2!

4/15/2006 2:00:56 AM

4/15/2006 2:35:24 AM

Shouldn't have tried to pull that shit in Iraq.

4/15/2006 1:00:56 PM

is it me, or is iran just doing all this shit like day after day to get in the news and just act like they have a military that could compete with the us

it all seems like posturing to me

[Edited on April 15, 2006 at 3:14 PM. Reason : cause we'd kick there ass]

4/15/2006 3:14:24 PM

there will be no war till the next president.

[Edited on April 15, 2006 at 3:18 PM. Reason : MAYBE some bombs. MAYBE.]

4/15/2006 3:17:51 PM

did you know...
repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true?

i would like to have a reasonable conversation about why we wont invade iran while bush is president, but you seem unwilling to prove your point.

4/15/2006 3:21:45 PM

^^I see that side of it, but the other side is that President Bush could start it and take the backlash for it, and then McCain whoever his successor happens to be wouldn't have to take that heat...he could resolve it and get the credit.

4/15/2006 3:46:56 PM

Doubting Bush would start a war is like doubting Kobe would stomp your ass at basketball.

4/15/2006 5:39:44 PM

Doubting Bush would start a war is like doubting Kobe would stomp your ass at basketball.

4/15/2006 5:44:03 PM

or doubting that Tommy Lee would bone your sister.

4/15/2006 5:57:53 PM

the public would run bush out of office:


hypothetical WAR -- youd need a draft:
so,
1. state "the intellegence cant be trusted"
2. cry "you cant start a new war until you complete your old one"
3. claim "we will get a another iraq"
4. impeach

/president.


he wouldnt go to war even if he had to....but bombs....bombs are always a wonderful presidential options.

[Edited on April 15, 2006 at 6:02 PM. Reason : -]

4/15/2006 6:00:50 PM

Impeach for what?

Quote :

"he wouldnt do it, even if he had to."

and--this is to the President's credit--he does not give a fuck, as far as I can tell. I really think that if he had to, he would do it in a hot second, regardless of the political backlash. ESPECIALLY in his second term, already pretty much on lame-duck status.

[Edited on April 15, 2006 at 6:04 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/15/2006 6:02:32 PM

i dont fucking know, semen on a red dress. that wouldnt matter. he would be run out of office.

4/15/2006 6:03:24 PM

You really think he gives a damn about the repercussions of starting a war?

Have you been sleeping for the last 5 years?

---

Contact?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/14/ywt.01.html

Quote :

"CLANCY: Well, Colonel Gardiner, from what you're saying, it would seem like military men, then, might be cautioning, don't go ahead with this. But what are the signs that are out there right now? Is there any evidence of any movement in that direction? GARDINER: Sure. Actually, Jim, I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way. CLANCY: Why? GARDINER: And let me say this -- I'm saying this carefully. First of all, Sy Hersh said in that article which was... CLANCY: Yes, but that's one unnamed source. GARDINER: Let me check that. Not unnamed source as not being valid. The way "The New Yorker" does it, if somebody tells Sy Hersh something, somebody else in the magazine calls them and says, "Did you tell Sy Hersh that?" That's one point. The secretary point is, the Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, have been saying it for almost a year. I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. And I said, "Hey, I hear you're accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units." He said, quite frankly, "Yes, we know they are. We've captured some of the units, and they've confessed to working with the Americans." The evidence is mounting that that decision has already been made, and I don't know that the other part of that has been completed, that there has been any congressional approval to do this. My view of the plan is, there is this period in which some kinds of ground troops will operate inside Iran, and then what we're talking about is the second part, which is this air strike."

[Edited on April 15, 2006 at 6:20 PM. Reason : ...]

4/15/2006 6:13:07 PM

there will be no war, the president would be saying the same shit about iraq, he would be saying WMD and terrorists every 4 seconds....hes not

4/15/2006 6:30:39 PM

Doubting Bush would start a war is like doubting Kobe would stomp your ass at basketball.

4/15/2006 6:36:08 PM

i dont doubt his ability, i doubt his will

4/15/2006 6:49:27 PM

OK, homo. You've made your point. stop gaying the discussion with your nonsense.

Quote :

"6. Token attempts to gain international consensus"

http://www.newswire.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=312554&catid=16

Aren't they already under some sort of sanction?

[Edited on April 15, 2006 at 6:57 PM. Reason : dsf]

4/15/2006 6:56:18 PM

nonsenes is the idea that there will be war.

do you remember what it was like pre-iraq war? this isnt it.

4/15/2006 6:59:17 PM

Quote :

"the president would be saying the same shit about iraq, he would be saying WMD and terrorists every 4 seconds....hes not"

Quote :

"do you remember what it was like pre-iraq war? this isnt it."

because obviously he would go with the same gameplan the next time around, when his rationale for attacking Iraq clearly is now so well accepted.


I'm not saying that we're going to war with Iran. I'm just saying that the idea that attacks on Iran are an impossibility is unrealistic and unfounded.

4/15/2006 7:25:45 PM

I dont know what to expect from old George. With all the lies and conspiracies surrounding the White House you just dont know what he's gonna cook up next or whats already underway.

4/15/2006 8:02:43 PM

^^ its not impossible, it wont happen. nothing is impossible.

but you can bet your ass they would use the same WMD/terror gameplan....it worked fine pre-iraq, i dont know what country youre living in

4/15/2006 8:52:54 PM

What makes you think they'd use the same arguments that so obviously have lost their resonance with the people? The fact that they're true? That Iran has WMDs and clearly supports terrorist organizations?

This is the danger that comes from repeating that Bush and Co. are stupid over and over again: you begin to believe it.

The reason Bush hasn't had to sell this war is that Iran is doing it for them. If you've checked out a newspaper or two over the past week or two, you'd have noticed that. Iran has all but double-dog-dared us to attack them.

This situation is going to come to a head without much rhetoric from the Bush administration needed.

[Edited on April 16, 2006 at 1:34 AM. Reason : ...]

4/16/2006 1:33:21 AM

Quote :

"What makes you think they'd use the same arguments that so obviously have lost their resonance with the people? "

their arguments worked. we invaded iraq.

Quote :

"Iran has all but double-dog-dared us to attack them."

they do this all the time. this is barely new.

Quote :

"This situation is going to come to a head without much rhetoric from the Bush administration needed. "

it will fizzle out of your attention over the next few weeks. we can only find their enrichment sites with ground troops, youd need a draft to get that many troops, and like i said, you cant start a war with %35 approval ratings.


have you ever heard of n. korea? every now and then the same shit happens. people just go on, blah blah blah.

maybe the irony is that iran truly does need to be taken out, doesnt matter....there will be no more preemtive wars. they would HAVE TO attack us, but they know that would mean they would be destroyed. so, there will be no war.

the congress would have to approve the war, and the democrats wouldnt sign on to shit unless we got attacked. i am 100 percent sure of that. no war. sorry.

[Edited on April 16, 2006 at 1:48 AM. Reason : 432defw]

4/16/2006 1:43:37 AM

Quote :

"Josh8315: their arguments worked. we invaded iraq."

In a different time, and essentially a different place.

You might as well be trying to tell me that they'd do the macarena to get us to go to war in Iran.

Quote :

"Josh8315: they do this all the time. this is barely new."

Did they always have nuclear fuel to develop nuclear weapons with?

Were they always making such public displays of their weapons capabilities?

Quote :

"Josh8315: it will fizzle out of your attention over the next few weeks. we can only find their enrichment sites with ground troops, youd need a draft to get that many troops, and like i said, you cant start a war with %35 approval ratings."

And just what is it that convinces you that (1) it will fizzle out of my attention over the next few weeks, (2) that we can only find their enrichment sites with ground troops, (3) that we'd need a draft to get enough troops, and (4) that Bush wouldn't start a war with 35% approval ratings?

I ask because:

1) I have quite a long attention span.

2) I'd swear that our reconnaissance capability over the area could do a good deal towards locating those sites, not to mention satellite imagery and foreign intelligence services with countries that are more friendly with Iran than us.

3) While it seems to be the consensus, even among the military, that we're stretched thin, I've seen nothing to convince me that a draft would be necessary for an invasion of Iran. You can't simply assert that it's necessary without some cause for saying so.

4) Bush has been pretty unequivocal about two things: he's a war president, and he doesn't give two shits about approval ratings. The man considers Iraq a positive legacy for fuck's sake. What degree of clusterfuck do you think Iran will turn out to be that would necessitate him saying "No, I don't want to go down in history as the guy that started that war?"

Quote :

"Josh8315: have you ever heard of n. korea? every now and then the same shit happens. people just go on, blah blah blah."

I think there are some not-so-subtle contingencies in this scenario you're not recognizing. The cycle goes like this:

1. Kim Jong-Il says: "Death to America! Attack us and we will nuke you into oblivion!"
2. The U.S. calls China and says: "Check your boy."
3. China calls Kim Jong-Il and says: "Hey, back the fuck off. The U.S. is fuckin' crazy, man."
4. Radio silence from North Korea for a few months.

Rinse, repeat.

The two situations are incomparable. There's no mediating force with Iran. Mind, there's also no comparable looming force that would threaten to interfere with our invasion of Iran. China is an 800 lbs. gorilla in the room when it comes to our foreign policy with North Korea. There is nothing like that in regards to our dealings with Iran.

Quote :

"[user]Josh3815[/user]: maybe the irony is that iran truly does need to be taken out, doesnt matter....there will be no more preemtive wars. they would HAVE TO attack us, but they know that would mean they would be destroyed. so, there will be no war."

We attacked Iraq pre-emptively over the off chance that we could see a mushroom cloud by their hand.

Here's Iran, bold-faced declaring that they have the capability to create mushroom clouds, with obvious links to and support of groups that would like to see one of them in the United States, calling for the imminent destruction of our strongest ally in the region, and daring the United States to attack. And you think Bush wouldn't possibly attack them unless they attacked us first.

"Have you been sleeping for the last 5 years?"

Quote :

"Josh8315: the congress would have to approve the war, and the democrats wouldnt sign on to shit unless we got attacked. i am 100 percent sure of that. no war. sorry."

Oh?

So, the political ads challenging the patriotism of those who voted against engaging a nation that sought and constituted a nuclear program, openly challenged us and our allies, and is obviously funding and in league with terrorist organizations, are all of a sudden not going to be effective enough to sway enough votes to make it happen?

4/16/2006 2:22:00 AM

^i agree more or less all the way around, except a little disagreement over:

Quote :

"We attacked Iraq pre-emptively over the off chance that we could see a mushroom cloud by their hand."

I'm really not sure quite how that deal got started. I'm convinced that it wasn't oil. I'm now--after the Bush/Blair memo being outed--not totally convinced that it was all even about security, although however much of a role that played, I'm not convinced that the threat was viewed as "an off chance". How much was because we wanted a democratic Arab stronghold in the region? I hope GWB writes a book in 20 years.

Quote :

"1. Kim Jong-Il says: "Death to America! Attack us and we will nuke you into oblivion!" 2. The U.S. calls China and says: "Check your boy." 3. China calls Kim Jong-Il and says: "Hey, back the fuck off. The U.S. is fuckin' crazy, man." 4. Radio silence from North Korea for a few months."

i laughed at that.



and my only other point of contention is that, while I'm admittedly not an expert in the politics involving the US/NK/China, I'm not convinced that China would lift a finger to stop us if we were to decide to wax NK. They have their own beef with NK, and they have too much invested in American ties (we owe them a whole helluva lot of money, and we buy a whole helluva lot of their stuff, for starters. One time when our deficit--and trade deficit--does kinda have a certain utility!). Plus, while China is an 800 lb gorilla, we're like an 8,000 lb gorilla. Our economy is what, 6-7x the size of theirs, and our military capability is absolutely freakish.

i don't see us fighting NK, though. Getting our forces nuked--or Tokyo nuked--would really suck. For that matter, a conventional war with NK would be a motherfucker. We'd win, but it would suck. Plus, like you said...China has, so far, done a good job of keeping unruly kid brother NK from REALLY letting his mouth write checks that his ass can't cash.

4/16/2006 2:38:50 AM

Quote :

"I hope GWB writes a book in 20 years."

I hope GWB manages to read a book in 20 years (other than the Bible).


Which reminds me, you cannot discount how much GWB is driven by religion. He could go to a church sermon one week, convince himself that God is telling him to invade Iran for the good of the world, and it'd be set in motion come Monday.

I wouldn't be surprised if it went down similarly with regards to Iraq. Stupidity + power + religion + entitlement complex = crappy decision making


^ Unless they realistically threaten America proper, the standard of victory will not be military dominance. It's all about how much we have to invest and how much we lose. Frankly, all they have to do is what they did in the first war -- hold out until the uninterested civilian population gets fed up with a pointless war.

[Edited on April 16, 2006 at 3:21 AM. Reason : sdfsdf]

4/16/2006 3:18:06 AM

Quote :

"theDuke866: How much was because we wanted a democratic Arab stronghold in the region?"

And how much of it was because Saddam tried to assassinate Bush's dad?

And how much of it was the wandering foreign policy of a lone superpower?

And how much of it was political opportunism urged by PNAC and friends in the wake of 9/11?

And so on.

There are a million of these types of questions. Most of which, I think, point to parts of the answer, but none of which represent the whole story.

The off-chance comment was based on the best intelligence we had available. When the best we have is speculation that there may possibly be something that seems like WMDs, I'd say we're operating on an off chance.

Quote :

"theDuke866: I'm not convinced that China would lift a finger to stop us if we were to decide to wax NK."

I don't know. Being in such close proximity to NK, politically and geographically, puts them in a tight spot in that case. They're not interested in receiving any nuclear presents from Kim Jong-Il, either. They'd be walking quite a tightrope.

Quote :

"theDuke866: Plus, while China is an 800 lb gorilla, we're like an 8,000 lb gorilla. Our economy is what, 6-7x the size of theirs, and our military capability is absolutely freakish."

Nobody's arguing that China could or would want to take us. Down boy. You'll get plenty of time to chant "USA #1 USA #1" when it's time to campaign. For now, it's unnecessary.

The comparison was made to demonstrate the difference between the situation between NK and Iran. Nothing more.

---

Quote :

"skokiaan: Stupidity + power + religion + entitlement complex = crappy decision making"

I lolled.

Quote :

"skokiaan: Frankly, all they have to do is what they did in the first war -- hold out until the uninterested civilian population gets fed up with a pointless war."

First war?

[Edited on April 16, 2006 at 4:28 AM. Reason : ...]

4/16/2006 4:28:40 AM

^The korean war? We kicked their asses, but they won.

4/16/2006 4:30:29 AM

Sorry, I don't recall a Korean war.

4/16/2006 4:34:45 AM

Quote :

" Were they always making such public displays of their weapons capabilities? "

actually, yes.

Quote :

" Did they always have nuclear fuel to develop nuclear weapons with? "

Im actually writing a paper about this right now. Their Natanz uranium enrichment facility currently does not have enough centrifuges to enrich uranium to the 90% U-235 that is needed for weapons-grade uranium in a reasonable amount of time, while they are planning to build more, at the current time no; the uranium they just enriched was about 3.5% U-235, a far cry from 90%. The HEU that the IAEA detected at that facility was CONFIRMED by an international board of scientists to be contamination leftover from pakistan, which is where they bought most of the parts. The other worry is the Arak heavy-water reactor, which can be used to make plutonium without enrichment facilities. Unfortunatley there is nowhere near as much info on this operation, everyone seems to be focused on Natanz for some reason.

Quote :

" 1. Kim Jong-Il says: "Death to America! Attack us and we will nuke you into oblivion!" 2. The U.S. calls China and says: "Check your boy." 3. China calls Kim Jong-Il and says: "Hey, back the fuck off. The U.S. is fuckin' crazy, man." 4. Radio silence from North Korea for a few months. "

lol

Quote :

" I'm really not sure quite how that deal got started. I'm convinced that it wasn't oil. I'm now--after the Bush/Blair memo being outed--not totally convinced that it was all even about security, although however much of a role that played, I'm not convinced that the threat was viewed as "an off chance". How much was because we wanted a democratic Arab stronghold in the region? I hope GWB writes a book in 20 years. "

well ,if it was about oil, it damn sure wasnt in the interest of the ordinary citizens, and how much we pay seeing as how we are getting boned up the ass by the oil companies right now. It could have been Bush trying to secure oil for his big business cronies, but thats a conspiracy theory for another time. It was not about security, 9/11, terrorism any of that shit, and they knew there were no WMD before war, all that was a sham. Even after this whole deal Im not sure Iraq will be a democratic stronghold in the arab reigon, and if thats what we wanted I dont think Iraq was the way to achieve it. It still boggles my mind what we went in for. And does bush know how to write?

Quote :

" i don't see us fighting NK, though. Getting our forces nuked--or Tokyo nuked--would really suck. "

no more playstation

4/16/2006 1:59:51 PM

Quote :

"ben94gt: actually, yes."

Aside from their war with Iraq, when?

Quote :

"ben94gt: Im actually writing a paper about this right now. Their Natanz uranium enrichment facility currently does not have enough centrifuges to enrich uranium to the 90% U-235 that is needed for weapons-grade uranium in a reasonable amount of time, while they are planning to build more, at the current time no; the uranium they just enriched was about 3.5% U-235, a far cry from 90%. The HEU that the IAEA detected at that facility was CONFIRMED by an international board of scientists to be contamination leftover from pakistan, which is where they bought most of the parts. The other worry is the Arak heavy-water reactor, which can be used to make plutonium without enrichment facilities. Unfortunatley there is nowhere near as much info on this operation, everyone seems to be focused on Natanz for some reason."

How cute.

You think facts matter.

The parallels between your post and what was being reported in Iraq up to and just before we invaded are striking.

[Edited on April 16, 2006 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ...]

4/16/2006 2:17:44 PM

^clearly, the administration has intelligence that he doesn't have access to

4/16/2006 2:20:07 PM

Quote :

" The parallels between your post and what was being reported in Iraq up to and just before we invaded are striking. "

what the hell are you talking about, there was nothing about Iraq already having enriched uranium, no proof, just bs claims. Im not trying to argue we should invade iran, quite the opposite chief. So what is your deal, do you just like to argue against anyone who posts?

4/16/2006 2:34:50 PM

^^and im sure they know its false and im sure we will get the scary part anyway.

[Edited on April 16, 2006 at 2:36 PM. Reason : jhg]

4/16/2006 2:36:00 PM

Quote :

"ben94gt: what the hell are you talking about, there was nothing about Iraq already having enriched uranium, no proof, just bs claims."

That's my point, chief. UN MOVIC and the IAEA disagreed with our assessment of their capabilities. We didn't care.

The parallels are striking.

Quote :

"ben94gt: Im not trying to argue we should invade iran, quite the opposite chief."

Out of curiosity, why not?

Quote :

"ben94gt: So what is your deal, do you just like to argue against anyone who posts?"

Sometimes.

4/16/2006 2:40:28 PM

gamecat hates america.
everyone knows that.

4/16/2006 2:46:06 PM

there is no war. i see no invasion.

4/16/2006 3:01:34 PM

Quote :

" Sometimes. "

ok, well that makes me feel better then.

4/16/2006 3:05:13 PM

^^ I didn't see an invasion of Iraq happening in January of 2003, didn't prevent it from happening in March.

^ Good. So...

About Iran's open displays of military capability...

Quote :

"Gamecat: Aside from their war with Iraq, when?"

And about you not arguing we should invade Iran (quite the opposite):

Quote :

"Gamecat: Out of curiosity, why not?"

4/16/2006 3:42:10 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/world/16cndiran.html?hp&ex=1145246400&en=36322bad4aa0049e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

4/16/2006 10:03:12 PM

^
That looks like

Quote :

"4. Inappropriately conflating Iran with things that actually threaten the US 5. Acting like the American people give a fuck about Israel"

4/16/2006 10:16:53 PM

does that take us to needing only 7 8 and 9?
i am too lazy to count

4/16/2006 10:22:48 PM

looks that way. we still need them to ignore what these inspectors are going to say and do more token UN diplomacy.

4/16/2006 10:37:47 PM

that article also makes it look like their uranium is almost enough/sufficient enough to produce a bomb.

I really dont care for Israel, as previously stated by Lowjack. I really dont see why our government is so pro-Israel.

4/16/2006 11:24:31 PM

why are we so pro israel
why are we so pro saudi

us foreign "policy" makes little sense in any big picture post cold war.

4/17/2006 12:11:18 AM

Quote :

"^^ I didn't see an invasion of Iraq happening in January of 2003,"

i did. there were troops fucking mobilizing 6 months before the war.

i often heard wives mentioning things about their husbands being sent off, months before iraq started/

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 12:43 AM. Reason : .]

4/17/2006 12:15:49 AM

^^ the zionist conspiracy!1

4/20/2006 1:29:19 AM

^^ That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that I didn't seen an invasion taking place in January 2003, but that didn't mean it wouldn't have happened later. You said, "[you] see no invasion." I was saying that you didn't have to see an invasion taking place in order for it to happen in the future.

But since you want to go that route, I'd say we've already mobilized quite a force (not enough) in close enough proximity to begin to tangle with Iran anytime we want to. They're right next door.

^^^ I'm actually curious to see if TGD or any of t3h R1ght will explain the whole Israel thing. I have my own hypothesis that it has to do with two things: (1) guilt over taking so long to get involved in WWII, and (2) strategic interest in a volatile area of the world.

I'm wondering if the right's view of our pro-Israeli agenda is any different.

4/20/2006 12:35:22 PM

Quote :

"I'd say we've already mobilized quite a force (not enough) in close enough proximity "

1/20th of what is needed

4/20/2006 12:44:19 PM