going to happen.

Agreed. He is paranoid. And he doesn't care if they point nukes at his backyard? WTF?

No we are not going to get drafted. I love these scare tactics.
Well. you certainly have nothing to fear in any case? :p

I don't care if Iran has nukes aimed at my backyard, they can have them for all I care.

Wow.

yes... I really don't know where my mind is today. :p
* sends out a search party... :D

Wow.

Well, the aiming alone doesn't necessarily mean anything. I would be surprised if the nuclear weapons of the world were not already aimed at specific targets, such as major cities and what have you.

It's threatening the use of them that would be the problem, but I don't see that ever happening.

Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't this after an Iranian ship told an American Navy vessel it was going to "open fire?" I'd definitely consider that threatening the security of the region.
As for all the supposed plans for invading Iran: why? There are plenty of vocal idiots that yell at Bush, such as Hugo Chavez. Bush always yells back, and we get a nice little soap opera going. Yet no one believes the US has plans for Venezuela. At most, Iran seems to have been the President's "second try." The first try was Iraq, and that was popular for a while but then people realized war was no fun. His second try is Iran, where the US won't go to war, per se, but will feel good and patriotic because we force it to quit its weapons program. Then it turned out it already quit its weapons program, and anything we say doesn't do anything but is the real world equivalent of feeding a troll. Now Bush is on the "bringing peace to the Middle East" kick, where Americans will love him again because the US changed the world is a peaceful, non-aggressive way.
George W. Bush is a drama queen. We gave him too much attention after 9/11, and ever since then he's been trying to make us put him back in the spotlight. If we all just ignore what he says, none of his supposed schemes will come to fruition.

I might stop in DC to piss on the white house lawn first.
PIX! Don't leave us outta the loop! :(

Well. you certainly have nothing to fear in any case? :p

Burn'd that sistah, eh? :p

I love living in America, but I sure as hell would sooner go to jail than be made to fight for the parasites infesting the Federal government. To be made to fight for those warmongerers is not serving America (I absolutely despise the use of vague and abstract collectives) but pushing the interests of those who hold the reins of power.

Fear of the draft! Oh my, whatever happened to John Kerry having to answer for his claims that there would be a draft if he wasn't elected.

I guess it's like Michael Moore's claims that Osama would be captured right before the election. No one has the stones to call them on their bullshit.

Fear of the draft! Oh my, whatever happened to John Kerry having to answer for his claims that there would be a draft if he wasn't elected.

I guess it's like Michael Moore's claims that Osama would be captured right before the election. No one has the stones to call them on their bullshit.

How about Bush's bullshit claims about hosts of terrorists and making distinctions?
Or his bullshit about NOT saying that he really didn't care where Bin Laden was?
How about someone having the stones to call rightwingers on their bullshit, through various media?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/265.gif

Fear of the draft! Oh my, whatever happened to John Kerry having to answer for his claims that there would be a draft if he wasn't elected.

I guess it's like Michael Moore's claims that Osama would be captured right before the election. No one has the stones to call them on their bullshit.

...Now this is just my thoughts, but maybe thats because nobody but you and a few others care what John Kerry or Michael Moore say?

...Now this is just my thoughts, but maybe thats because nobody but you and a few others care what John Kerry or Michael Moore say?
Don't forget, for rightwingers, Al Gore helps complete their holy trinity.
It's great masturbatory material.

How about Bush's bullshit claims about hosts of terrorists and making distinctions?
Or his bullshit about NOT saying that he really didn't care where Bin Laden was?
How about someone having the stones to call rightwingers on their bullshit, through various media?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/265.gif

I would think someone would be kidding themselves if they thought there wasn't a mountain of Bullshit from either side.

I would think someone would be kidding themselves if they thought there wasn't a mountain of Bullshit from either side.

Probably why i gave the balance in response to the first lob of bullshit. :)

Oh, so I was defending Bush somehow?

I brought up Kerry and the DNC claims of the last few elections that there would be a draft because it related to the topic. It's not going to happen. They knew it. It's just using fear.

Oh, so I was defending Bush somehow?
+
It's just using fear.
Hmmm. You should think about that for a while.

Burn'd that sistah, eh? :p
Gently roasted....still a little pink inside!!!! :D

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400333

Well. you certainly have nothing to fear in any case? :p

You are right. I do not have anything to fear for nothing is going to happen despite what you and others have been doing to make us believe that something is going to happen.

Oh, so I was defending Bush somehow?

I brought up Kerry and the DNC claims of the last few elections that there would be a draft because it related to the topic. It's not going to happen. They knew it. It's just using fear.

People are going to read what they want. I suppose the poster in question saw this while reading your post.

Oh, so I was defending Bush somehow?

I brought up Kerry and the DNC claims of the last few elections that there would be a draft because it related to the topic. It's not going to happen. They knew it. It's just using fear. I also think Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread.


Remember one thing here on NSG. Anything you saw or don't say can and will be used against you. Especially by the one's that think they are clever.

Let's look on the bright side, shall we?

If/when the next draft comes, all us liberal types who think Bush's War is a pile of shite will simply make a pass at our commanding officers and be sent home.

Meh, fear of war is profitable, the war itself, not so much.

So, I won't see any invasions nor drafts, unless they wanted to do some land grab for real estate or something (oil? what oil?).

well the bushwacker's puppet masters are doing their damdest to create some kind of incident/excuse before the next enaguration. so its probably a toss of the coin between before then or never.

i hope never. because trying to do anything for real people and the conditions they have to live with by military action is on a par with performing brain surgery with a sledge hammer. it gets resaults. messy and ugly ones, that do little or nothing to solve whatever excuse there might have been for doing it.

iran isn't without its problems, but making more big holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people isn't going to make them better.

actually the only and most major problem i see with iran is its treatment of baha'is, and possibly other religeous minorities. and i REALLY don't see a military invasion as likely to improve any aspect of THAT situation.

(which incidently also exists, or similar situations, with many of the alies the u.s. supports, both in the middle east and elsewhere, so the whole u.s. middle east policy is corrupt hypocracy to begin with, but then i guess that's old news to anyone with half a brain)

=^^=
.../\...

There won't be a draft...I hope.

*Kyronea makes a mental note to ensure he is already in the Navy before any sort of draft can happen.

why the navy?

It already is a full blown civil war...

not really, the shia militia is winding down for a few more months, and the kurds arent killing each other

Oh for the love of FUCK!

The speedboats were within the one mile exclusion zone of the destroyers. Do you understand what that means? That exclusion zone exists because anyone within that range can strike before the destroyer can react. Meaning that they could have blown huge holes in the destroyers before anything was done. That's why the incident was so serious.

And if you don't think they could do some serious damage, look up the U.S.S. Cole. That ship only managed to stay afloat because no fires broke out. Had fires broken out, the crew would not have been able to save it, and the damage was dealt by armament carried on more or less the exact same kind of boat as those speedboats.

true, but the USS Cole men werent ready for such an attack, now the navy is

question? once you have served for 2 terms as president can you serve in any other office(vice,secretary, mayor, governor)

question? once you have served for 2 terms as president can you serve in any other office(vice,secretary, mayor, governor)

yes.

yes.
I don't believe that you can serve as Vice President after two Presidential terms.

I don't believe that you can serve as Vice President after two Presidential terms.

I believe one could. it's just that the succession of Office would skip over the position of Vice President should anything happen to the President.

I believe one could. it's just that the succession of Office would skip over the position of Vice President should anything happen to the President.
Then Bill Clinton could be Hilary's running mate? :eek:

Then Bill Clinton could be Hilary's running mate? :eek:

That could cause problems, remember how many women Bill Clinton slept with?

if the US invades iran I will drop my scholarship, quit school, and fucking walk to canada. I might stop in DC to piss on the white house lawn first.

Need a buddy to go along? Because that sounds very close to what I would do.

There's an opt out of the military service. Doing some work in the social sectors will probably be good for the majority of the people that have to do it. In fact, a lot of them will probably be grateful that they were forced to, seeing as they often end up liking it and would never have had the experience if it weren't for being forced to it.

That could cause problems, remember how many women Bill Clinton slept with?
It could be worse?

George H. W. Bush runs for a 2nd term and has Dubya as his Veep? :(

It could be worse?

George H. W. Bush runs for a 2nd term and has Dubya as his Veep? :(You honestly think those two stand a chance of being reelected in any combination?

It could be worse?

George H. W. Bush runs for a 2nd term and has Dubya as his Veep? :(

i feel sorry for you, having a president that bad for 2 terms. I mean sure blair was devious and slippery but at least he wasn't just plain dumb, but then again that could be more reason to hate him.
I think if polticians weren't privately funded you'd get a lot less nutjobs.

Oh for the love of FUCK!

The speedboats were within the one mile exclusion zone of the destroyers. Do you understand what that means? That exclusion zone exists because anyone within that range can strike before the destroyer can react. Meaning that they could have blown huge holes in the destroyers before anything was done. That's why the incident was so serious.

And if you don't think they could do some serious damage, look up the U.S.S. Cole. That ship only managed to stay afloat because no fires broke out. Had fires broken out, the crew would not have been able to save it, and the damage was dealt by armament carried on more or less the exact same kind of boat as those speedboats.The blue speed boats are coming for us all we are all going to die! Makes me wonder how we ever dealt with the Soviets instead of blue speed boats they had Nuclear Bombers and Submarines and they would actually be close to or in US airspace.

if the US invades iran I will drop my scholarship, quit school, and fucking walk to canada. I might stop in DC to piss on the white house lawn first.
Errr, no you won't.

Well, we all love pie charts, so here's mine for this thread. (http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8338/23918348bj0.png)

The blue speed boats are coming for us all we are all going to die! Makes me wonder how we ever dealt with the Soviets instead of blue speed boats they had Nuclear Bombers and Submarines and they would actually be close to or in US airspace.

source please.

The blue speed boats are coming for us all we are all going to die! Makes me wonder how we ever dealt with the Soviets instead of blue speed boats they had Nuclear Bombers and Submarines and they would actually be close to or in US airspace.
By blowing the hell out of them, obviously. Evil Russkies = everyone fine with them exploding in a big kersplode.

Persians in a boat = people will complain.

source please.

Might be referring to this (http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cold-war/sovietsbomb.htm) in 1962 and others of its type.

I don't believe that you can serve as Vice President after two Presidential terms.

Technicly speaking he can. However,if the president is killed or resigns, he can only be President for 2 more years (It does say 2 terms or no more than 10 years) before he/she is forced to step down again. That is why LBJ could have actually gone for another term after he won the 1964 election.

Oh dear... I am not confident in the US trying to wage war with Iran, since practically no-one will support them this time. Us in the UK will definately not support a war in Iran, especially since the current prime minister doesn't seem such an avid supporter of the US as Blair was.

I see any war in Iran as an excuse for America to secure more oil: since oil is going scarce pretty soon, then America will really want to get a load of oil for quite a small amount of money (relatively), with control over the price unlike with a lot of the other OPECs.
Or, America will just lurk at the border and bomb the shit out of Iran, then demand compensation for anything shot down or destroyed as well as a very reduced price for oil.

But I think that no war will be happening until at least a years time, when Bush invades Iran as a fun little present for the next in charge of the US.

why the navy?
Because in general being in the U.S. Navy during wartime is far safer, due to the simple fact that our Navy outweighs most of the various other country's navies combined.

Furthermore, Iran does not have all that much of a coastline and we can defend against its land-based naval defenses with relative ease. That doesn't mean we won't take losses, but we won't be in huge trouble with the possibility of death every second like we would be if we were in the Army or the Marines.

true, but the USS Cole men werent ready for such an attack, now the navy is

True. Still, there's only so much readiness a human being can do. Even at General Quarters, the destroyer in the Strait of Hormuz incident would not have been able to react--that is, move out of the way or implement some other defensive measure--had the speedboat attacked while within the range it was. Odds are if the commanding officer had not had orders to avoid any sort of diplomatic incident, he or she would have fired a warning shot as soon as the boat entered the exclusion zone and then destroyed it had it ignored the warning shot.

The blue speed boats are coming for us all we are all going to die! Makes me wonder how we ever dealt with the Soviets instead of blue speed boats they had Nuclear Bombers and Submarines and they would actually be close to or in US airspace.

So, then, you would agree that the commanding officer should have taken the precautions he or she would have had he or she not had orders to avoid a diplomatic incident? That is, destroy the speedboat had it continued to threaten the destroyers after a warning shot?

Look, I'm not saying it's the end of the world. What I'm saying is that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to dangers to the U.S. Navy. As powerful, both technologically and numerically, it is, it's not invincible. It's not some be all and end all capable of annihilating any possible threat without ever taking a loss, and threats can come even in forms you might not suspect, like those speedboats coming within the range of the exclusion zone.

And just to be precise, that's the only time they would have been threatening. Outside the range where they could attack before the destroyer could react, they would be, of course, sitting ducks, to use the metaphor. It's getting within that range and then making the threat to destroy the destroyer that was the problem.

I don't care if Iran has nukes aimed at my backyard, they can have them for all I care.

So you don't care if you and your family and friends are glassed at the hands of islamofascists, who would love to see us and the west "wiped off the map" (or at least when opposed to going to war to stop this)?

source please.

Erm...the Cold War? They did have bombers capable of carrying nuclear weaponry. They also had submarines(and do still today, along with the bombers) and ARE capable of reaching U.S. airspace.

Now, whether they would get away with it or not is another thing entirely.

So you don't care if you and your family and friends are glassed at the hands of islamofascists, who would love to see us and the west "wiped off the map" (or at least when opposed to going to war to stop this)?

Well, the aiming alone doesn't necessarily mean anything. I would be surprised if the nuclear weapons of the world were not already aimed at specific targets, such as major cities and what have you.

It's threatening the use of them that would be the problem, but I don't see that ever happening.

Furthermore, please do not use the term islamofascists. It's ridiculously inaccurate. Islamotheocratics would be more accurate, if you really have to use a term like that.

Furthermore, please do not use the term islamofascists. It's ridiculously inaccurate. Islamotheocratics would be more accurate, if you really have to use a term like that.

So I have to avoid offending those who would like to slit my family's throats? Why not call things as they are? I never implied that all muslims are sharia supporting lunatics.

So I have to avoid offending those who would like to slit my family's throats? Why not call things as they are? I never implied that all muslims are sharia supporting lunatics.

My point is that the term is inaccurate and paints a bad picture to all Muslims. The simple fact is, if we want to combat extremism, you MUST win over all of the non-extremists. That means doing absolutely nothing that could offend Muslims.

Most moderate Muslims would happily support the U.S. if we weren't acting aggressive the way we are. But by constantly playing right into the extremists hands, we give them huge amounts of propaganda material to use to win over the moderates, and we cannot afford that.

I wouldn't even use the term islamotheocrats myself. I'd simply call them what they are, as you said, and they are extremists, not fascists. Theocrats, maybe, but not fascists, and calling them fascists displays a fundamental ignorance of what fascism really is.

So I have to avoid offending those who would like to slit my family's throats?

*cough* demonizing *cough*

So I have to avoid offending those who would like to slit my family's throats?
No, so you'd avoid annoying those who know how inaccurate and frankly, stupid, the term is.

Well generically fascism is the belief that the needs of the nation (or most any institution, for that matter) and its beliefs must be put before all personal wants and opinions, which Islam, particularly in the Middle East, seems to demand. Islamotheocrats is also accurate, as is extremist, whatever floats your boat. The sad fact of the matter is that there's no definate way to tell the moderates from those who blow themselves up in public. So to protect its own citizens, the US must act "agressive". How are we supposed to act? Ask them nicely?

Also, the fact that we're unbelievers gives them more propoganda than they'd ever need. And to respond to your point earlier, the US hasn't said on multiple occasions that it plans to annihilate some other country through nuclear means- nor is there a significant chance that we'd act on these threats, which Iran very well could. We're "responsible" and can be trusted with our nuclear weapons.

I lol'd.
Better to laugh than cry, I guess.

Too bad the USA can't be trusted to be "responsible" with their conventional armament. What with waging illegal wars, invading sovereign countries, and otherwise putting their own selfish interests before those of the people whose country they fuck up.

Well generically fascism is the belief that the needs of the nation (or most any institution, for that matter) and its beliefs must be put before all personal wants and opinions, which Islam, particularly in the Middle East, seems to demand.
No, the religion doesn't demand that.

People demand that and are using the religious aspect of their religion as justification for their political aims, primarily in their own countries.

Islamotheocrats is also accurate, as is extremist, whatever floats your boat.
Nothing theorectically wrong with a theocrat of any religion. It's when it is mixed with oppression and violence that makes it's undesirable.

The sad fact of the matter is that there's no definate way to tell the moderates from those who blow themselves up in public.
The moderates aren't the ones blowing themselves up. Percentage of extremists to the rest of the population following Islam?

nor is there a significant chance that we'd act on these threats, which Iran very well could.
With respect, that's Israel's problem - not the United States. Israel can take care of itself.

We're "responsible" and can be trusted with our nuclear weapons.

I lol'd.

Well generically fascism is the belief that the needs of the nation (or most any institution, for that matter) and its beliefs must be put before all personal wants and opinions, which Islam, particularly in the Middle East, seems to demand.
Uh, no, it's a lot more than that, and furthermore demands purely the nation, not another institution.
Islamotheocrats is also accurate, as is extremist, whatever floats your boat. The sad fact of the matter is that there's no definate way to tell the moderates from those who blow themselves up in public. So to protect its own citizens, the US must act "agressive". How are we supposed to act? Ask them nicely?
What? Of course we can tell the moderates apart. They're human beings, so you do what you would do with any other human being: you ask them.

Furthermore, terrorism is an overblown threat. It's not as huge as it's made out to be. Yes, horrible things can happen if people are asleep at the switch and make mistakes, as was made in the case of the September 11th attacks. But so long as the people in the jobs that are supposed to watch out for that sort of thing do so, we common citizens have nothing to fear, especially since the whole point of terrorism is to scare the populace whom you are attacking into doing what you want them to do, and we're doing exactly that by acting afraid and otherwise allowing our government more power to go around like a bunch of half-cocked morons.

As for defense, the idea is to defend, not to attack. Rather than going around invading every Middle Eastern country, we should work with their government to help them minimize terrorism, and do everything we can to win over the moderates and the governments. It won't be easy, but it will work, whereas our current policies will not.

Also, the fact that we're unbelievers gives them more propoganda than they'd ever need.
Incorrect. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the minds of Muslims in the Middle East work. Yes, many will hate us purely for that: that's why extremists exist in the first place.

But most don't. Most will live and let live, just like most Christians won't attack others for not being Christians, or Jews won't, ect ect. What we're doing, however, is playing right into the hands of the extremists. By invading Middle Eastern countries, we give them the fuel to say "Look! They're trying to destroy Islam!" They would say it whether we invade or not, but the invasions and the strikes are what give their message weight and meaning to the moderates.
And to respond to your point earlier, the US hasn't said on multiple occasions that it plans to annihilate some other country through nuclear means- nor is there a significant chance that we'd act on these threats, which Iran very well could. We're "responsible" and can be trusted with our nuclear weapons.
True, we have not said this. However, you have to remember who in the Iranian government has actually made these threats. Amadinijad is not the power you seem to think he is in the Iranian government. Yes, he is the President, but the Mullahs have greater authority, and unlike Amadinijad, they are not stupid enough to actually use nuclear weaponry. They use Amadinijad to let off steam and swing their foil while they sit back and keep things rational.

They really want the nuclear weapons more as a deterrant against U.S. attacks, as well as to establish themselves as a regional power. Try to look at it from their viewpoint. The U.S. invaded Iraq and has blustered quite a bit about stopping anything Iran does, up to threatening an invasion. Wouldn't you want a deterrant if you were being threatened by the United States? I know I would, and nuclear weapons will give them that.

The only real problem is that the nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of extremists due to Iranian security falling asleep at the switch(or U.S. invasion throwing everything into chaos) and that should be prevented. But we prevent that not by invading, but by working with Iran to help eliminate the extremists in a way that does not make them martyrs.

Erm...the Cold War? They did have bombers capable of carrying nuclear weaponry. They also had submarines(and do still today, along with the bombers) and ARE capable of reaching U.S. airspace.

Now, whether they would get away with it or not is another thing entirely.
there is a difference between having weapons that can reach US territories and being within US airspace as he claimed.

The blue speed boats are coming for us all we are all going to die! Makes me wonder how we ever dealt with the Soviets instead of blue speed boats they had Nuclear Bombers and Submarines and they would actually be close to or in US airspace.

Psychotic Mongooses link points out that it occured within CUBA's waters during an American blockade. not exactly within US Airspace or waters.

there is a difference between having weapons that can reach US territories and being within US airspace as he claimed.


anything found close to are monitored and Psychotic Mongooses link points out that it occured within CUBA's waters during an American blockade. not exactly within US Airspace or waters.

Ah. That is an important distinction.

Psychotic Mongooses link points out that it occured within CUBA's waters during an American blockade. not exactly within US Airspace or waters.

While I obviously understand your point, the distance between Cuban and American waters is small considering the distance between Florida and Cuba.

He did say "close to or in".

But like I said, I get your point.

While I obviously understand your point, the distance between Cuban and American waters is small considering the distance between Florida and Cuba.

He did say "close to or in".

But like I said, I get your point.
no problem. :p

Let`s go in, get the job done and look for the next tin-horn dictator and kick his ass too. I`m old enough to remeber Iran holding Americans hostage for 444 days. If Iran has the ability to stirke Israel or the US with Nukes, they will try. Knocking them off would be a good victory in the War on Terror. Besides, we`ve technically surrounded them in the past seven years-troops in Iraq and Afganistan. They are the next logical candidate to take on.

Bush wouldn`t seem like such a warmonger if Clinton wasn`t such a pussy.

We provoked that Hostage Crisis by deposing their democratically-elected moderate Prime MInister and reinstalling the vicious Shah. That's where all the crap in Iran and even 9/11 partially came from. Iran is absolutely no threat to us or Israel.

I thought the president could do whatever he wanted to for 30 days before he has to ask congress. And thats only if war is declared. If the president can avoid declaring war, then he can just do whatever without asking congress. Is that right?War hasn't been declared since 1942...

WTF have you been smoking? I want some!
JanjaWeed. Available in your local Sudanese market

Agreed. He is paranoid. And he doesn't care if they point nukes at his backyard? WTF?No, I'm just listening to a great president named Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said that we have nothing to fear, but fear itself. I am scared of fear as in fearmongering. And Iran has every right to point nukes, let alone have them, wherever they want if we have that right.

Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't this after an Iranian ship told an American Navy vessel it was going to "open fire?" I'd definitely consider that threatening the security of the region.
As for all the supposed plans for invading Iran: why? There are plenty of vocal idiots that yell at Bush, such as Hugo Chavez. Bush always yells back, and we get a nice little soap opera going. Yet no one believes the US has plans for Venezuela. At most, Iran seems to have been the President's "second try." The first try was Iraq, and that was popular for a while but then people realized war was no fun. His second try is Iran, where the US won't go to war, per se, but will feel good and patriotic because we force it to quit its weapons program. Then it turned out it already quit its weapons program, and anything we say doesn't do anything but is the real world equivalent of feeding a troll. Now Bush is on the "bringing peace to the Middle East" kick, where Americans will love him again because the US changed the world is a peaceful, non-aggressive way.
George W. Bush is a drama queen. We gave him too much attention after 9/11, and ever since then he's been trying to make us put him back in the spotlight. If we all just ignore what he says, none of his supposed schemes will come to fruition.
Now, they're saying it might be a prankster who asid all that. He is trying to set a legacy for himself to save his term. He knows he fucked up and will go down in history as a shitwad.

not really, the shia militia is winding down for a few more months, and the kurds arent killing each other
Get your facts straight. That also makes no sense. Armies don't "wind down". Also, the Kurds are quite peaceful and have the most satble area in Iraq under their control. Democratic too.

Well, we all love pie charts, so here's mine for this thread. (http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8338/23918348bj0.png)
I love you.

Oh dear... I am not confident in the US trying to wage war with Iran, since practically no-one will support them this time. Us in the UK will definately not support a war in Iran, especially since the current prime minister doesn't seem such an avid supporter of the US as Blair was.

I see any war in Iran as an excuse for America to secure more oil: since oil is going scarce pretty soon, then America will really want to get a load of oil for quite a small amount of money (relatively), with control over the price unlike with a lot of the other OPECs.
Or, America will just lurk at the border and bomb the shit out of Iran, then demand compensation for anything shot down or destroyed as well as a very reduced price for oil.

But I think that no war will be happening until at least a years time, when Bush invades Iran as a fun little present for the next in charge of the US.Even bombing Iran would send oil to $120 at least. An invasion would send it above $150.

So you don't care if you and your family and friends are glassed at the hands of islamofascists, who would love to see us and the west "wiped off the map" (or at least when opposed to going to war to stop this)?
No, I'm not scared of non-existent threats. Iran is no threat to anyone. The US is the only threat in the world, seconded maybe by China. Those to make up like 98% of the threat to the world at about a 60-38 split.

Well generically fascism is the belief that the needs of the nation (or most any institution, for that matter) and its beliefs must be put before all personal wants and opinions, which Islam, particularly in the Middle East, seems to demand. Islamotheocrats is also accurate, as is extremist, whatever floats your boat. The sad fact of the matter is that there's no definate way to tell the moderates from those who blow themselves up in public. So to protect its own citizens, the US must act "agressive". How are we supposed to act? Ask them nicely?

Also, the fact that we're unbelievers gives them more propoganda than they'd ever need. And to respond to your point earlier, the US hasn't said on multiple occasions that it plans to annihilate some other country through nuclear means- nor is there a significant chance that we'd act on these threats, which Iran very well could. We're "responsible" and can be trusted with our nuclear weapons.
No, Islam is not a nation. They can't be fascist. And again, Iran is not a threat to anyone. If we leave them alone, in a few decades we'll see a nice stable moderate democratic government. If we keep poking and provoking them, it just helps the Ayatollah and his theocrats stay in power.

- snip -

Good.

1. Ahmadinejad is a nutcase, a Holocaust denier, and a terrorist. Nuke him and all the mullahs to hell.

2. Sign me up. We could fix most of what's wrong with this generation with a few years of service, I think.

Good.

1. Ahmadinejad is a nutcase, a Holocaust denier, and a terrorist. Nuke him and all the mullahs to hell.

2. Sign me up. We could fix most of what's wrong with this generation with a few years of service, I think.

You sound like the people in the horrible(I mean delightful) issues we get to answer to shape our nations in NationStates. :p

Good.

1. Ahmadinejad is a nutcase, a Holocaust denier, and a terrorist. Nuke him and all the mullahs to hell.

2. Sign me up. We could fix most of what's wrong with this generation with a few years of service, I think.

1. Why waste nukes on Ahmadinejad?

2. What exactly is wrong with this generation?

1. Why waste nukes on Ahmadinejad?
Agreed.

2. What exactly is wrong with this generation?
Would (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE) you (http://youtube.com/watch?v=_ofEGfqfBd0) like (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw) to (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9j6uRi-QIcg) sign (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TAPWvvtTFUM) this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=DI5c0Da3Cm0) petition (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZZYUEejr3ys)?

We should wait until Iran's first nuclear-tipped Shahab-5's erase Paris, Berlin, and London. Then there will be noone left to whine when we take them out.

Of course, if Iran nukes Israel, or gives Hamas or Hezbollah nukes to use on Israel (or us), we should nuke those cities ourselves, for being stupid enough not to help us stop them when they had the chance.

Good.

1. Ahmadinejad is a nutcase, a Holocaust denier, and a terrorist. Nuke him and all the mullahs to hell.

No he's not. He's reacting fairly. He's entitled to that opinion. No, he's not. No, just no.
Agreed.


Would (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE) like (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw) to (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9j6uRi-QIcg) sign (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TAPWvvtTFUM) this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=DI5c0Da3Cm0) petition (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZZYUEejr3ys)?
lolololololol...all the classics...I'll have to wait until my internet's better.

We should wait until Iran's first nuclear-tipped Shahab-5's erase Paris, Berlin, and London. Then there will be noone left to whine when we take them out.

Of course, if Iran nukes Israel, or gives Hamas or Hezbollah nukes to use on Israel (or us), we should nuke those cities ourselves, for being stupid enough not to help us stop them when they had the chance.
Not. Gonna. Happen.

No one is going to nuke anyone. Only the US has precedent in using nukes, so...

No one is going to nuke anyone. Only the US has precedent in using nukes, so...

The U.S. only has precedence because they were the first to successfully invent, test, and deploy a nuclear weapon. Had some other country been so, then they would have been the only ones with precedence. The implication you are making is not valid.

He's entitled to that opinion.
Sure he's entitled to that opinion but it doesn't change the fact that the event he denies happened and that he is denying it. It's like voting on the sex of a rabbit, it doesn't matter how many people vote for a female rabbit being male, it won't change the sex of the rabbit.

lolololololol...all the classics...I'll have to wait until my internet's better.
It answers the question of what is wrong with this generation. There are too many stupid's and that can be proven with a dihydrogen monoxide or women's suffrage petition. It's not like the people in that video were being asked to design a nuclear-powered replacement for the shuttle, they were being asked to sign petition's banning water and women's right to vote.

So, then, you would agree that the commanding officer should have taken the precautions he or she would have had he or she not had orders to avoid a diplomatic incident? That is, destroy the speedboat had it continued to threaten the destroyers after a warning shot?

Look, I'm not saying it's the end of the world. What I'm saying is that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to dangers to the U.S. Navy. As powerful, both technologically and numerically, it is, it's not invincible. It's not some be all and end all capable of annihilating any possible threat without ever taking a loss, and threats can come even in forms you might not suspect, like those speedboats coming within the range of the exclusion zone.

And just to be precise, that's the only time they would have been threatening. Outside the range where they could attack before the destroyer could react, they would be, of course, sitting ducks, to use the metaphor. It's getting within that range and then making the threat to destroy the destroyer that was the problem.I am sorry I just do not see how Iran is the aggressor in this, when the American 5th fleet is 20 to 30 miles at most from Iranian shores.

So I have to avoid offending those who would like to slit my family's throats? Why not call things as they are? I never implied that all muslims are sharia supporting lunatics.Please name one American family who has had their throats slit by Iranians.

Psychotic Mongooses link points out that it occured within CUBA's waters during an American blockade. not exactly within US Airspace or waters.Are kidding me the Vlad has started the old cold war game of flying sorties in US and
Nato airspace recently
(http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0982324620070809?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)

People are going to read what they want. I suppose the poster in question saw this while reading your post.It could've been the exclusive tone.

Remember one thing here on NSG. Anything you saw or don't say can and will be used against you. Especially by the one's that think they are clever.Why, whatever DO you mean? Wink, wink.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/491.gif
Oh yeah ... that would mean most of us are doomed. Ouroborous-style.

simply make a pass at our commanding officers and be sent home.
:fluffle:
"Knowing is half the battle" ... :D

why the navy?
YMCA. Looooooooooooooooooooong story.

That could cause problems, remember how many women Bill Clinton slept with?

No, and neither do you.
More seriously though ... who could sleep with all that exit pole-ing going on? :p

We're "responsible" and can be trusted with our nuclear weapons.Other than, of course, being the only country in history to use them against another country.

I am sorry I just do not see how Iran is the aggressor in this, when the American 5th fleet is 20 to 30 miles at most from Iranian shores.

It's the simple fact that they were in international waters. It doesn't matter how close they are to Iranian waters, so long as they are not actually in Iranian waters.

If you don't believe me, look up maritime law. This is how it works. If the Iranians wanted, they could dangle their entire fleet in international waters just on the other side of the border between international waters and American waters, and we couldn't do a damned thing about it.

So, because the destroyers were in international waters, they were doing what they were doing legally, thus the Iranian speedboats were the aggressors.

YMCA. Looooooooooooooooooooong story.

Oh do tell. I want to hear this one.

Oh do tell. I want to hear this one.

Better tell it before you get in the navy! :p

Better tell it before you get in the navy! :p

...what? I thought you meant you had a story about the YMCA. My joining the Navy has nothing to do with the YMCA.

Though I was a member of a YMCA in Ohio for awhile, to use their swimming pool.

...what? I thought you meant you had a story about the YMCA. My joining the Navy has nothing to do with the YMCA.

Though I was a member of a YMCA in Ohio for awhile, to use their swimming pool.

That was as much of the story as i really needed to know. :p

That was as much of the story as i really needed to know. :p

The rest of my family had a membership there too...

The rest of my family had a membership there too...

o.9

o.9

And they would always swim with me, since I was anywhere from nine to thirteen at the time, depending on which year it was.

I am sorry I just do not see how Iran is the aggressor in this, when the American 5th fleet is 20 to 30 miles at most from Iranian shores.

You're an idiot who does not know shit when it comes to the Law of the Sea. Provided we were not in Iranian Territorial Waters, there's no reason to come out and challenge nor for us to challenge them.

Are kidding me the Vlad has started the old cold war game of flying sorties in US and
Nato airspace recently
(http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0982324620070809?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)

I thought I'd bring up a legitimate questioning on the authorship of this article:

"The headline states that "Russian Bomber Jets Resume Cold War Sorties."

Minor problem, as you can tell by visual inspection, the TU-95 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/tu95/tu95_03.jpg) is not a jet.

Because in general being in the U.S. Navy during wartime is far safer, due to the simple fact that our Navy outweighs most of the various other country's navies combined.

Furthermore, Iran does not have all that much of a coastline and we can defend against its land-based naval defenses with relative ease. That doesn't mean we won't take losses, but we won't be in huge trouble with the possibility of death every second like we would be if we were in the Army or the Marines.


oh

Get your facts straight. That also makes no sense. Armies don't "wind down". Also, the Kurds are quite peaceful and have the most satble area in Iraq under their control. Democratic too.


the Mahdi army delcared a 6 month cease fire, civil war usually includes all the miniorties (Kurds?)

It's the simple fact that they were in international waters. It doesn't matter how close they are to Iranian waters, so long as they are not actually in Iranian waters.

If you don't believe me, look up maritime law. This is how it works. If the Iranians wanted, they could dangle their entire fleet in international waters just on the other side of the border between international waters and American waters, and we couldn't do a damned thing about it.

So, because the destroyers were in international waters, they were doing what they were doing legally, thus the Iranian speedboats were the aggressors.Yes I know about maritime law but don't you think America would get a little pissed if a nation had an entire fleet 20 to 30 miles off the coast of California or New York? I think they would get a little nervous.

I thought I'd bring up a legitimate questioning on the authorship of this article:

"The headline states that "Russian Bomber Jets Resume Cold War Sorties."

Minor problem, as you can tell by visual inspection, the TU-95 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/tu95/tu95_03.jpg) is not a jet.Well try these news sources than
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20189910/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/world/europe/18russia.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08272007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/bear_chooses_chill.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/08/09/russia.sorties.reut/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6938856.stm

You're an idiot who does not know shit when it comes to the Law of the Sea. Provided we were not in Iranian Territorial Waters, there's no reason to come out and challenge nor for us to challenge them.If a nation parked an entire fleet 20 to 30 miles off the coast of America the US would be harassing them with a lot more than blue speed boats and if you don't know that you do not know shit.

Yes I know about maritime law but don't you think America would get a little pissed if a nation had an entire fleet 20 to 30 miles off the coast of California or New York? I think they would get a little nervous.

Maybe but not to the point of provoking an international incident.

We won't have a draft. And I doubt Bush will invade Iran - it would finish his legacy as that of the worst president in history.

If Iran invades Iraq, we meet them at the border and pwn them.

I'm pretty sure that if Iran gets close to having a nuclear program, the Israelis will bomb it to rubble. If they have to, they'll use their own nukes. Even if that would turn Israel into a North Korea-esque pariah state.

And you know what? I would still support them.

If a nation parked an entire fleet 20 to 30 miles off the coast of America the US would be harassing them with a lot more than blue speed boats and if you don't know that you do not know shit.

I know that the US is not stupid enough to provoke an international incident. Besides that, we do not need to use speed boats for we have the world's largest ocean going navy.

If you think that we would harass them when we have other means of watching them, you are the idiotic one. Then again, with a name like yours that comes as no surprise.

It's the simple fact that they were in international waters. It doesn't matter how close they are to Iranian waters, so long as they are not actually in Iranian waters.

If you don't believe me, look up maritime law. This is how it works. If the Iranians wanted, they could dangle their entire fleet in international waters just on the other side of the border between international waters and American waters, and we couldn't do a damned thing about it.

So, because the destroyers were in international waters, they were doing what they were doing legally, thus the Iranian speedboats were the aggressors.

Kyr, I have to disagree. While it might be legal, it would be impossible to claim that if Russia had moved its fleet to within even 100 miles of our coastline in the same way during the Cold War, that there wouldn't have been an international incident. We freaked out over less.

Putting a fleet like our navy to well within attacking distance is aggressive and it's really not possible to make it not. Whether you agree with the actions of Bush in regards to Iran, there really is no getting around our aggression towards them.

I know that the US is not stupid enough to provoke an international incident. Besides that, we do not need to use speed boats for we have the world's largest ocean going navy.

If you think that we would harass them when we have other means of watching them, you are the idiotic one. Then again, with a name like yours that comes as no surprise.

Didn't it turn out that the US did provoke the Gulf of Tonkin Incident - in order to justify a war?

I know that the US is not stupid enough to provoke an international incident. Besides that, we do not need to use speed boats for we have the world's largest ocean going navy.

If you think that we would harass them when we have other means of watching them, you are the idiotic one. Then again, with a name like yours that comes as no surprise.
Um, you didn't actually read the post your replied to, did you?

"with a lot more than blue speed boats"

Meanwhile, the US has provoked many an international incident. The US is playing a game of "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you." Legal =/= not aggressive. Our actions toward Iran have been aggressive for quite some time. We've openly threatened them with war. Our ships are in range to actually attack. Whether we're breaking the law is really not particularly relevant to our aggression.

Kyr, I have to disagree. While it might be legal, it would be impossible to claim that if Russia had moved its fleet to within even 100 miles of our coastline in the same way during the Cold War, that there wouldn't have been an international incident. We freaked out over less.

Putting a fleet like our navy to well within attacking distance is aggressive and it's really not possible to make it not. Whether you agree with the actions of Bush in regards to Iran, there really is no getting around our aggression towards them.

agreed. While the Iranian action was...stupid, it's entirely impossible to pretend that this was not a directly provacative action by the US. Somehow we're expected to believe the line of "we were just innocently moving our warships a few miles off the coast of a nation we have accused of wanting to start world war three, just as peaceful as we could be, we can't understand why people would consider us aggressors. Don't they understand we're in international waters!, we had a right to be there, it's not aggressive at all to put our fleet right outside a nation, not at all!"

Seriously, my brother and I played this game in the car when we were kids. "i'm not touching you!" gets old once you pass the age of six, or so.

The US is playing a game of "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you."

Seriously, my brother and I played this game in the car when we were kids. "i'm not touching you!" gets old once you pass the age of six, or so.

.....

stop doing that!

All we have stated Jocabia is that all options are on the table. Which is the truth. We have not threatened anything in reality.

Please point out where he used the word "threatened". He said we had continually been aggressive. That is not the same thing. But if we actually want to talk about threatening statements, let's take a look at what bush said yesterday

President Bush said Sunday that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger "before it's too late."

Confront the danger before it's too late....nah, nothing threatening in that.

agreed. While the Iranian action was...stupid, it's entirely impossible to pretend that this was not a directly provacative action by the US. Somehow we're expected to believe the line of "we were just innocently moving our warships a few miles off the coast of a nation we have accused of wanting to start world war three, just as peaceful as we could be, we can't understand why people would consider us aggressors. Don't they understand we're in international waters!, we had a right to be there, it's not aggressive at all to put our fleet right outside a nation, not at all!"

Seriously, my brother and I played this game in the car when we were kids. "i'm not touching you!" gets old once you pass the age of six, or so.

Beat you to the punch on that comparison. Hehe. Now either you stop thinking about Nees or I'm getting out of your head.

Um, you didn't actually read the post your replied to, did you?

"with a lot more than blue speed boats"

Meanwhile, the US has provoked many an international incident. The US is playing a game of "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you." Legal =/= not aggressive. Our actions toward Iran have been aggressive for quite some time. We've openly threatened them with war. Our ships are in range to actually attack. Whether we're breaking the law is really not particularly relevant to our aggression.

All we have stated Jocabia is that all options are on the table. Which is the truth. We have not threatened anything in reality. The only people claiming that are those on the left who are using scare tactics by stating that a war with Iran is coming even though no war is going to happen.

As to this, the navy is not threatening Iran. Iran threatening us is another story.

Please point out where he used the word "threatened". He said we had continually been aggressive. That is not the same thing.

Actually...when you look at things from the other side, the "aggression" from one side, can be construed as "threatenning" to the other. This is not a black or white issue.

Confront the danger before it's too late....nah, nothing threatening in that.

We all know you do not like Bush but unlike most people, I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

We all know you do not like Bush but unlike most people, I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

my "feelings" are irrelevant to the question of whether or not his words could be considered a threat or not, and I don't think any reasonable person could argue "we need to do something before it's too late" can not be construed as a threatening statement.

My feelings are irrelevant to that.

.....

stop doing that!

Yeah...it's creeping me out. One of you I detest, the other I don't...but if you meld into one, what the fuck am I going to do then?

Beat you to the punch on that comparison. Hehe. Now either you stop thinking about Nees or I'm getting out of your head.

...

Actually...when you look at things from the other side, the "aggression" from one side, can be construed as "threatenning" to the other.

Gee, thanks for proving my point. So, the US "aggression" can be construed by Iran as a "threatening" action.

Thanks, you kinda just conceded your point there.

We all know you do not like Bush but unlike most people, I'm not going to jump to conclusions.Oh, please. Don't go about redefining words as you see fit. You can debate whether the threats are justified, but to debate whether Bush has actually threatened Iran... ridiculous.

You realize there is more to the phrase "confronting the danger" than just military right?

You realize there are more ways to threaten someone than with a gun, right?

Oh, please. Don't go about redefining words as you see fit. You can debate whether the threats are justified, but to debate whether Bush has actually threatened Iran... ridiculous.

You realize there is more to the phrase "confronting the danger" than just military right?

...

I actually didn't understand what he meant by "Nees" until you showed up...I didn't want to feel silly by asking because I thought it was something obvious I should get...

Indeed. You'll agree that military action isn't the only way to follow through on a threat, right?

Of course but last time I checked, the things needed for gearing up for a major war are not happening.

All we have stated Jocabia is that all options are on the table. Which is the truth. We have not threatened anything in reality. The only people claiming that are those on the left who are using scare tactics by stating that a war with Iran is coming even though no war is going to happen.

As to this, the navy is not threatening Iran. Iran threatening us is another story.

I notice you're backpedalling. Before Iran was the aggressor here. Now it's about threats. Putting your fleet of the coast of another country is an implicit threat.

However, the threats by Bush and Hadley were not implicit. They were explicit. Iran shrugged at this incident and referred to it like it was just one of those things that happen. The US is talking about "all options being on the table" and threatening a battle if it happens again. What story have you been reading because everything I've read show demonstrative aggression and threats by the US.

You realize there is more to the phrase "confronting the danger" than just military right?Indeed. You'll agree that military action isn't the only way to follow through on a threat, right?

Of course but last time I checked, the things needed for gearing up for a major war are not happening.

You mean like deploying our military forces to close proximity to Iran? Wait....shit.

Now it would seem to me that if you were considering a military offensive, the first thing you'd do is position your forces in such a way that they are ready to be committed, but stopping short of actually committing them, so they can also be withdrawn if war does not happen. And if I were Iran looking at this US fleet just outside my coastline, but still technically in "international waters" it would look a whole lot like that's exactly what's happening.

Yeah...it's creeping me out. One of you I detest, the other I don't...but if you meld into one, what the fuck am I going to do then?



...

Oh, right. You know you like the idea of Neo JocabiArt. You really want to test the limits of your ability to submit, then imagine being ordered to be "kind" to me. A ballgag's got nothing on me.

I actually didn't understand what he meant by "Nees" until you showed up...I didn't want to feel silly by asking because I thought it was something obvious I should get...

It is.

You bastard.

*runs away crying, arms flailing*

Oh, right. You know you like the idea of Neo JocabiArt. You really want to test the limits of your ability to submit, then imagine being ordered to be "kind" to me. A ballgag's got nothing on me.

I threw up in my mouth a little.

Besides, I'm SO over Art.:p

You realize there is more to the phrase "confronting the danger" than just military right?

Which might be a point if they hadn't literally stated that there may be a battle if it happens again. It might be a point if they hadn't stated that all options are on the table. Is not the military part of "all options"? In fact, aren't nukes under that umbrella as well? They didn't sort of threaten Iran. They said pretty plainly, if you come near us, even if it's not state-sponsored, we will consider any response we feel like up to an including full-scale war.

I threw up in my mouth a little.

Besides, I'm SO over Art.:p

The ballgag bit sounded much dirtier than intended. And methinks the lady dost protest too much.

Are kidding me the Vlad has started the old cold war game of flying sorties in US and
Nato airspace recently
(http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0982324620070809?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)
and did you read the article? we went out and met them, exchanged smilies and parted. no threatening maneuvers, no 'threatening' messages on either side...

Yes I know about maritime law but don't you think America would get a little pissed if a nation had an entire fleet 20 to 30 miles off the coast of California or New York? I think they would get a little nervous.
no, we wouldn't be pissed. we'll be cautious and our fleet will meet them, but our fleet won't rush them nor would they make statements like "we're gonna blow you up".

true, and If I were Iran, I would have my fleet set up nearby but with orders NOT to approach untill said fleet breeches my waters.

On the other hand, one could argue that Iran had every bit the right to be in international waters as the US fleet did, no?

You mean like deploying our military forces to close proximity to Iran? Wait....shit.

Now it would seem to me that if you were considering a military offensive, the first thing you'd do is position your forces in such a way that they are ready to be committed, but stopping short of actually committing them, so they can also be withdrawn if war does not happen. And if I were Iran looking at this US fleet just outside my coastline, but still technically in "international waters" it would look a whole lot like that's exactly what's happening.

true, and If I were Iran, I would have my fleet set up nearby but with orders NOT to approach untill said fleet breeches my waters.

true, and If I were Iran, I would have my fleet set up nearby but with orders NOT to approach untill said fleet breeches my waters.

You realize that is NOT what the US would do. The act of sending your fleet halfway across the globe during a time when tensions are already quite high AND the nation possessing said fleet has already threatened to attack you under various scenarios is quite aggressive. The US would hardly go, "ok, boys, just let them do whatever they like. They're in international waters."

Do you have an idea the attack range of some of these ships? Waiting till they were in our waters would be too late. Same for them.

yep. but the point of that confrontation was the "charging in" and "laying boxes out" plus the radio message of "we're gonna blow you up". had those boats held their distance and maintained a watchful posture, I doubt it would've made the news blurb, much less the 6:00 news.

well first off, there is no proof that radio message ever came from the boats, and it seems like it, in fact, may not have.

So let's put aside the radio message for the moment, is there anything that the Iranian boats did that was explicitly illegal under international law. And I actually ask this with legitimate curiosity. Does anobody know if anything the Iranians did was actually illegal? Which I think is the only relevant question here. Many have argued that was the US did was legal, therefore ok. Was anything the Iranians did actaully illegal? Is there any international law that states it is illegal to get within a certain distance from a warship, or otherwise make motions towards them?

Anything?

On the other hand, one could argue that Iran had every bit the right to be in international waters as the US fleet did, no?

yep. but the point of that confrontation was the "charging in" and "laying boxes out" plus the radio message of "we're gonna blow you up". had those boats held their distance and maintained a watchful posture, I doubt it would've made the news blurb, much less the 6:00 news.

You realize that is NOT what the US would do. The act of sending your fleet halfway across the globe during a time when tensions are already quite high AND the nation possessing said fleet has already threatened to attack you under various scenarios is quite aggressive. The US would hardly go, "ok, boys, just let them do whatever they like. They're in international waters."

Do you have an idea the attack range of some of these ships? Waiting till they were in our waters would be too late. Same for them.

yes, but as long as those ships are in International waters and tensions have not reached the point of Open Hostility, I certanly won't play chicken with them.

Actually...when you look at things from the other side, the "aggression" from one side, can be construed as "threatenning" to the other. This is not a black or white issue.
Let's see now.....Bush would never "threaten" Iran.....naw....he wouldn't do that?

That is all Bush has done since he became President:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=bush+threatens+iran&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Bush wants a war with Iran.

On the other hand, one could argue that Iran had every bit the right to be in international waters as the US fleet did, no?

Agreed.

yes, but as long as those ships are in International waters and tensions have not reached the point of Open Hostility, I certanly won't play chicken with them.

I think you're kidding yourself if your think in the same situation, the US would sit idly by and wait to see what happens. This is a case of the big bully threatening the little guy for reacting at all normally to the aggression of the bully.

Let's see now.....Bush would never "threaten" Iran.....naw....he wouldn't do that?

That is all Bush has done since he became President:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=bush+threatens+iran&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Bush wants a war with Iran.

Then where is it? Oh yea...that's right. I forgot. He's actually going through the appropriate channels. Saying that all options are on the table? That's nothing new. That's all I've heard him say and all that is being said. Even Israel is saying all options are on the table. Its standard operating procedure.

War with Iran? Not happening nor will it in the foreseeable future. Keep it up CH. The only ones stating that war is imminent are those on the left. Those on the right know that war is not imminent. A war with Iran will not happen. So please! Stop with the scare tactics. You are just as bad as those on the right when it comes to those.

Then where is it? Oh yea...that's right. I forgot. He's actually going through the appropriate channels. Saying that all options are on the table? That's nothing new. That's all I've heard him say and all that is being said. Even Israel is saying all options are on the table. Its standard operating procedure.

War with Iran? Not happening nor will it in the foreseeable future. Keep it up CH. The only ones stating that war is imminent are those on the left. Those on the right know that war is not imminent. A war with Iran will not happen. So please! Stop with the scare tactics. You are just as bad as those on the right when it comes to those.

Hmm... I seem to remember the same arguments being made right before we attacked Iraq. "Oh, it's just the left being Chicken Little. Bush is talking to the UN and simply trying to enforce the UN Security requirements. He doesn't want war with Iraq. We're already in a war."

That argument works once. Do I think war is imminent? Nah. I don't. I doubt Bush wants to be the President that started three wars simultaneously. But to say that it's not reasonable to think a President that aggressively attacked a non-threatening nation in the past would do it again is, well, laughable.

Hmm... I seem to remember the same arguments being made right before we attacked Iraq. "Oh, it's just the left being Chicken Little. Bush is talking to the UN and simply trying to enforce the UN Security requirements. He doesn't want war with Iraq. We're already in a war."

Except I was not around here when we went into Iraq in 2003. I joined 2 weeks after Saddam Hussein was captured so I do not know what the arguments here were about.

That argument works once. Do I think war is imminent? Nah. I don't. I doubt Bush wants to be the President that started three wars simultaneously. But to say that it's not reasonable to think a President that aggressively attacked a non-threatening nation in the past would do it again is, well, laughable.

He won't. I already know he won't. The signs of full scale military buildup are not there.

Except I was not around here when we went into Iraq in 2003. I joined 2 weeks after Saddam Hussein was captured so I do not know what the arguments here were about.

You didn't read the news in 2003 either? Blogs? The general opinion on the war from outside our country? Are you admitting to a near complete ignorance of the response to our original threats against Iraq?

He won't. I already know he won't. The signs of full scale military buildup are not there.

What build up? We're already at war with the countries on either side of it, something you seem to be intentionally ignoring. We're at war on both sides of it, so our militaries are poised. We've threatened directly and indirectly for most of the term of our current leadership. We've become increasing threatening in the last year or thereabouts. Your response to all of this... point to the pile of evidence and suggest none exists.

but that is happened. they were prepared for the worst but fortunately, the Iranian boats broke off before getting too close.

no shots fired, no deaths, just the small dog yapping at the big dog.

Which is, of course, a natural reaction to such unabated aggression on the part of the US. And the response of the US, "We dare you to do something completely inocuous again. Next time, they're be a battle."

I think you're kidding yourself if your think in the same situation, the US would sit idly by and wait to see what happens. This is a case of the big bully threatening the little guy for reacting at all normally to the aggression of the bully.

but that is happened. they were prepared for the worst but fortunately, the Iranian boats broke off before getting too close.

no shots fired, no deaths, just the small dog yapping at the big dog.

what unabated aggression on the part of the US?


Well the whole "Axis of Evil" lark followed by a similar rhetoric and type of language used in the run up to invading Iraq, probably is seen as aggression by the Iranian government.

"Hey, waita minute.... this seems all too familiar....."

Which is, of course, a natural reaction to such unabated aggression on the part of the US. And the response of the US, "We dare you to do something completely inocuous again. Next time, they're be a battle."

what unabated aggression on the part of the US?

and if you are implying that the US taking such stand is wrong, then you also are saying that the Iranians were wrong to challange those ships in that particular fashion.

what unabated aggression on the part of the US?

and if you are implying that the US taking such stand is wrong, then you also are saying that the Iranians were wrong to challange those ships in that particular fashion.

Of course the Iranian actions were wrong. It was undoubtedly a stupid, dangerous, and hostile action. I don't think either one of us was saying it was the right thing to do.

I think we're both saying it is understandable that Iran did it, not that it was right that they did it. It wasn't right, but I understand why Iran would give a little show of strength themselves, in response to aggressive posturing by the United States.

Yes, Iran responded to that situation in a bad way, but they were responding to a situation that should not have occured in the first place. Those ships were there for one reason and one reason only, as a show of force. And shows of force tend to be provacative.

It's bad Iran let themselves be provoked. it's also bad that the US provoked them. You see, reasonable people are capable of understanding nuance, we're capable of understanding things beyond a basic dichodemy of "US good, Iran bad". We are capable of realizing that the united stated did a stupid, boneheaded move in provoking Iran, and Iran did a stupid, boneheaded move in responding to that provocation.

The signs of full scale military buildup are not there.

Wait, what? We have armies on both sides of the country, air support within striking distance, and warships a few miles off the coast. What more "signs" are you looking for? What more buildup would be involved? A giant sign visible from space saying "countdown to invasion...5...4...3..."

I'm not saying we're going to war with Iran, but with armies poised practically on two borders, and our warships coming within attacking distance of their ports....if we were about to go to Iran, what more buildup would we actually be doing?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. Tell him what he's won, John. Iran is hardly the example for the world, but pretending as they did this out of the blue is a pretty sad statement about the state of our understanding the US. Bush wouldn't be attempting to get away with such ridiculous claims if he didn't believe the public is stupid enough to fall for it. And, unfortunately, he's continually proven right.

Let's make this simple. Bush is a horrible person who is a blight on the world stage. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a horrible person who is a blight on the world stage. Attacking the actions of one is not endorsing the other or vice versa. They both suck. Debating the levels of suck is really a useless maneuver.

So the Unabashed Agressions are things said YEARS AGO and actions done towards another country?

Um, no, do try to keep up. THe "unabashed aggressions" are statements, actions, expressions, and general tenor of the US government towards Iran that are nearly identical to the statements, actions, expressions, and general tenor that the US government had towards Iraq in the weeks and months leading up to the invasion.

In other words, if you saw a whole string of rhetoric directed at another country, which culminated in the invasion of that country, and now you're seeing the same sort of rhetoric directed at you...yes, that's pretty fucking aggressive.

And it's a point so obvious that I can't believe you'd actually miss it, so I must conclude you're playing dumb for some reason.

Wait, what? We have armies on both sides of the country, air support within striking distance, and warships a few miles off the coast. What more "signs" are you looking for? What more buildup would be involved? A giant sign visible from space saying "countdown to invasion...5...4...3..."

So you are basing things on circumstancial evidence? And here I thought you were an excellent lawyer. Just because we are in Afghanistan and Iraq means jackshit. As to the warships in the Gulf, they were their supporting both Operation Iraqi Freedom as well as operations in Afghanistan. So tell me...where is the full scale military buildup?

I'm not saying we're going to war with Iran, but with armies poised practically on two borders, and our warships coming within attacking distance of their ports....if we were about to go to Iran, what more buildup would we actually be doing?

Oh I don't know...alot more than what is going on now. I see you do not know everything about how military deployments occur.

Well the whole "Axis of Evil" lark followed by a similar rhetoric and type of language used in the run up to invading Iraq, probably is seen as aggression by the Iranian government.

"Hey, waita minute.... this seems all too familiar....."

So the Unabashed Agressions are things said YEARS AGO and actions done towards another country?

Yet you roll your eyes whenever 9/11 is brought up?

pleeese. :rolleyes:

So the Unabashed Agressions are things said YEARS AGO and actions done towards another country?

Yet you roll your eyes whenever 9/11 is brought up?

pleeese. :rolleyes:

Years ago? This isn't the 1960's we're talking about here. This is 5 years ago - with the same person at the helm who invaded Iraq.

Iraq. Which was linked to Iran (for some idiotic reason). And Iraq was invaded.

Flash forward 5 years - same President, same policies, same rhetoric. You saying the Iranians don't deserve the right to get a little edgy?

I roll my eyes when 9/11 is brought up in reference to justifying Iraq. Stupidity normally has that effect on me.

So the Unabashed Agressions are things said YEARS AGO and actions done towards another country?

Yet you roll your eyes whenever 9/11 is brought up?

pleeese. :rolleyes:

Unabated aggression would be attacking both of your neighbors while continually telling you that you're next. Yeah, that aggression.

It would be like China attacking Canada and Mexico while telling us we're a part of the "Axis of Evil" and that the world will not be safe until our government has been destroyed. Add to that China basically surrounding us, threatening us with military action at every turn and major part of the Chinese elections being a debate over whether or not the new president is willing to attack the US.

Honestly, in what world are we not aggressive toward Iran? How many threats need we make while demonstrating to the world that we're ready and willing to make war with even the slightest excuse.

So you are basing things on circumstancial evidence? And here I thought you were an excellent lawyer. Just because we are in Afghanistan and Iraq means jackshit. As to the warships in the Gulf, they were their supporting both Operation Iraqi Freedom as well as operations in Afghanistan. So tell me...where is the full scale military buildup?



Oh I don't know...alot more than what is going on now. I see you do not know everything about how military deployments occur.

Wow, just wow. So the fact that no buildup is necessary because they are already there doesn't penetrate your logic centers? The actions of the US toward Iran are nearly identical to the actions with Iraq 5 years ago. We're giving much indication of invasion and we're doing it on purpose. We know AND they know that we did this before and that it resulted in invasion. I strongly suspect this time it's posturing, but it's still a damned aggressive action.

Also, I've noticed your canned response when you don't know what your talking about is to turn that on its head and accuse others. He asked a specific question. He gave you exactly how additional buildup is unnecessary. You claim it is necessary. If so, what buildup. Be specific. What isn't there that makes it so impossible for the US to go to war? Enlighten us.

Of course the Iranian actions were wrong. It was undoubtedly a stupid, dangerous, and hostile action. I don't think either one of us was saying it was the right thing to do.

I think we're both saying it is understandable that Iran did it, not that it was right that they did it. It wasn't right, but I understand why Iran would give a little show of strength themselves, in response to aggressive posturing by the United States.

Yes, Iran responded to that situation in a bad way, but they were responding to a situation that should not have occured in the first place. Those ships were there for one reason and one reason only, as a show of force. And shows of force tend to be provacative.

It's bad Iran let themselves be provoked. it's also bad that the US provoked them. You see, reasonable people are capable of understanding nuance, we're capable of understanding things beyond a basic dichodemy of "US good, Iran bad". We are capable of realizing that the united stated did a stupid, boneheaded move in provoking Iran, and Iran did a stupid, boneheaded move in responding to that provocation.

If I remember correctly, the American Ships were sailing PAST their waters, not stationed off of it which again begs the question how was that provocative?

Either way, the provacative actions were all on the part of the Iranian ships. had they just shadowed the Fleet, keeping pace yet keeping a neutral distance, the message would've been given "we are watching you and prepared to take action" without the risk of anyone being hurt.

I assert that a draft in the US would result in more bloodshed than we've seen on our own soil in more than a century. It is then that many of us would understand it was at the point where we need to take up arms against tyranny.

Just because we are in Afghanistan and Iraq means jackshit. As to the warships in the Gulf, they were their supporting both Operation Iraqi Freedom as well as operations in Afghanistan. So tell me...where is the full scale military buildup?

You just said it. We have warships in the gulf, and armies on both sides. What more buildup would we be doing?

You see, if I were Iran, and I saw these arguments of "oh those armies at your border? Those boats off the coast? Yeah, don't worry, they have nothing to do with you what so ever. They're doing other things.

Now maybe it's true, but of course, if you're dealing with a nation that has a history of attacking unprovoked, a statement of "oh, those aren't for you, trust us" rings hollow

Oh I don't know...alot more than what is going on now.

You know..."stuff" isn't really an answer. But more to point...like what? What more could we possibly deploy to that region? If we had any available resources we could deploy to the middle east, it would be there already because of the, as you mentioned, two wars already going on there.

What more possibly could we be doing? We couldn't do any more "full scale military buildup" around Iran. We couldn't do any more large scale deployment in the middle east, we've already deployed everything we can.

I see you do not know everything about how military deployments occur.

Maybe I'm wrong, but since you're arguing that if we intended to go to war with Iran, we would have had greater military deployment in the area, but are ignoring that due to the two wars we have going on in that region, if we had anything left to deploy in the area, we would have deployed it already, and thus your entire argument extends to "if we were going to war with Iran we'd have a more full scale military buildup involving military forces we don't have"....I'm willing to bet I understand more about how military deployments work than you do.

I may not know much, but at least my understanding is grounded in reality, not in some fantasy make believe world where the US, despite being involved in TWO wars in the middle east, is somehow capable of sending more than we already have.

If I remember correctly, the American Ships were sailing PAST their waters, not stationed off of it which again begs the question how was that provocative?

Either way, the provacative actions were all on the part of the Iranian ships. had they just shadowed the Fleet, keeping pace yet keeping a neutral distance, the message would've been given "we are watching you and prepared to take action" without the risk of anyone being hurt.

Again, this just amazes me. The provocative actions were ALL on the part of Iranian ships? In what world? Seriously, you don't notice any aggression by the US toward Iran? None? No threats. No discussions of attacking them? No discussions of them being evil and a requirement to remove them from power? No discussions of whether you're willing to invade Iran as part of the presidential platforms in the US? Are you kidding? What more do you need? These ships are traveling incredibly close to Iran while their nation is actively threatening Iran. No provocation? That's just plain untrue.

Wow, just wow. So the fact that no buildup is necessary because they are already there doesn't penetrate your logic centers?

It penetrates Jocabia but unlike many others on here, I look for far more than current operations going on. We have two major operations going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you honestly think that we will disengage from them just to turn around and launch a two pronged invasion of Iran? No we wont. Also, logistics are not set up for such an invasion. That's the other thing that is needed to sustain a war with Iran. It is simply not there. Do you want us to fight a war with little logistical support?

The actions of the US toward Iran are nearly identical to the actions with Iraq 5 years ago. We're giving much indication of invasion and we're doing it on purpose. We know AND they know that we did this before and that it resulted in invasion. I strongly suspect this time it's posturing, but it's still a damned aggressive action.

The fact that people are thinking the worst with the statements said says alot about the human brain. As I said, I am not going to jump to conclusions and say that a war is coming. I do not see a war coming with Iran anytime soon. Postering? That I can agree with but anything more than that is just flat out scaremongering.

Also, I've noticed your canned response when you don't know what your talking about is to turn that on its head and accuse others. He asked a specific question. He gave you exactly how additional buildup is unnecessary. You claim it is necessary. If so, what buildup. Be specific. What isn't there that makes it so impossible for the US to go to war? Enlighten us.

Logistics is always necessary for a prolonged engagement. Fighting an enemy at the border is far different than fighting an enemy on his own turf. That is what will happen if push comes to shove. We do not have the logistics that we need for such a confrontation.

You just said it. We have warships in the gulf, and armies on both sides. What more buildup would we be doing?

Um logistics? Just because we have troops on both sides means jack when looking over precisely what units are actually in theater at the moment along with the fact that we are still planning on withdrawing 20,000 troops from Iraq. Woops.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/12/content_7410944.htm

Maybe I'm wrong, but since you're arguing that if we intended to go to war with Iran, we would have had greater military deployment in the area, but are ignoring that due to the two wars we have going on in that region, if we had anything left to deploy in the area, we would have deployed it already, and thus your entire argument extends to "if we were going to war with Iran we'd have a more full scale military buildup involving military forces we don't have"....I'm willing to bet I understand more about how military deployments work than you do.

Considering the fact that I have been on the receiving end of deployment orders (through my father and various other relatives) I doubt it.

Years ago? This isn't the 1960's we're talking about here. This is 5 years ago - with the same person at the helm who invaded Iraq.

Iraq. Which was linked to Iran (for some idiotic reason). And Iraq was invaded.

Flash forward 5 years - same President, same policies, same rhetoric. You saying the Iranians don't deserve the right to get a little edgy?

I roll my eyes when 9/11 is brought up in reference to justifying Iraq. Stupidity normally has that effect on me.
actually, different policies. and I never said the Iranians didn't have the right to get edgy, it's the claims that American caused the situation with their "unabashed aggression" you referenced that happened YEARS ago.

Honestly, in what world are we not aggressive toward Iran? How many threats need we make while demonstrating to the world that we're ready and willing to make war with even the slightest excuse.
How many threats and for how long have we been tossing towards Iran?

Years? Decades? how many US Ships have we sent to the Gulf Region and for how many Years?

So what makes now so different?
The fact that the US has troops tied up in two other countries? yeah, that would really scare me. After all, if the US were to foolishly start a third conflict (especially with allies distancing themselves from the US) that would be their biggest mistake.

no, I would be watching the reactions and maneuverings in the UN and any US allies. For the US to make good with their threats now, they would need UN backing and support.

actually, different policies. and I never said the Iranians didn't have the right to get edgy, it's the claims that American caused the situation with their "unabashed aggression" you referenced that happened YEARS ago.

And once again, the sound you hear is the point flying over your head. No, the claim is NOT that it happened "years ago". I ask you to actually READ this, this time.

The claim is, that, RIGHT NOW, at this very time, not two days ago, the same president, with the same administration, with the same foreign policy objectives, is making the same comments he made towards Iraq, which caused a war nextdoor that is still going on.

The aggression is not "what he said years ago" so please stop being intentionally dense. The aggression is what he is saying right now which sounds nearly identical to the shit he said a few years ago about Iraq.

Again, this is not some far off thing in american history that has a passing resemblance to events now. This is the same man with the same administration, holding the same policy objectives, saying the same things.


How many threats and for how long have we been tossing towards Iran?

Years? Decades? how many US Ships have we sent to the Gulf Region and for how many Years?

So what makes now so different?

The fact that we have a president who has shown himself ready and willing to make good on his rhetoric, no matter how foolish that may be.

We have shown to the world we have an irrational, violent leader who likes to make threats, and then invade countries. And now, that irrational, violent leader is making threats again.

It penetrates Jocabia but unlike many others on here, I look for far more than current operations going on. We have two major operations going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you honestly think that we will disengage from them just to turn around and launch a two pronged invasion of Iran? No we wont. Also, logistics are not set up for such an invasion. That's the other thing that is needed to sustain a war with Iran. It is simply not there. Do you want us to fight a war with little logistical support?

We've threatened war. Many, many times. It's been discussed by every major candidate of both parties as part of their platform. Bush has stated many times that war with Iran is on the table. Are we unprepared? Yup. We were with Iraq as well but that didn't stop us. However, now you're asking that we deny everything EVERYONE who has any power is saying and simply say that since it's a bad idea they won't do it? Sorry, but given the history there, that's just naive.




The fact that people are thinking the worst with the statements said says alot about the human brain. As I said, I am not going to jump to conclusions and say that a war is coming. I do not see a war coming with Iran anytime soon. Postering? That I can agree with but anything more than that is just flat out scaremongering.

There is no jumping to conclusions. Bush has expressly stated that war with Iran is on the table. Many, many times.



Logistics is always necessary for a prolonged engagement. Fighting an enemy at the border is far different than fighting an enemy on his own turf. That is what will happen if push comes to shove. We do not have the logistics that we need for such a confrontation.

One would think, but then the President of the US started another war while the first one wasn't finished and declared the second one over before it'd really begun. Logistics certainly should be a driving force behind military action. Perhaps you should call Bush and let him know.

Meanwhile, you've changed your argument. You didn't mean there hasn't been the buildup that would signal a war. You meant that we're incapable of war with Iran and thus won't do it. One wonders what your argument will change to when you start getting defeated on this point. Perhaps we'll hear all about how your opponents just understand the "stuff" that would happen.

actually, different policies. and I never said the Iranians didn't have the right to get edgy, it's the claims that American caused the situation with their "unabashed aggression" you referenced that happened YEARS ago.

YEARS ago? No. Barely five years ago. With the same President in charge. You're just being obtuse if you can't see that.



So what makes now so different?
Um, today's geopolitical climate is utterly different from that of the 1980's. That's how it's different.

The fact that the US has troops tied up in two other countries? yeah, that would really scare me. After all, if the US were to foolishly start a third conflict (especially with allies distancing themselves from the US) that would be their biggest mistake.
You make it sound like your President is above making another such fuck up?

Really?

For the US to make good with their threats now, they would need UN backing and support.

No they wouldn't. It doesn't fit into the Bush doctrine. They still reserve the right to wage wars of pre-emption. Bad idea.

Um logistics?

Considering how botched how both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were, your argument of "if we were going to fight Iran we'd be doing it in a smarter way than we are now" irngs hollow. That would assume a level of competance I have yet ot see form this administration.

Considering the fact that I have been on the receiving end of deployment orders (through my father and various other relatives) I doubt it.

Wait, your argument about how you know more about the military is that "you know people" who were deployed? Not "I was there", not "I have fought", not "I'm in the military", not "I studied military tactics" but "my daddy did it!"?

The fuck? I know at least a dozen people in the military, four who have served in Iraq, two of them still there, two currently in Afghanistan, one JAG officer in Japan, and numerous relatives who fought in numerous wars.

If I ever sunk so low that I had to defend my arguments by the illusion that I knew what I was talking about, by trying to imply that somehow I had knowledge because I knew people who had done it, I'd feel nothing but shame.

again, how is ships sailing by warranting the response the Iranians gave?



IT'S NOT JUST THAT.

For the love of God, put the pieces of the puzzle together.





*Oooh. It's a pony*

actually, different policies. and I never said the Iranians didn't have the right to get edgy, it's the claims that American caused the situation with their "unabashed aggression" you referenced that happened YEARS ago.

These didn't happen years ago. We're talking about the current actions that resemble historical actions. How recent does a war have to be in order for a rational person to compare the lead up to that war to the current lead up? It's the same leaders even, but even then, 5 years is hardly a long time ago in terms of the politics of war. Typically, wars build up for longer than that.

How many threats and for how long have we been tossing towards Iran?

Are you kidding? You want me to actually count? I suspect your recognize your request is impossible to answer. I've been quite clear as to what I'm referring and you're not even addressing it. You've simply made a ludicrous request for evidence you already have in an attempt to circumvent actually addressing the point.

It's true these have been pretty constant in terms of presence but never before have we made it so clear with rather unavoidable evidence, that we are willing to enter into wars even if your troops are already stretched thin and even if the world doesn't support us and even if we don't have a real reason to do so.



Years? Decades? how many US Ships have we sent to the Gulf Region and for how many Years?

Well, we've been sending ships to the Gulf rather and taking various aggressive postures for most of my life. Again, you are intentionally asking an unanswerable questions. Unanswerable because the numbers are so high. Exactly how much would be too much?




So what makes now so different?
The fact that the US has troops tied up in two other countries? yeah, that would really scare me. After all, if the US were to foolishly start a third conflict (especially with allies distancing themselves from the US) that would be their biggest mistake.

no, I would be watching the reactions and maneuverings in the UN and any US allies. For the US to make good with their threats now, they would need UN backing and support.[/QUOTE]

What makes now so different is that we've invaded both of the countries on either side of them, slowly built up our rhetoric and become more aggressive in our stance of ordering them to stand down, asking them, much like Iraq, to stop building weapons they aren't building. Much like Iraq, they're being accused of having WMD's despite the world intelligence community arguing they have none. Much like Iraq, they are hearing how we're approaching diplomatic solutions while showing a lot of force and threatening very clearly to use it.

Again, this just amazes me. The provocative actions were ALL on the part of Iranian ships? In what world? Seriously, you don't notice any aggression by the US toward Iran? None? No threats. No discussions of attacking them? No discussions of them being evil and a requirement to remove them from power? No discussions of whether you're willing to invade Iran as part of the presidential platforms in the US? Are you kidding? What more do you need? These ships are traveling incredibly close to Iran while their nation is actively threatening Iran. No provocation? That's just plain untrue.

again, how is ships sailing by warranting the response the Iranians gave?

you keep referencing what was said in Washington and saying that's what provoked the Iranian boats to respond the way they did thus it's not their fault. that's wrong.

when two sides are holding guns on each other, the one who starts the war is not the one who talks trash the loudest, but the one who fires the first shot.

The Iranians tried to provoke the first shot by approaching the boats AFTER they were warned to keep their distance. but you are trying to say the Americans Provoked the Iranians with Political Rhetoric in Washington.

Am I saying the Iranians cannot build up their defenses? no
Am I saying the Americans are Blameless? no
Am I saying the Americans were the cause of that incident in the gulf? no

again, how is ships sailing by warranting the response the Iranians gave?

you keep referencing what was said in Washington and saying that's what provoked the Iranian boats to respond the way they did thus it's not their fault. that's wrong.

when two sides are holding guns on each other, the one who starts the war is not the one who talks trash the loudest, but the one who fires the first shot.

The Iranians tried to provoke the first shot by approaching the boats AFTER they were warned to keep their distance. but you are trying to say the Americans Provoked the Iranians with Political Rhetoric in Washington.

Am I saying the Iranians cannot build up their defenses? no
Am I saying the Americans are Blameless? no
Am I saying the Americans were the cause of that incident in the gulf? no

First of all, you're saying the "Iranians". It's a fact these were US national ships. It's not a fact that the other ships belong to the nation of Iran. As Iran said, these incidents happen at times. They virtually shrugged at it. The US used it as an opportunity to threat Iran again.

Meanwhile, you said the US isn't blameless, but a moment ago you claimed the provocation was ALL on the part of Iran.

The US has shown that its rhetoric isn't just rhetoric. It would be ludicrous to suggest anyone should treat it as such.

We've threatened war. Many, many times. It's been discussed by every major candidate of both parties as part of their platform. Bush has stated many times that war with Iran is on the table. Are we unprepared? Yup. We were with Iraq as well but that didn't stop us. However, now you're asking that we deny everything EVERYONE who has any power is saying and simply say that since it's a bad idea they won't do it? Sorry, but given the history there, that's just naive.

We've threatened that all options are on the table. That means exactly that. If we wanted to go in, we would have done so by now due to their interference in Iraq. That is good provocation there and what have we done? Warning Iran against it. Same with Syria. Does that mean we are threatening war with Syria to since we warned them about interfering in Iraq? No it doesn't. Hell, we're even helping Turkey with the Kurdish terrorists in Northern Iraq.

We would literally have to disengage from all operations in order to attack Iran. We are not prepared to attack Iran. I say again, NOT PREPARED TO ATTACK IRAN!!!!

There is no jumping to conclusions. Bush has expressly stated that war with Iran is on the table. Many, many times.

As an option. Nothing more. Again, "All options are on the table". That's it. Its standard MO.

One would think, but then the President of the US started another war while the first one wasn't finished and declared the second one over before it'd really begun. Logistics certainly should be a driving force behind military action. Perhaps you should call Bush and let him know.

Maybe I should but I do not have his number and I am busy preparing for my first day as a grad student as well as getting ready to go officiate a basketball game.

Meanwhile, you've changed your argument. You didn't mean there hasn't been the buildup that would signal a war. You meant that we're incapable of war with Iran and thus won't do it. One wonders what your argument will change to when you start getting defeated on this point. Perhaps we'll hear all about how your opponents just understand the "stuff" that would happen.

Or perhaps if you had an once of sense, you would look at the overall picture and not just what is being stated in the press.

Am I saying the Americans are Blameless? no
Am I saying the Americans were the cause of that incident in the gulf? no

And therein lies your problem. You are somehow trying to seperate "the ships in the gulf" with "the american military" or "the american government".

The american government has been making threats and aggressive posturing towards the Iranian government. It has used the threat of force against the Iranian government.

Such force, were it to be carried out, would be carried out by the US military. Those ships in the Strait (by the way, this happened in the Strait of Hormuz, not the Persian Gulf. The Strait connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman) were part of the US military. As such, those ships are the instrument of US power, and are part of the mechanism that the government would use to carry out its threat.

And they're sitting in Iran's backyard. Did the people on the ship do anything to provoke this? No, not particularly. But the ships are a part of an agency that has been used to threaten Iran, and they were in Iran's backyard, thus their very presence was provocative. To suggest that the presence of the ships in the strait were somehow seperable from the rhetoric by the government is...misguided.

If we wanted to go in, we would have done so by now due to their interference in Iraq.
Erm, no?

They actually have more of a right to "interfere" in Iraq than the Americans or British do.

Does that mean we are threatening war with Syria to since we warned them about interfering in Iraq?

Erm, again. They've more of a right to "interfere" in Iraq than the Americans or British.

Erm, no?

They actually have more of a right to "interfere" in Iraq than the Americans or British do.

Erm, again. They've more of a right to "interfere" in Iraq than the Americans or British.
I think that any and all states have an equal right to interfere. I don't see why the Yanks or British should get any more or less right to mess about with it than the Syrians or Persians, that's for sure.

I think that any and all states have an equal right to interfere. I don't see why the Yanks or British should get any more or less right to mess about with it than the Syrians or Persians, that's for sure.

Well I was only saying they have 'more of a right' because both are bordered by an extremely volatile and unstable country, with the potential of that instability spreading into their own states.

So, "interference" could easily be justified as a matter of security. If it was in another part of the world, I don't think people would harangue them for that.

Well I was only saying they have 'more of a right' because both are bordered by an extremely volatile and unstable country, with the potential of that instability spreading into their own states.

So, "interference" could easily be justified as a matter of security. If it was in another part of the world, I don't think people would harangue them for that.
Right, and the British and Yanks can say "we've got client states in the area, so it's our business as much as yours".

Right, and the British and Yanks can say "we've got client states in the area, so it's our business as much as yours".


Grand, but I wouldn't decry the interference of the other actors like Corny is.

We've threatened that all options are on the table. That means exactly that. If we wanted to go in, we would have done so by now due to their interference in Iraq.

Pardon? So a minute ago, we weren't capable of attacking. Now we would have done it already. I predicted your argument would change. What's my prize?

That is good provocation there and what have we done? Warning Iran against it. Same with Syria. Does that mean we are threatening war with Syria to since we warned them about interfering in Iraq? No it doesn't. Hell, we're even helping Turkey with the Kurdish terrorists in Northern Iraq.

Nope. So far, the only country that we've actively threatened to invade is Iran. So far, the only country whose invasion is a major topic of our political elections is... yep, you guessed it. And the talk has escalated lately, because the consideration for action has escalated.

Again, same arguments. If we'd wanted to attack Iraq we would have done it the first time they fired at our planes while patrolling the neutral zone. If we'd wanted to attack Iraq would have just finished the job then. Somehow that didn't stop us from attacking them with made up reasons long after those reasons went away.

We would literally have to disengage from all operations in order to attack Iran. We are not prepared to attack Iran. I say again, NOT PREPARED TO ATTACK IRAN!!!!

Just as we weren't in Iraq. Yet we did it. Meanwhile, we would not have to disengage in all operations. Who do you think you're talking to? We have plenty of troops stationed in and around the reason as backups for the current hostilities. They are specifically there in the event of escalations. We've been talking about this war and been as prepared for it as we'll get under Bush as we're ever gonna be.

As an option. Nothing more. Again, "All options are on the table". That's it. Its standard MO.

And war, bombing, invasion, and nuclear weapons aren't under ALL in your world? So is it an option or not? You just said it's not an option. You said it was impossible and we were unprepared.

Maybe I should but I do not have his number and I am busy preparing for my first day as a grad student as well as getting ready to go officiate a basketball game.

Or perhaps if you had an once of sense, you would look at the overall picture and not just what is being stated in the press.

Yes, if only I had an ounce of sense, I would look at the overall picture and not ignore the facts. Clearly, anyone who ignores facts doesn't have an ounce of sense, right? Facts... like we invaded another country while already at war with a country ... like we didn't let a little thing like logistics slow us down in either of the first two wars ... like we were unprepared for the second war and still went in ... like we had a really poor reason and still invaded ... like we are now behaving similar to our actions before Iraq.

Next time you suggest that having an ounce of sense requires one to look at the overall picture, you'd probably do well to not be actively proving that you refuse to do so.

Grand, but I wouldn't decry the interference of the other actors like Corny is.

Oh, no, it's better than that though. It's not just provocation. It's the ultimate provocation. So if we didn't react to that, then we're NOT going to react. Because you know, the US has proven that if they are "provoked" once and don't attack then they're not likely to attack. It's not like the US ignored being shot at and then attacked Iraq due to non-existent WMD's.

Haven't the Europeans fucked enough shit up in the world?
Eh?

YEARS ago? No. Barely five years ago. With the same President in charge. You're just being obtuse if you can't see that. so what's the time limit then?

and yes, the Same President is in charge, but Different Congress and Senate.

You make it sound like your President is above making another such fuck up?

Really? if it happens then those that voted Democrat because "they are not Republicans" would then find out how wisely they used their votes.

same President, different Congress/senate, Different Political Atmosphere.

Haven't the Europeans fucked enough shit up in the world? The US is already heading in the same direction as them, and Americans need to stop this imperialistic attitude we have with our military.

And to the previous poster, Corny I think is what they are calling you, unless you're working at the Pentagon, you have no idea WHAT we have or where we are at in terms of readiness or preparation for an attack on yet another sovereign nation.

I mean, in the US news, we were being told that those speedboats could have done a USS Cole on the ship that we had in their waters. This reminds me of the Zimmerman Note. The tactics our government are using are disgusting and unbecoming of a democratic republic.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -- James Madison

so what's the time limit then?

and yes, the Same President is in charge, but Different Congress and Senate.

Which would matter if he needed their permission to invade. He doesn't.

Meanwhile, the time limit would be, oh, I don't know, how about until the administrations that led or supported the attacks left office. In this case, it's the same administration.


if it happens then those that voted Democrat because "they are not Republicans" would then find out how wisely they used their votes.

same President, different Congress/senate, Different Political Atmosphere.

Again, what part of "Commander in Chief" aren't you getting? He can attack without support from Congress. Congress could be 100% Democrat and it wouldn't change his power to attack.

You're really stretching here. How would the fact that he might not be able to get them to declare war change whether or not he can command an invasion? It doesn't. The Congress has nothing to do with whether we invade. They can only decide whether we declare.

I know that the US is not stupid enough to provoke an international incident. Besides that, we do not need to use speed boats for we have the world's largest ocean going navy.Yes I know I think you need to reread my post.

Then again, with a name like yours that comes as no surprise.Whats wrong with my name it is a fact left handed people are superior in all ways to to the inferior dexterity of right handers.

Yes I know I think you need to reread my post.

Whats wrong with my name it is a fact left handed people are superior in all ways to to the inferior dexterity of right handers.

And to those wishy-washy ambis. :D

and did you read the article? we went out and met them, exchanged smilies and parted. no threatening maneuvers, no 'threatening' messages on either side....
So let me get this straight Nuclear Bombers close to striking distance of US and NATO territories are not a threat but Iranian blue speed boats thousands of miles away from US territory and 20 miles away from Iranian shores are a big threat and cause for war could you please explain this to me?

Whats wrong with my name it is a fact left handed people are superior in all ways to to the inferior dexterity of right handers.
List of left-handed people :

Hitler
Stalin

List of right-handed people :

Jesus
Father Christmas


'Nuff said.

List of left-handed people :

Hitler
Stalin

List of right-handed people :

Jesus
Father Christmas


'Nuff said.Everyone knows Hitler and Stalin were right handed. I will not sit here and listen to your right handed propaganda. Every baby that has been killed in this world has been killed with a right hand.

List of left-handed people :

Hitler
Stalin

List of right-handed people :

Jesus
Father Christmas


'Nuff said.

And Billy Corgan is left handed too. :eek:

And Billy Corgan is left handed too. :eek:
Exactly, as opposed to the much better Paul Banks of Interpol, who's right-handed.

Everyone knows Hitler and Stalin were right handed. I will not sit here and listen to your right handed propaganda. Every baby that has been killed in this world has been killed with a right hand.

As evil is never conducted by anyone with an unusually large head, I'm very comfortable regardless of the outcome of your argument.