Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
U.S. Preparing Military Options Against Iran
washingtonpost.com — The nation's top military officer said today that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.
marabout40- 1372 diggs
- digg it
- duggtodeath, on 04/26/2008, -31/+394Here we ***** go. Another war that will waste time, money, effort and lives. ***** the neocons.
- Adamande, on 04/26/2008, -12/+148I don't see how your economy can take another war without collapsing completely. Attacking Iran, would in my opinion also include destroying the US.
- caferrell, on 04/26/2008, -7/+82Good point, could you please send a memo to that effect to:
Occupant
1600 Pennsylannia Ave.
Washington, DC 20500- XanderDee, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1that will not work You must take power and make it stop. There is no other way. Remember Dick said "Yeah, So!"
- pintomp3, on 04/26/2008, -12/+56it's not about what's good or bad for our economy. it's about what's good for the military industrial complex, the contractors and mercenaries, and israel.
- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -5/+35You're forgetting the millions of willing Americans who hate Ay-rabs, to the point where they confuse them for Persians.
- pintomp3, on 04/26/2008, -3/+26they are just being duped into supporting it, they don't benefit from it.
- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -3/+23Well yeah, the people Republicans court the most receive the worst ***** from their policies.
- Zman0101, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7It's much worse than that. I've heard people refer to Indians as towelheads.. or terrorists
- jabberwolf, on 04/26/2008, -21/+8Yes you had to mention ISRAEL lol...
Because its the jews and zionists... for some reason.... you're not sure why.. but there are a few facts ( dont give me all the facts just the ones that support my hate) that show that this is the truth!!!- urgeigh, on 04/26/2008, -1/+24If you don't think Israel has anything to do with Iran then there's not enough time here to explain it to you. You could do a little research yourself but if you think AIPAC is just there to make sure people don't forget about the Holocause you're sadly mistaken.
- urgeigh, on 04/26/2008, -4/+1holocaust*
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1It's not as if Dick Cheney is a member of JINSA or anything... (sigh)
- blackjack75, on 04/26/2008, -2/+13It's actually not good for Israel. Seriously a war with Iran? Who do you think they are going to shoot with their low-range missiles? Not Ireland. Although they keep speaking in jest against each other Iran is reasonably not a threat to Israel nor its other neighbours. They would only be in a move of despair following an attack from a mighty giant county with a total lack of self control.
- urgeigh, on 04/26/2008, -4/+2Yes, it would be good for Israel if the alternative involves Iran NUKING Israel. Do you not see that? I'm not saying Israel shouldn't want to defend itself from Iran but is it really the United States' responsibility? I think not.
- zeabu, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Urgeigh: It 'll be the other way around. It gives Isra'el the oportunity to nuke Iran, which they've already said they would do if things lead to a war. Iran is the only regional power next to Isra'el. The other competitor was Iraq.
- 4d669, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1OUTER HEAVEN!
- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -5/+35You're forgetting the millions of willing Americans who hate Ay-rabs, to the point where they confuse them for Persians.
- HelloNavi, on 04/26/2008, -4/+16You don't appear to be a u.s. citizen. I say so because of the "your" economy. And also because you're so calm. Meanwhile, I am an American citizen.
I am now worried about the potential realization of nuclear holocaust on a national, if not global level. I will be sucking my thumb under my desk for a few weeks if you need me.- urgeigh, on 04/26/2008, -7/+21And you are an idiot. Any military action forced on Iran by the United States is not because our people fear it. But because Zionists, AIPAC and the rest of the Jewish community does not want Iran to have nuclear capabilities because they fear the implications it may have on Israel. The lack of comments on this thread regarding Israel just goes to show how little the American people really know about the state of our foreign affairs. Israel and the Jewish lobby in Washington have EVERYTHING to do with what's going to happen between the U.S. and Iran in the near future. And anyone who speaks out against their opinions is automatically labeled an anti-Semite, regardless of their actual beliefs. Trust me, no one is worried about Iran actually nuking us, that's just what they have to tell John Q. Taxpayer in order to get support for yet another unconstitutional, fruitless military invasion of a sovereign country. And most of you are buying it. Look into Iran's energy crisis and you might see why this country wants nuclear power. And believe it or not, most Persians (Iranians) very much love the American people, they just don't trust our government, much the same as we don't trust their psychotic leaders or our own Government. It's really kind of Ironic if you ever can see the true full picture. Watch videos about AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby, read about it. Hell, write a letter to someone. And just so you know, calling people essentially un-American because they don't agree that we should be going gung-ho into Iran just shows your utter ignorance and misunderstanding of diplomacy and all the morals and ideas the U.S. was founded on. I say you're the one who doesn't appear to be a U.S. citizen. If you're really worried about a nuclear holocaust why aren't you asking why the U.S. government still harbors the most deadly arsenal of weaponry ever assembled in the history of the world. And why won't we ever dismantle ours?
- urgeigh, on 04/26/2008, -4/+11Go ahead, digg me down. Stick your head DEEP in the sand because you don't want to know the harsh reality, but it's true. Don't take my ***** word for it look it up some time. I love this country and I wish it weren't the case but it is. You people digging me down think I just make this ***** up off the top of my head? Get a CLUE. Israel, learn it, love it. It affects our country more than this Presidential Election, that's for DAMN sure.
- Siegfriedson, on 04/26/2008, -0/+12You nailed, dude. The Israelis have been wanting us to "neutralize" their enemy Iran the same way we did to Saddam's Iraq. Take a look here: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Iran_War_Has_Bee ...
- urgeigh, on 04/26/2008, -7/+21And you are an idiot. Any military action forced on Iran by the United States is not because our people fear it. But because Zionists, AIPAC and the rest of the Jewish community does not want Iran to have nuclear capabilities because they fear the implications it may have on Israel. The lack of comments on this thread regarding Israel just goes to show how little the American people really know about the state of our foreign affairs. Israel and the Jewish lobby in Washington have EVERYTHING to do with what's going to happen between the U.S. and Iran in the near future. And anyone who speaks out against their opinions is automatically labeled an anti-Semite, regardless of their actual beliefs. Trust me, no one is worried about Iran actually nuking us, that's just what they have to tell John Q. Taxpayer in order to get support for yet another unconstitutional, fruitless military invasion of a sovereign country. And most of you are buying it. Look into Iran's energy crisis and you might see why this country wants nuclear power. And believe it or not, most Persians (Iranians) very much love the American people, they just don't trust our government, much the same as we don't trust their psychotic leaders or our own Government. It's really kind of Ironic if you ever can see the true full picture. Watch videos about AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby, read about it. Hell, write a letter to someone. And just so you know, calling people essentially un-American because they don't agree that we should be going gung-ho into Iran just shows your utter ignorance and misunderstanding of diplomacy and all the morals and ideas the U.S. was founded on. I say you're the one who doesn't appear to be a U.S. citizen. If you're really worried about a nuclear holocaust why aren't you asking why the U.S. government still harbors the most deadly arsenal of weaponry ever assembled in the history of the world. And why won't we ever dismantle ours?
- lithera, on 04/26/2008, -0/+13In related new, price for a barrel of oil has past $118 dollars. Now there is a "reason" for ya
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -0/+17in related related news, Exonn Mobil posts largest profit of any company EVER, ANYWHERE.
this is liquidation of assets... they know oil has had it's day and they are scrambling to liquidate as much as they can as quickly as they can...
makes me sick - nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2the war is to keep the oil taps OFF, not on
- rficwizard, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1@bitcloud: What rate of profit did they post? Or don't you realize that it matters? What is their ranking as a percentage of GDP, as compared to historical firms? Or don't you realize that that is also relevant? Superlatives are meaningless if the metrics they compare are meaningless.
- bitcloud, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1you don't think times should be tough for a corporation who now has to pay a fortune for the oil it sells?
we're led to believe that they are simply passing the cost onto the consumers.
They aren't.
They're fleecing us. If you need a deep statistical analysis of a company who flourishes (at unsurpassed levels) in the very industry which claims to be struggling then you've got your head in the sand...
- bitcloud, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1you don't think times should be tough for a corporation who now has to pay a fortune for the oil it sells?
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -0/+17in related related news, Exonn Mobil posts largest profit of any company EVER, ANYWHERE.
- jabberwolf, on 04/26/2008, -39/+2The same thing was said about attacking Germany and Japan.
And how many did we allow to die before we actually did something?
You see, peace activists are seriously the devils themself (cowards that think they need to voice something to make themselves feel better for doing nothing in life), as inaction is responsible for the most deaths.- sandbags, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1as opposed to guns and war?
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -1/+18you're a terrible person... honestly, you're a monsterous person. You're voicing really poorly conceived opinions which demonstrate an almost inhumane level of compassion, understanding and intelligence...
good luck with that. - drowningfish, on 04/26/2008, -0/+15The problem with your logic Jabber is that this time the United States is the aggressor not a force of defense. We have killed tens of thousands since going into Iraq. So how many more people are going to die from our neocon-induced menstrual cycles?
In a world where mass death can occur by a flip of switch - war should never come easy. The very putrid smell of modern warfare on a global scale should be enough to keep zealots at bay. But unfortunately; in today's world, the zealots like you are in control right now. People like you hold humanity hostage for the benefit of an almighty dollar arrogantly sucking on oil's ***** so you can continue a lifestyle of over exuberance at the expense of others. People like you hold the world hostage in the name of a bastardized religion; expelling innocent lives on a daily basis in the name of prophet.
***** you. - nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3keep banging the war drums as our country's infrastructure and middle class continue to go down the toilet...have you ever heard the idea that empires fall due to over-expansion and rot from within? Do you really think the US is immune?
- compulsive1, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3"And how many did we allow to die before we actually did something?"
Why is it our turn again to protect the innocent lives in other countries? Why can't Brazil, Sweden or maybe China take the initiative and intervene? Why can't concerned citizens like yourself from all over the world set up a fund and hire Blackwater or other mercenaries to kick the bad guys' asses and protect civilians? I don't want to go deeper in debt to pay for war I don't agree with.
You think it's justifiable- go ahead sponsor a soldier from your own account. - zeabu, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Jabberwolf: You're soooo wrong. Germany declared war on the US, Japan declared war on the US.
On the side of the allies: the Elite in GB wanted an agreement with Nazi-Germany, the US was not concerned about Nazi-Germany, they did even send ships back to Europe. Ships full of jews. At a time there were already rumours of these concentration camps (when discrimination was already going on for so many years). And the third real power Russia, they moved in because they thought they could divide the world between them and Germany, but were betrayed by the latter.
When the allies were winning, the US&UK were already fighting against Russian troops for Greece, Bulgary, Rumania, and the Balkan. They've only been abled to save Greece from falling behind the Iron Curtain. Yugoslavia did not become fully a Soviet satelite state, but still.
***** man, learn some history.
- 4d669, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2I'd rather have them give money to Saddam to attack Iran again like they did during Iran Contra. Oh wait, the new guy is Mussharaff. Guess everything's cool then.
- fuhlavaflave, on 04/26/2008, -6/+1We have bombs and missiles to do our dirty work on this one. This is going to be similar to Israel's recent action in Syria: reactor there one day, POOF, gone tomorrow. Those $600,000 Tomahawk missiles are gathering dust anyway.
- digitalhair, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3wow. I say we strap you to the front of one of those tomahawks so you can armchair-quarterback the intel back to us from Hell. call it a recon mission.
- caferrell, on 04/26/2008, -7/+82Good point, could you please send a memo to that effect to:
- santaliqueur, on 04/26/2008, -38/+14Remember who was in favor for the war before we started it? JUST the Republicans? Nope, the Democrats too. Your side is also guilty.
- Dumbledorito, on 04/26/2008, -4/+20Your side is guilty of cherry-picking intel, listening to Chalabi and "curveball," and not disclosing the craptastic sources they were trusting about Iraq.
And who's all for this little adventure? Which party is that again?
Do us all a favor and stop your own Dear Leader before he COMPLETELY flushes this country down the toilet.- santaliqueur, on 04/26/2008, -7/+15I'm on neither side. They are all lying to us.
- relic180, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3@santaliqueur
If you're not on a side, why would you waste time deciding which side to blame? First, the Republicans and Democrats were both in favor of the war (you're correct on that) but it's because they're just one party with two names. It's fairly straight forward. But secondly, more than half of the populace that's in favor of the current war (and there's only roughly 35% total support) are only in favor of it because we're ALREADY there and they want us to finish the job. The other half are retards who just like to see things explode. The difference with this new Iranian conflict is that we're NOT already there, therefore we're not already stuck there. Further more, Iran is a stable region that doesn't need us to invade and secure the area for the safety of the innocent populace.
So we can assume that roughly 15-18% of Americans would support an invasion of Iran. And in fact, here's the proof that I'm right.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102592/Americans-Want-R ...
Bare in mind, it's a few months old, but if anything the number would continue to go down.
So... now that that's cleared up, why does it matter at all which political figures supported the war?
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -2/+8"your side"?
partisan hack. - nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3Pelosi is worse since she promised and then did nothing.
At least with the repub pigs we knew where they stood
- Dumbledorito, on 04/26/2008, -4/+20Your side is guilty of cherry-picking intel, listening to Chalabi and "curveball," and not disclosing the craptastic sources they were trusting about Iraq.
- kolinkoolface2, on 04/26/2008, -5/+28it's not just neocons mate, hilary warned of tking nuclear action against iran and even obama said he supports action against pakistan
- pintomp3, on 04/26/2008, -2/+12true, there are war mongers on both sides of the isle. some are more so than others though. there was only one republican who voted against the iraq war. there were quite a few democrats, but not nearly enough.
- mrsteveman1, on 04/26/2008, -2/+23Obama said he would support striking terrorist camps in Pakistan given good intelligence, he said nothing about invading an entire country.
- 4d669, on 04/26/2008, -8/+1You might want to re-watch every single debate. He always says that he will pull the troops from Iraq and move the to Afghanistan.
- mrsteveman1, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2We are already in Afghanistan, no invasion required
- FairDinkumMate, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7@ 4d669
And that relates to his statement on Pakistan how exactly?
You'd better vote McCain - he can't tell the difference between Sunni & Shia & you can't even tell the difference between 2 whole countries!- Sparticuz, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1what ever happened to saying *****?
- dralezero, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1We've already been bombing random places were the gov't thinks their might be "terrorists" aka anyone with a different view. So there might be maybe 10 terrorists living in a area but the rest is civilians lets bomb it anyways just in case. Depends on where you intellegence comes from. Cheney and other elites spread lies how does Obama expect to trust any intellegence.
- 4d669, on 04/26/2008, -8/+1You might want to re-watch every single debate. He always says that he will pull the troops from Iraq and move the to Afghanistan.
- MxM111, on 04/26/2008, -7/+21I do not think that the article is true. There must be plans already for attack of most of the countries, and they always should have been - it is military - they have to be ready for everything. Of cause, those plans are updated from time to time. But existence of this plans has nothing to do with actual going to war!
- mrsteveman1, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6They have strategic plans for all kinds of stuff, they had plans for attacking iraq before it was even being discussed by anyone, because thats what they do, maintain strategies for any possible situation.
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1including the possibility of a democratic win...
- 15charmaxwtf, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Perhaps this is one of the ways of locking a democratic president in Iraq.
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1including the possibility of a democratic win...
- tj111, on 04/26/2008, -1/+9There actually are, hell there are even strategies for and invasion of Canada.
- Tyr7BE, on 04/26/2008, -3/+13Go ahead and try! We whupped your ass back in 1812 and we'll do it again!
- Lazydriver, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4Eh? I thought it was a stalemate. And back then, just like now, we did it cause we thought ye Canucks wanted liberty.
You treacherous redcoat bastards!- compu73rg33k, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Yeah it was a stalemate, that's the point. We invaded and got nowhere. Canada didn't pursue us into our territory because they're not the war-happy ***** we are.
- worldchanger, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1it's the maple syrup, isn't it? you're just jealous of our vast maple syrup resources.
- mrsteveman1, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6They have strategic plans for all kinds of stuff, they had plans for attacking iraq before it was even being discussed by anyone, because thats what they do, maintain strategies for any possible situation.
- lex0nyc, on 04/26/2008, -3/+6Well, sure, but we wouldn't have to spend quite so much on gas anymore. Haven't you ever played Risk? When you control a whole continent you get extra armies at the beginning of each new turn.
- MrObjectional, on 04/26/2008, -6/+19We started planning possible operations last year, and we didn't do anything then either. This is not news.
IT'S THE MILITARY'S JOB TO DESIGN ANY POSSIBLE STRIKE PLANS.- f4st4word, on 04/26/2008, -4/+1Yes, which means an invasion of Iran is now possible, which IS EXACTLY WHY THIS IS NEWS.
- floorman56, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Wasn't this news last year ...and the year before that? remember the British guys who were captured by Iran ..wasn't THAT suppose to start the war?
- allan17, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Exactly. The US also has 'plans' for an invasion of Canada, but I doubt that I'll be seeing troops marching past my igloo any time soon.
Also, from the article:
"I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," - dha07030, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0WOW someone who understands the job of the military.
- nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2That may be so but to pull up one specific country, out of rotation of updating plans, and then zoom in on it doesn't say something? Do you know how much money is being made on our current wars and how much more could be made for contractors if we expanded the theater.
- nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2That may be so but to pull up one specific country, out of rotation of updating plans, and then zoom in on it doesn't say something? Do you know how much money is being made on our current wars and how much more could be made for contractors if we expanded the theater.
- Dumbledorito, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Then why were no plans ever drawn up for uprooting Al Qaeda from Pakistan?
Funny how that works, isn't it?- worldchanger, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1who says there aren't any? are you in all the high-level military planning sessions to have this intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the US military?
- dralezero, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1But they been saying they want to and that they have nuclear weapons or might have them! Yes they are long ways away but thats not what Bushey believes, he believes we should strike and prevent their weapons from being created.
- f4st4word, on 04/26/2008, -4/+1Yes, which means an invasion of Iran is now possible, which IS EXACTLY WHY THIS IS NEWS.
- jabberwolf, on 04/26/2008, -15/+5I hate to break it to the retarded conspiracy theorists.
WE HAVE CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR MOST COUNTRIES WE THINK ARE HOSTILE! This is nothing new.
It's just something drummed up by someone that thinks they stumbled on something that only THEY know and thinks that THEY are the first ones to find out.
Thus they are... RETARDED!
I think we have prepared and have had plans to attack IRAN since the 80's.... it just gets updated every year.- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6wasn't it the conspiracy theorists saying "THEY HAVE CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR MOST COUNTRIES" originally? (while the naive amongst us sat back denying it)
what do WE think if iran announces THEY have plans to invade the US? doesn't sound so good then?
I'll let you in on a little secret - that it's actually an international war crime to invade another country without provocation... maybe with all the hollering and yeehawing you forgot?
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6wasn't it the conspiracy theorists saying "THEY HAVE CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR MOST COUNTRIES" originally? (while the naive amongst us sat back denying it)
- legendxx, on 04/26/2008, -6/+14PLANNING - Hell we probably have people planning the invasion of Canada and Great Britain right now. What's so ***** upsetting about this? I'm glad we have people sitting in a room thinking this ***** up so if the time comes we are ready. The last thing this means is that we are for sure going to invade Iran. You dumbasses need to get off the hate-Bush bandwagon and think a little before you make comments like these.
It's hilarious how you people talk about no-spin all the time and you somehow spun this into another huge reason that the Bush administration has failed everyone.. not that the last 8 years have sucked ass.. but this isn't surprising at all. Get your heads out of your asses.- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Well shiat... he did list afghanistan, iraq and iran as the axis of evil...
It's kinda like assuming that just cause you're on charlie manson's hit list that it doesn't mean you're gonna get bumped... - rpgmaker, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1It's upsetting because we all know that the US government want to invade Iran and its just waiting for a little excuse to do it, a excuse that they will make up by the way.
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Well shiat... he did list afghanistan, iraq and iran as the axis of evil...
- averagejoesgym, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1This is just part of the equation, but did any of you notice that during the debates SPECIFIC questons were asked relating to loyalty to Israel? That is INSANE to me. The audacity of Israeli intests in the US. They have become so untouchable in the US that they barely even try to hide their selfish self-interests any more.
- slaizer, on 04/26/2008, -1/+11Except that unlike Iraq, this war would bring your economy to a total downfall.
Iran, unlike Iraq, has actually a rather massive, well-equipped foot soldier army (~a million fundamentally-minded soldiers) and can draft more in a short time. Iran also has one of the best anti-air systems in the world and a lot of MiG's , so unlike in Iraq, air superiority would actually be hard to win. Plus, Iran is mostly mountainy terrain, where American soldiers and tanks have a hard time maneuvering.
All in all... if you go there, and fight in 2 countries at the same time, YOU WILL LOSE. It's not a question of if, YOU WILL LOSE. Either by turning your massive government debt into a gigantic government debt, and watching your country crumble from under you, or losing the traditional way. There are no other outcomes. Last time you had global support, the axis of the willing with you, and you STILL COULDN'T WIN IT. This time nobody's backing you up (but you can be sure China and Russia will be backing Iran behind the scenes), you're going in alone. The opinion of the world will be against you.
Massively in debt, massively more to come.
Welcome to the beginning of the end of you as a nation.- Rustiga, on 04/26/2008, -11/+1You're an idiot.
- nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3keep maxing out that gold card, kid
- futureisours, on 04/26/2008, -6/+3I concur, you are an idiot. We could win against Iran in a few hours, massively devastating military targets and infrastructure from the air with B2s. We would not need to send any boots in. Besides Syria and North Korea, no one likes Iran, not even Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They would make announcements denouncing any such action, but behind the scenes they would be very happy indeed. No one wants Iran's spreading influence in such a volatile region. Hopefully, this will happen sooner than later.
- nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1LOL have you studied the Iran / Iraq war?
- worldchanger, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1you apparently have no comprehension of the type of military that Iran has. it would most definitely not be "over" in a few hours. Try a few years... if at all.
- slaizer, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1"We could win against Iran in a few hours, massively devastating military targets and infrastructure from the air with B2s."
You didn't read the part in which I said that "Iran has one of the most advanced anti-air systems IN THE WORLD", did you? It won't be a walkthrough this time. You'll be heading into a new Vietnam, and you're knee deep in debt to begin with.
- themizer, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1This is the same air defense system that Israel annihilated in one day back in the 80's. Not really all that intimidating. Also, MIG's are no match for FA18's and F22's, sorry to break it to ya. That's not to mention the fact that in most conflicts we bust apart the airfields prior to entry of other forces, so whatever MIG's were still operational would not really hold up in numbers. This isn't even factoring that America has some of the best Pilots in the world. We routinely hold war games with other Countries and it is no surprise that we usually win.
All that being said...I agree that we should not fight two wars at one time. But, who's to say it would even be a conventional war? Why not just cut the head off the snake?
I love it when people who know nothing of the military and military operations get into theorizing about how wars are won or lost. Ignorance at it's best.- nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Israel
- LOL like they did against syria? - worldchanger, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1actually, the Canadians usually win.
and it's not the same air defense system as twenty-five years ago. do some research.
- nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Israel
- rpgmaker, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4No it's not, that's why the government want to go to war. Wars are profitable. War-based economy, that's what the US has become, it's a shame but it is, without war the US economy goes downfalls.
- Rustiga, on 04/26/2008, -11/+1You're an idiot.
- Frosty122, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Let al qaeda fight them
- methos75, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0As anyone in the military can tell you, we are always training and devising strike planes for what ever country seems the most likely hostile force at the time, and this is no different. Infact we have been devising strike plans against Iran since the beggining of OIF, so this is really no news. Hell one could argue that us going to Afganistan and Iraq was the first stage of the strike plan against Iran, since they are pretty much surrounded by us now.
- mirunit, on 04/26/2008, -1/+295% sure it would be an air war, therefore minimum risk to American lives.
"I think we have prepared and have had plans to attack IRAN since the 80's.... it just gets updated every year."
Correct, it is better to be prepared. This goes for any military.
"All in all... if you go there, and fight in 2 countries at the same time, YOU WILL LOSE."
Israel... 6 Day war.... - senator32, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Everyone here is overreacting. It is the military's job to plan for all possible outcomes to protect our country. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," - it is clear that none of us want a war, but it is necessary to have a back-up plan in case one happens. I think most of you need to read the article and stop being so quick to wine. (I know with all the extremist liberals on this site...this comment will get dugged down...I just wish you'd consider this with an open mind).
- Adamande, on 04/26/2008, -12/+148I don't see how your economy can take another war without collapsing completely. Attacking Iran, would in my opinion also include destroying the US.
- AlwaysAwake, on 04/26/2008, -21/+96With his surrogate John Dubya2 McCain likely to fail at the polls, His Majesty, the not-lame-duck has his minions paving the way for his emergency seizure of the government for "national security" reasons/
- motivatedmama, on 04/26/2008, -4/+16Didn't "we" also fire on an Iranian vessel today? (again)
- CaptainAmerica1, on 04/26/2008, -14/+12So what? They got within 100 yards of a ship (in international waters) carrying supplies to our troops and were warned not to come any closer. Do you want another USS Cole incident?
- motivatedmama, on 04/26/2008, -4/+18Where did you come by this information I wonder?
- CaptainAmerica1, on 04/26/2008, -4/+2That's right, Mr. Tin Foil Hat...it's another conspiracy.
Some of you guys wouldn't believe anything unless you were there to see it. I bet you're one of those who think we never went to the moon, too. - CaptainAmerica1, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2By the way, will it also be a conspiracy when they fire on Iranian boats when Obama or Clinton is president? Or, will it be OK because a "trustworthy" Dem is in the White House? Or, maybe the Democrat Commander in Chief will order our soldiers not to fire unless fired on like Clinton did pior to the Cole incident. Maybe another US ship is destroyed and people killed.
THEN what will you say, Mr. Tin Foil Hat, that it was Bush's fault?
You guys make me sick. - compu73rg33k, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1epic fail
- CaptainAmerica1, on 04/26/2008, -4/+2That's right, Mr. Tin Foil Hat...it's another conspiracy.
- soulkitchen, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4You know, I believe you completely that the Navy only fired warning shots across the bow since the Iranians like to play cat and mouse in the straits of Hormuz. But people who use the term "tin foil hat" annoy me. I get the impression that most people who use it are incapable of believing anything sinister could happen until long after it does happen.
- motivatedmama, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1People who call me "Mr." annoy me. Doesn't my name tell you anything? I mean, how totally ghey would motivatedMAMA be for a guy? Sheesh!
- motivatedmama, on 04/26/2008, -4/+18Where did you come by this information I wonder?
- megaloid, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3From S.H.I.E.L.D.'s top-secret intelligence feed, obviously. Sheesh.
- CaptainAmerica1, on 04/26/2008, -14/+12So what? They got within 100 yards of a ship (in international waters) carrying supplies to our troops and were warned not to come any closer. Do you want another USS Cole incident?
- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -1/+12I really wish we could claim without question that he would fail. There are STILL a good many people who love Bush and fear change.
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2they love bush AND fear change?
he DID thrust a free nation into an orwellian nightmare...
he DID thrust a humanitarian nation into the depths of torture and depravity...
he DID thrust a flourishing economy into a ***** recession...
That's the cute thing about the "neo-conservatives" (doublespeak doesn't get any more literal or obvious)
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2they love bush AND fear change?
- DavidtheDuke, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5I do not trust the American public one bit in making the right decision.
- CaptainAmerica1, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1No matter what happens, a major group in the US is going to believe the one that elected the president is a collection of idiots.
- methos75, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2I know everyone thinks Mccain is going to lose, but with those two idiots Hilary and Obama making asses of themselves and making Demms look like idiots, its very likely that they are going to just hand the win to Mccain unless they drop the idiocy now.
- zspade, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Two idiots? Of the both of them, I only see one.
- methos75, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0Obama is an idiot for responding to her, she deserves no such respect.
- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1"Obama is an idiot for responding to her"
The media demands he respond to every item, no matter how irrelevant. After he responds, they demand he respond again. - netant, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1@methos75
Apparently, you were not paying attention to what happened in 2004 when Kerry did not respond to the swiftboat attacks, or when Dukakis tried to run "above" the slimeball political tactics.
Obama has to do something against specious Clinton attacks and prevent the damaging ones from getting OCD airplay from the media.
- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1"Obama is an idiot for responding to her"
- methos75, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0Obama is an idiot for responding to her, she deserves no such respect.
- CaptainAmerica1, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1I love watching liberals eat their own.
- zspade, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Two idiots? Of the both of them, I only see one.
- motivatedmama, on 04/26/2008, -4/+16Didn't "we" also fire on an Iranian vessel today? (again)
- Kizilbash, on 04/26/2008, -33/+14The US government and military know very well that Iran is on the side of the government in Iraq (and in fact controls that government).
- eclipse007, on 04/26/2008, -3/+13@motgoat
Dude, calm down! what Kizilbash meant was to counter the claim by Bush Admin. that Iran is destabilizing Iraq, and it really makes sense, Iran is quiet friendly with Shia government of Iraq and has no reason to undermine that government. US is of course making ***** up to start another war for the reasons you mentioned in your comment.
@ Kizilbash
I wouldn't go as far saying Iran controls the Iraqi government. They do have indirect influence, but not any direct control.- Manchowder, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6Iran has its fingers in every single pie it can get them in. Iran is betting on every horse because one horse will eventually win control Bhagdad. It is purely from a self interest in making sure another Saddam doesn't show up and invade Iran. The Iranians remember the Iran Iraq war much more vividly than we do.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7Accidentally dugg you down.
I agree. Iran doesn't want to see us put anther Saddam in power.
And that Shah we installed for them? Yeah, that did wonders.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7Accidentally dugg you down.
- Manchowder, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6Iran has its fingers in every single pie it can get them in. Iran is betting on every horse because one horse will eventually win control Bhagdad. It is purely from a self interest in making sure another Saddam doesn't show up and invade Iran. The Iranians remember the Iran Iraq war much more vividly than we do.
- eclipse007, on 04/26/2008, -3/+13@motgoat
- Stryder81, on 04/26/2008, -18/+165If this does go through, people need to stop digging and posting and reading and get the f- up and do something. This has gone too far, these sob's want a WW3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4- motivatedmama, on 04/26/2008, -1/+15Powerful, disturbing and the truth. A must see. Pitchfork anyone?
- DeskFlyer, on 04/26/2008, -1/+12Most people would love to dissent but getting sent to Gitmo for doing something legal is a strong deterrent.
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6men of generations that preceded us were prepared to die for the freedom's we've had the privilege to enjoy...
those who want liberty FAR outweigh those who want tyranny...
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6men of generations that preceded us were prepared to die for the freedom's we've had the privilege to enjoy...
- Stryder81, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4I posted up a buddies blog entry that some of you might find insightful ( more opinionated but factual as well )
http://digg.com/politics/You_stay_asleep_naive_to_ ... - HelloNavi, on 04/26/2008, -2/+12I don't mean to be hasty, but much of the world is already involved in our little pooch-screwingly-fail fiasco. If we poke the proverbial bear that is Iran with our militaristic stick a third global conflict is not only possible, but likely.
Once again, desk, sucking thumb.- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6get out from under the desk and IMPEACH THE ***** CRIMINAL CIVILIANS WHO SIT IN OFFICE NOW.
- ad33lshahid, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3you couldnt be more right, people need to all show up at washington simultaneously like they did back in the day.
- DalamarArgent, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1That was 2 years ago and still this threat looms, the second I hear that psychopath is going to "exercise military authority" or whatever his insanity is calling open war these days, I am booking my ass north and I aint stopping until I see frozen tundra. 100 miles north of a major US city right now and I feel too close for comfort.
- R1b4z01d, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Yes they do want WW3. A lot of money to be made, and hell they are the ones that are gonna die.
- notregistering, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1All we need is for Iran to strategically strike our television signals and interenet access in the first round. Everyone would wake up and the government would crumble.
- reaperer, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1and we are going to be seen as the only douche bags in the war
- Pritchard, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3If this goes through, I think it'd be time to burn down the White House.
- felman87, on 04/26/2008, -10/+42Here's what I don't understand. We're allies with the Maliki Govt, so is Iran. Hell, they like Iran more than they like us. Shouldn't we be working together to bring stability to the country?
- caferrell, on 04/26/2008, -9/+17Not if our goal is the deconstruction of any possible aversary to Israel
- pintomp3, on 04/26/2008, -2/+8AIPAC and the rest of the israel lobby wanted us to topple iran, iraq, and syria for them. it's no accident they are providing us with "evidence" of nuclear weapons in syria and iran.
- RetlawST, on 04/26/2008, -3/+11Yes, and we should have been doing that in the first place. If we had gone to Iran and asked for support in strengthening Iraq, they would have loved that because an unstable Iraq means more problems in Iran.
- pintomp3, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7iran helped us take down the taliban in afghanistan and helped form a government there. right after we started the iraq war, iran's first reformist president khatami offered to recognize israel and wanted to normalize relations with the US. we had plans to invade them right after iraq so we ignored them and declared them to be part of the "axis of evil". that pretty much led to ahmadinejad's election. our policies seem almost intentionally designed to make things worse. now they have an interest in keeping iraq just unstable enough to keep the US occupied, preventing us from invading them.
- sfacets, on 04/26/2008, -1/+10Stability = no material gain by the US.
- megaloid, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Correction: no material gain by a certain ruthless faction of the US elite.
- kreneskyp, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1its not about stability. its about stability with a government that will cater to US demands. its the same reason most countries wouldn't sign on to the "coalition of the willing". The Bush administration would not let reconstruction companies from other countries reap the benefits.
- caferrell, on 04/26/2008, -9/+17Not if our goal is the deconstruction of any possible aversary to Israel
- americangoy, on 04/26/2008, -14/+55Uh oh.
And this is washington post....
I really do NOT want to take this seriously, but I can see the AIPAC and pro Israel crowd in Congress making this idiot retard president take this desperate, idiotic step...- caferrell, on 04/26/2008, -4/+19Along those lines, why does everyone in the media automatically believe the story about the Syrian "nuclear reactor"?
The administration lied us into Iraq, can't they remember that far into the past?- 4d669, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6They lied about Iran's nuclear facilities a few months ago as well.
- ad33lshahid, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6every muslim country in the middle east is against israel's policies, and they have oil. thats all that matters, bush and his friends can get rich while israel gets its desire to be the only player in the region
- stoker1967, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8You are correct but the mere mention of it makes you antisemitic in Abe Foxmans eyes.
- Nordic86, on 04/26/2008, -2/+10Everyone needs to shake the fear of antisemitism off of themselves, being afraid to be critical of Israel is killing our country.
- pintomp3, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4their influence isn't limited to this president:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtm ... - blindhammer, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1[deleted post] hi.
- withincontext, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5"If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon..."
General David Petraeus is supposedly being rewarded for his counter-insurgency successes in Iraq, yet I think a lot of us are concerned that he is replacing Fallon in the US Central Command. - coresnake, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2What are you talking about, the Washington Post isn't a rhetoric machine for the Neocons! Not at all!
//sarcasm - justice7, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1i have the same problem with these knockoff news sites. This isn't news.
- caferrell, on 04/26/2008, -4/+19Along those lines, why does everyone in the media automatically believe the story about the Syrian "nuclear reactor"?
- Look4Truth, on 04/26/2008, -13/+70It's just a matter of time before the global lunatics kick off WW3.
- DeskFlyer, on 04/26/2008, -4/+5They already have.
- dha07030, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0I can see why you would WANT to believe that.
- abby11, on 04/26/2008, -44/+10UH YA THINK ARE PEOPLE REALLY THIS STUPID.ALSO,GUESS WHAT NEXT WILL BE A DRAFT,IF YOU VOTE FOR JOHN McBUSCH WMD!SO I HOPE ALL PARENTS ARE LISTENING WATCH WHO YA VOTE FOR!YOU MIGHT VOTE TO SEND YOUR OWN CHILD TO A WAR THAT MAKES NO SENSE!
- aadyss, on 04/26/2008, -16/+7ah the draft... I remember it well. Children drafted and made into real men, versus the metro males here. It's time for your waxing and eyebrow plucking.
- TrancePX, on 04/26/2008, -2/+14Yeah, because real men don't question authority and just kill people.
- pintomp3, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8call me a metro if you want, but i'll be a metro with two legs.
- ORBAT, on 04/26/2008, -2/+5But think of all the fun you could have in the Army! You could gang-rape civilians, go on a shooting rampage through densely populated areas, acquire a kickin' drug addiction and so on. Doesn't that sound like the BESTEST thing EVAR?
- bitcloud, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6Yeah real men do what they're told by dropout ***** cocaine addicts like that criminal civilian George Bush.
You'll never be a man until you learn to stand up against war and learn to love your fellow man.- aadyss, on 04/27/2008, -2/+1O.K tough guy.
- str1fe, on 04/26/2008, -2/+17I don't care how good your comment might have been, I saw all caps and buried on principle. If you want your point to get across, use some semblance of grammar. Thank you.
- santaliqueur, on 04/26/2008, -4/+5ZOMG GRAMER NAZZI!
I totally agree with you. All caps is just plain annoying.
- santaliqueur, on 04/26/2008, -4/+5ZOMG GRAMER NAZZI!
- CaptainAmerica1, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6Um, I think it was Democrat Charlie Rangel who actually wanted to reinstate the draft. Twice (2003 and 2006) he introduced legislation to mandate military service.
In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. In 2006, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42.
GO DEMS! ;-)- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3He also wasn't doing it to ramp up the military recruitment numbers. He was doing it so maybe, JUST MAYBE, lawmakers would stop and think "holy *****, my kid might die"
I say bring on the draft. Maybe it'll make people STOP AND THINK for a ***** second before throwing the troops everywhere.
It's easy to support going to war if your family doesn't have to sacrifice or risk anything. Right, Mitt?- ORBAT, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2So you think rich kids would serve in combat troops? Daddy wouldn't pull some strings to get them a cushy desk job?
- Firgof, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1But if they did, then we'd be all over them and we'd have the same end result.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3He also wasn't doing it to ramp up the military recruitment numbers. He was doing it so maybe, JUST MAYBE, lawmakers would stop and think "holy *****, my kid might die"
- heymsmurder, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2can i borrow some caps? you took mine
- aadyss, on 04/26/2008, -16/+7ah the draft... I remember it well. Children drafted and made into real men, versus the metro males here. It's time for your waxing and eyebrow plucking.
- aadyss, on 04/26/2008, -36/+8I think Obama will be the 'prez' when we attack Iran. This would prove that he is an empty suit, a novice and really not Jesus.
- motivatedmama, on 04/26/2008, -4/+16I beg to differ. (not about Obama not being Jesus) Hillary is the one who has recently dropped her "carrot and stick" routine and threatened to "Obliterate" Iran.
Obama is still on course with the other interested parties in continuing sanctions but I believe he would rather open a discourse. Something he is widely and irrationally criticized for. Talking beats the neo-cons and Hillary's insane ***** hands down.- aadyss, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Ah yes, sanctions. How to silently kill children by lack of medical resources and food, without condemnation from the world...... the Clintonian exercise in Iraq.
- Bodhinature, on 04/26/2008, -4/+4Obama was pretty clear in the beginning of the race that he was not going to take any military options off the table regarding Iran, including the nuclear option. Obama will likely follow the route every other President has followed.
- motivatedmama, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4He may not be willing to commit to relinquishing any of his options in the hypothetical, that would be foolish. But given his ability to take in large amounts of information, always being open to rational debate and communication with others, his insistence that he does not intend to surround himself with yes men, his ability to choose the best minds and form the best organization, etc. leads me to believe that he will garner all the pertinent information needed to make an assessment and will act appropriately. You assume the information he will be privy to upon winning the white house will be the same "information" Bush has been acting upon. I believe Obama already sees the Iran situation differently, without the benefit of the information the president now has. No, I do not believe that it will be politics as usual for this man.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -4/+4This coming from a typical right-winger.
And what would your "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" candidate do? Bring us peace?
I hope that picture in your profile is you, and you're not just another jack-off chicken-hawk.- aadyss, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Sorry, not me, for I am way too old...could still do it you know, but the Army thinks I'm too old. I was heavy involved in that huge 'peace loving, anti war' Democratic thingy in Vietnam. Didn't ask to go, you understand, but merely followed my President's orders when told to go.
- jabberwolf, on 04/26/2008, -8/+3I think Obama will more then likely jump into bed with IRAN... sell out IRAQ to them.
Sell out Israel and sell out the USA ultimately.
He has a hatred torwards the USA, as does his father, his mother, his preach, his wife.... seriously I wouldnt be saying this if he didnt have so many people close in his life that were the same way!- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6Yes you would.
You'd say whatever FOX news told you to think. - aadyss, on 04/27/2008, -1/+0Cool!
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6Yes you would.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Wow... you got more buries than an anti semetic comment.
- motivatedmama, on 04/26/2008, -4/+16I beg to differ. (not about Obama not being Jesus) Hillary is the one who has recently dropped her "carrot and stick" routine and threatened to "Obliterate" Iran.
- LoJack, on 04/26/2008, -17/+3Do Yank D. Bags know anything but war? Hahaha....
- Alix7, on 04/26/2008, -15/+58Thank You Israel
- blackjack75, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2In my view Israel is just another tool used to justify this war (it gets the vote from neo-christians or whatever they are called). I am personally more convinced the special interests are the biggest driving force. Remember that the U.S. gives 60 billions a year to Israel to basically be there and act as its spearhead in its conquest of the middle east. It's not the other way around.
- DestroyFascism, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Half of the government is Jewish m8....
- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -12/+4Thank you antisemit.
- nitemonkey, on 04/26/2008, -2/+8How is this antisemitic on any level? He is criticizing Israel...not Jewish people.
Falsely accusing someone of antisemitism is not only stupid, it serves to dilute true criticism when it is rightly deserved.
Does that make me antisemitic? :)- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Does that make you antisemitic? YES!
- nitemonkey, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0Hahah you've officially lost your mind.
- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Does that make you antisemitic? YES!
- hinchb, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3Inevitably someone always has to post a stupid comment like this when someone criticizes Israel. Get a ***** clue.
- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Pull your head out of your ass, and MAYBE you could actually figure out what is happening instead of always blaming Israel and the Jewish people for all the worlds problems, Hitler Youth.
- nitemonkey, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0Your playground name-calling only serves to completely discredit your point of view, and provide some laughs for the rest of us.
Please continue...
- nitemonkey, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0Your playground name-calling only serves to completely discredit your point of view, and provide some laughs for the rest of us.
- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Pull your head out of your ass, and MAYBE you could actually figure out what is happening instead of always blaming Israel and the Jewish people for all the worlds problems, Hitler Youth.
- nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2mzx639 you are an--- ohhh I want to call you a bad name.
Now I would not normally ever talk that way but I am getting sick and ***** tired of people not separating the religious-nut idea of _unbounded_ zionism from the religion of Judaism. Quit your stupid *****!- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Tell me more, please!
- nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1and also the Mehdi; "Guided One" !!
- tensvb, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1You antipersian!
- nitemonkey, on 04/26/2008, -2/+8How is this antisemitic on any level? He is criticizing Israel...not Jewish people.
- andy3109, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Thank god for Israel...they take care of the dirty work that the US can't over there. For god sake, they bombed a Syrian nuke production plant! They also give us strategic real estate for military action. Stop for for the sunk cost fallacy, because right now, they are a huge asset to us.
- blackjack75, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2In my view Israel is just another tool used to justify this war (it gets the vote from neo-christians or whatever they are called). I am personally more convinced the special interests are the biggest driving force. Remember that the U.S. gives 60 billions a year to Israel to basically be there and act as its spearhead in its conquest of the middle east. It's not the other way around.
- JoeLosFeliz, on 04/26/2008, -6/+41This disgusts me.
- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -4/+4You disgust me.
- Motivaaator, on 04/26/2008, -9/+28Luckily for us, the US is broke, our military is already overextended, and there's no way we could start another war without instituting a draft, which would lead to mass public opposition.
- KJGJ, on 04/26/2008, -2/+16Mass public opposition would be putting it lightly.
- blackjack75, on 04/26/2008, -2/+8I'd like to believe this. But I know it will only take one attack from any terrorist organisation against any US interest and you'll all be following like puppies, no matter who did it.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5And it's all been laid out right here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20 ...
All it will take is one "incident" to set the ball into motion.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5And it's all been laid out right here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20 ...
- blackjack75, on 04/26/2008, -2/+8I'd like to believe this. But I know it will only take one attack from any terrorist organisation against any US interest and you'll all be following like puppies, no matter who did it.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+14We couldn't do it with out nukes. Unfortuantely, many of the right-wing is screaming "NUKE THEM!" without realizing the repercussions of their actions.
But then Republicans never DID understand repercussions to their actions. It's just "ME! ME M!E! NOW! NOW! NOW!" and "What? Me sacrifice something? NO way!"
Shall we form a betting pool on when we hit the $12 TRILLION debt mark? If McCain is elected, I give it less than 18 months.
We can't afford medical care for our citizens, but yet paying $400 BILLION per year in interest on our debt is "just awesome!"- mikeas, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2It wouldn't matter if it were McCain, Obama, or Clinton. They are all douche bags.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3They can bomb them from the air isn't that all they need to do? Won't need a draft for that and they can still pay for it (perhaps that will be harder if the dollar collapsed.)
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5So, you've thought out the first wave of attacks.
What do we do then?
You really aren't stupid enough to think that a air-power alone will take out Iran. Or are you proposing a near-genocide?- Cobain27, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1*an air-power. sorry but I hate to see an a where there should be an an. but actually getting rid of the a altogether would be most grammatically correct. Oh and I hope the Iranian army and the Revolutionary guard puts up a valiant fight when we invade. Bush better hurry up though if he (his neocon puppet masters) want this war because his time is almost up.
- bjornski, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Yeah, typo. Sorry. I'm not writing a dissertation for a college course here or anything, and once you hit edit, you've got 120 seconds to finalize everything. I'm not doing a HUGE amount of final proofreading in that 120 seconds.
Though I agree with the rest of your statement.
- bjornski, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Yeah, typo. Sorry. I'm not writing a dissertation for a college course here or anything, and once you hit edit, you've got 120 seconds to finalize everything. I'm not doing a HUGE amount of final proofreading in that 120 seconds.
- Cobain27, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1*an air-power. sorry but I hate to see an a where there should be an an. but actually getting rid of the a altogether would be most grammatically correct. Oh and I hope the Iranian army and the Revolutionary guard puts up a valiant fight when we invade. Bush better hurry up though if he (his neocon puppet masters) want this war because his time is almost up.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5So, you've thought out the first wave of attacks.
- KJGJ, on 04/26/2008, -2/+16Mass public opposition would be putting it lightly.
- TyPhyter, on 04/26/2008, -32/+3Oorah! GET SOME!!!!
- twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -4/+6you forgot the 'H' in "Hoorah"
- TyPhyter, on 04/26/2008, -11/+3Marine Corps buddy no "h"
PFC Spears USMC- twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7You're the first Marine I've heard of that doesn't say the 'H'.
Not to say that I'm an expert on marines (as diggers assume anyone who posts a contradictory statement is -always- an expert) or they don't do the 'H' NOW as all of the marines I know have been out of the service for a while.- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -4/+8That was back when our military was literate and wasn't talking "gangsta"
- twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7You're the first Marine I've heard of that doesn't say the 'H'.
- TyPhyter, on 04/26/2008, -11/+3Marine Corps buddy no "h"
- TyPhyter, on 04/26/2008, -17/+3lol ***** hippies
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+9Coming from a jar-head, that's pretty funny.
- siszam, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7This hippies son is a Marine forced to fight invade Iraq, which is not what he signed up to do. Your mindless cheering for war only proves one thing. You are either too dumb to think for yourself or you're not a Marine. Well, you could be brain damaged from action.
The Marines I've talked to don't wish for death and think war is a good thing. So you're either a wanna be or a someone with no likelihood of getting close to real action. Those are always the people who think war is fun and cool. Neo con cowards. I bet your ass only leaves your chair for potty breaks and moms cooking.- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -4/+6He's a typical chicken-hawk. I wouldn't expect any more from him than converting food to *****.
- TyPhyter, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1your son volunteered to also support the president of the united states, no one "forced" him to do anything, he signed a contract. thats the end of it. i didnt say i wished for death, or destruction, what its like in iraq is different, you know that in iraq, the Marine next to you would die for you, and you know that you would do the same for him. here, you come back to no family, the friends that you hoped to come back have grown a year. while you try to pick up where you left off. it makes you want to go back, back to your brothers. im a Combat engineer, i see action. often times before the infantry even gets there, combat engineers, clear the way. i feel for you and your family, and thank you for your sacrifices, the only thing harder than being a Marine is being the family of a Marine. while i dont think iraq is a good place to be, i understand why we are there, and i know the sacrifices your son and your family have made. so thank you
Semper Fidelis
- mranderson86, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3A Marine swears to uphold the CONSTITUTION and since the Iraq war isn't constitutional your a fkn disgrace for wanting more war.
- TyPhyter, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1he also swears to support the President of the United States, take the oath, then talk to me about it.
- twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -4/+6you forgot the 'H' in "Hoorah"
- schmitey, on 04/26/2008, -8/+28If we invade, and pure speculation here on my part, the military is going to have a full fledged ***** mutiny on its hands mark my works. If I were a serviceman/woman (and I'm not only because my hearing sucks BTW) facing my third+ deployment I wouldn't want to have anything to do with this *****. If enough military personal put their foot down there's no way they could court martial everyone...and the nation would never stand for it anyways. And a draft? ***** forget about it!
- chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -3/+12God I hope so.
- TyPhyter, on 04/26/2008, -7/+6yeah sure, except if you are found guilty of a mutiny, you get put to death, no question UCMJ section 894. article 92: "A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct." "Uniform Code of Military Justice"
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -3/+6So the American gas chambers first few loads will be disgruntled military?
- blackjack75, on 04/26/2008, -4/+6A draft would definitely create a near civil war in the streets. But I don't expect the current troops would ever revolt. 90% of the training of the troops is learning to obey their superior. Also remember the guys in iraq might have access to the same information we do but they also have daily brainwashing from the state about the holiness of their mission.
- schmitey, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1I don't argue that, but that's where I would hope that the leadership would put their foot down and refuse to lead their troops. I'm not saying those leaders should organize a revolt...but some of the officers are rightfully getting pissed off.
- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -10/+7That's a ridiculous 'speculation', if you can even call it that. Our military personnel chose to be soldiers, they were not drafted, and most understand the risks, and are honorable enough to complete their commitment. Hopefully you don't live in the U.S., loser.
- schmitey, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1I absolutely do live in the US and I support our military personnel whole heartedly. Let me put this as plainly as possible...WE DON"T HAVE THE HUMAN RESOURCES for another war. I have friends and coworkers who have 3, 4, 5, and 6 year old kids who have never spent more than a few months with both of their parents. When these brave servicemen and women signed up they pledge loyalty to their country and trusted their governments judgment...a sentiment that Bush and company takes for granted. You are naive if you honestly think that the military has low re-enlistment numbers and horrible morale. I've talked to these soldiers...clearly you haven't. These people bust their ass and risks their lives away from their families for basically poverty level wages!!! Don't call me unAmerican for being a realist and not believing the propaganda.
- schmitey, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1*You are naive if you honestly think that the military has low re-enlistment numbers, horrible morale, soldiers blowing up grenades on their platoons, and high suicide rates for no reason.
didn't finish my thought process... - TehMCP, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1It saddens me that you live in the United States. I find that such a callous attitude towards real people who odds-on had no idea what they were getting themselves involved in is sad, degrading, and ultimately harmful to the country itself.
- Jones4590, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Some soldier you would be. Not one soldier I've met would "mutiny" because of another war. Only ***** would purposefully undermine our entire military system for that reason. Determining our military's course of action isn't for the military to decide, that's Congress's job. Read the Constitution.
- schmitey, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Yes, Congress can stop the president...but only after he invades and the whole country and middle east goes to hell and back. We've already proven that Bush and company lacks realistic analysis of the political and social aspects of waging a war in the middle east. Bush has a HORRIBLE track record with the war in Iraq...and here he goes all over again. I'm honestly shocked that the country is idly sitting by as Bush tries to stir up more trouble. Whatever happen to "tread softly and carry a big stick" now our foreign policy is tromp around and whack whatever moves or talks back. We're not popular overseas for a damn good reason. Soldiers aren't pawns and should recognize their involvement in enforcing American foreign policy.
- Jones4590, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0They are pawns in their role in *enforcing* foreign policy. They only have a role in determining it when they vote.
- schmitey, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Yes, Congress can stop the president...but only after he invades and the whole country and middle east goes to hell and back. We've already proven that Bush and company lacks realistic analysis of the political and social aspects of waging a war in the middle east. Bush has a HORRIBLE track record with the war in Iraq...and here he goes all over again. I'm honestly shocked that the country is idly sitting by as Bush tries to stir up more trouble. Whatever happen to "tread softly and carry a big stick" now our foreign policy is tromp around and whack whatever moves or talks back. We're not popular overseas for a damn good reason. Soldiers aren't pawns and should recognize their involvement in enforcing American foreign policy.
- madfrogurt, on 04/26/2008, -9/+13How many of these "we're 2 seconds away from invading Iran" stories do we need a week? The republicans are not in a position to get public support for a hit on Iran. When we see the secretary of defense going to the UN and Bush calling for congress to approve an attack in a national speech, start worrying. Until then, this is fear mongering.
- andy314159pi, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7The Washington Post is pretty reliable.
- pintomp3, on 04/26/2008, -2/+10they tested the waters before by trying to convince everyone that iran has nukes, but the failure of the iraq war was on everyone's mind. now that they've got the media singing "the surge is working" and everyone's attention is off iraq, they are beating the drums for war against iran. they already got the senate to approve military action in the kyle/lieberman amendment. they declared the iranian national guard a terrorist organization. they won't have to declare a war, just like they didn't with iraq. they will just say it's part of the war on terror.
- madfrogurt, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1I agree that the administration was trying to push for war at one time, but it failed when things turned sour in Iraq. Nowadays the republicans as a whole have no reason to back in invasion, since they have a slight chance of winning the election in November. Remember that Iraq bit them in the ass in 2006. Do you think they're going to sacrifice more seats for a last second invasion of Iran?
- Brasky, on 04/26/2008, -2/+18Since when does public support matter to these assholes?
- pintomp3, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1so?
- ZenMojo, on 04/26/2008, -1/+71. Leader of CENTCOM says he'll resign if the United States invades Iran.
2. US inflates false evidence of Iranian hostile actions and nuclear weapons.
3. Leader of CENTCOM resigns.
4. Leader of failed mission in Iraq is promoted to CENTCOM.
5. War for PROFIT!
- Kazaki, on 04/26/2008, -13/+109IRAN HASN'T DONE ***** TO US
- db0255, on 04/26/2008, -7/+40neither did iraq, now stop yelling.
- publiclurker, on 04/26/2008, -11/+10Neither did Iraq. What's your point?
- db0255, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1that your opinion or my opinion about whether we should go to war is irrelevant now. sad huh?
- Pherdnut, on 04/26/2008, -12/+8Not that I agree with attacking them but saying it in caps enhances your ignorance.
- blackjack75, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3Is having "enhanced ignorance" being smarter ? or even dumber?
- carbonbasedunit, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6I think it means it's in 1080p.
- blackjack75, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3Is having "enhanced ignorance" being smarter ? or even dumber?
- fluffyturtle, on 04/26/2008, -5/+6Let me first say that there is absolutely no good reason to start fighting Iran.
However, Iran *is* doing stuff to us, even the article states as much. - jabberwolf, on 04/26/2008, -26/+9IRAN HASNT DONE *****?
EXPLOSIVE DEVICES THAT KILL USA SOLDIERS?
MILITARY BOATS HARASSING CARGO SHIPS
KIDNAPPING BRITISH OFFICERS
SENDING WEAPONS TO HAMAS
SENDING WEAPONS TO HEZBOLLAH
SENDING MONEY TO SUIDCIDE BOMBER FAMILIES?
NOTHING?
YOUR HEAD=IN ASS !
PS- Look up Basij- 10s of thousands of children given plastic keys to heave... who walked across landmines to go to heaven for Iran's sake. These are the same people running the country to who sent these children to walk over landmines. Do you get it now?- carbonbasedunit, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4You know, you actually have some good points, Iran is said to be supplying materials that are being used to kill American soldiers, and they did capture British sailors, but...I think you tend to lose people once you tell them their heads are up their asses. Just saying that I don't think that kind of argument is going to further your viewpoint, although I could be wrong.
- ad33lshahid, on 04/26/2008, -3/+12you're an idiot. everything you listed is what you've obvoiusly heard from the MSM. you dont think that they could possibly want to pain iran as a bad state could you? Guess what, if america wasnt in iraq fighting an illegal war then those "Explosive devices" wouldnt be killing its soldiers. 2nd, those werent military boats harassing cargo ships, it was a small motor boat that was actually fired at by the American hired cargo ship, 3rd those british officers were in Irani waters, 4th 5th and 6th show me proof. None of the reasons you listed are reasons to go to war with a third country in less than 8 years. This is ludicrous. You don't realize that you and your children will end up paying for this war. Gas on my street is at 4.05$ per gallon, do you really want the dollar to plummet more so that gas prices can go up more??
- FairDinkumMate, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Dugg - good post.
Only thing is I think the British were in 'disputed waters' that have been claimed by both Iraq & Iran. That said, the MSM failed to mention this at the time & from the Iranian point of view they think those waters are theirs so they say the British were violating their sovereignty. - sambapati87, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1You make it sound like the only consequence of war is higher gas prices for the entire country to complain about.
- ad33lshahid, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1no but people here seem to bitch about gas prices more than anything, and seem to blame it on OPEC raising prices but they dont realize its because of the weakening dollar as our debt increases and the fed keeps printing empty paper money... if everyone here realized that if we go to war with Iran, itll cost $250 to fill up their ford explorers chances are they'll think twice before authorizing the slaughter of millions.
- FairDinkumMate, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Dugg - good post.
- pigfister, on 04/26/2008, -2/+9you are truly dumb and blinded by courporate media. its all propaganda building for the coming war for irans oil, the same as what happened in iraq next target will be venezuela.
the courporate news rhetoric to justify war continues, its the gulf of tonkin all over again. or is it like the last US lies about iran?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/71819 ...
An alleged threat to blow up US warships "may not have come" from Iranian speedboats involved in a recent stand-off, the BBC has learned.
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/397228.htm ...
British government lied about 2007 Persian Gulf naval incident
Secret Ministry of Defence documents released to the Times newspaper reveal that the British government lied about the circumstances surrounding the capture of 15 sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall in the Persian Gulf by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRG) in March 2007.
- Jones4590, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2I would call selling weapons to opposition militant groups in Iraq "doing stuff." That ***** is documented. But no reason to start a war, for sure.
- nycmac247, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2they insulted the zionists - and as fundamentalist christians we now need to kill them
- koreaski, on 04/26/2008, -8/+2they need more of a story so 12 year old america has something to say to each other. a main bad guy with some traits and a name would help
- tifosiuno, on 04/26/2008, -7/+27This is why our stupid congress needs to impeach Bush and Cheney!
- AndrewDB, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4It's not worth the time, effort or money to send them to an impeachment trial.
Now, a war crimes trial however, would totally be worth the time, money and effort. - Aokitsune, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4Congress is part of the problem- they're too concerned about the balance between Democrats/ Republicans, getting re-elected, pet projects for their constituents and corporate kickback to do anything truly meaningful. Just my opinion- tell me something meaningful Congress has done recently and I'll stand corrected.
- AndrewDB, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4It's not worth the time, effort or money to send them to an impeachment trial.
- SilverBlade2k, on 04/26/2008, -7/+43Attacking Iran will be suicide for the U.S in practically all matters. Oil will go skyrocketing. $200+ per barrel? Lets see ANYONE try to live within their means when oil is that high.
Iran will respond back. Maybe by pulling their oil from the market, maybe by military response by Iran and it's allies. Maybe both. But if the U.S invades Iran and begins to attack them, the U.S is *****..the whole world is *****. We would have entered WW3 at that time.- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+15Russia has already said they'd defend Iran. And China would be none too happy if we invaded one of their prime resource suppliers also.
If we attack Iran, I can see the Chinese stopping shipments of goods to us, which would cripple us within months. They wouldn't even have to fire a shot to take down this country. How would we respond? MORE war threats? Paid for by whom? China?
And yet, during this war and the upcoming one, the screams for "tax cuts" just continues.
Tax cuts should be ILLEGAL in a time of war. Pick a priority. You can't have both.- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -12/+3Russia and China would do nothing.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -3/+11Yeah, and there's WMD in Iraq.
I've heard your type before.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -3/+11Yeah, and there's WMD in Iraq.
- ad33lshahid, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7India also rebuked America for trying to meddle in India-Iran relations, they are in the work for a pipleline for India.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Think the US wants to allow that without getting their cut out of it?
- megaloid, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5The most serious and immediate matter regarding an attack on Iran is the fact that they have doubtlessly concealed numerous shore batteries of advanced missiles to fire at ships in the Gulf, and probably large numbers of decoy sites, as well as launchers disguised as commercial vehicles. Finding and destroying them before they are used, let alone shooting all the missiles down, will prove impossible. If the powers that be are stupid enough to start an air campaign with the Iranians, we *will* be looking at footage of sinking US warships the following day. Not fun at all.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6We'd be facing a standing army, with adequate defenses. Not invading some decimated *****-hole like Iraq was.
They'd mess us up a lot more than the "insurgents" are doing right now. And our military can't even handle them.
Again, if we go into Iran, the ONLY option we have is MASSIVE leveling of cities. And the repercussions would be immense. There would be no "surgical strike" to "decapitate their defenses". There's no way we could sustain the waves of actual attacks we'd face after doing just that. We DO NOT have the manpower to do it, and again, the ONLY option we have is massive firepower.
Go ahead with the "that's fine, nuke them!" *****, but only after you've enlisted.
As Scott Ritter says. If we use nukes in Iran, we better pick a city of our own that we don't mind losing, because we WILL lose at least one.
At least.
And that's not even getting into the economic sanctions that would no-doubt be put on us by many nations, China probably included. And again, China would win a war with the US in 3 months without firing a shot. All they have to do is stop shipping us Chinese made ***** until we pay our bills. We would die.
Go ahead, poke the hornet's nest. But only after you've put your own ass on the line by enlisting. If you won't enlist to "show your support", you should be the last one to expect anyone else to do it for your lazy, chicken-hawk asses.
In the BEST case, we'd probably never recover. In the WORST case, it could be the undoing of the entire US.- megaloid, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4Of course, it could be that the militarist faction *wants* the public to see footage of a fire-gutted aircraft carrier so as to give them the domestic political cover they need to escalate all the way to nukes. I've heard the idea floated by both concerned Joe Average types online, as well as respected analysts like William S. Lind. Are our "leaders" and their Likudnik buddies stupid and/or ruthless enough to pull such a stunt? It truly will be our Gotterdammerung if they push the button.
- mzx639, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1You need some serious meds.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6We'd be facing a standing army, with adequate defenses. Not invading some decimated *****-hole like Iraq was.
- sambapati87, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Wouldnt stopping shipments to us cripple China just as fast?
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2They have other countries that'd buy their cheap *****. We're not the end-all be-all consumer of all things Chinese.
- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -12/+3Russia and China would do nothing.
- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -8/+3Ok, Drama Queen.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -3/+5You really think there would be no repercussions from doing something as ***** stupid as attacking Iran?
Your ignorance is showing. You shouldn't be too proud of it.- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Repercussions from who? With what? You don't think Iran NEEDS the U.S. to buy their oil? China would do NOTHING! China NEEDS the U.S. to buy all of their crappy goods! You need to pull your head out of your ass and stop smoking so much crack. So tell me about all these "repercussions" that would hurt the U.S. so badly, idiot.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1I'm still waiting to see the flower petals at the "liberators" feet like your team promised.
6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months. The war will pay for itself.
You ***** warmonkeys have been wrong SO OFTEN in the last 7 years that I can't trust ANYTHING done by them, AT ALL.
Your ignorance is disgusting.
Go enlist, THEN you can talk tough about what "we" should be doing. Your use of "we" is as pathetic as the sports fans who sit on the couch converting beer to piss and shouting "WE DID IT!" when 9 guys who would hate you if they met you in real life scored a point.
There are other countries that buy Chinese made *****. We're not the only one. They have other buyers. But with the amount of petroleum they get from Iran, I DO think they'd be pissed off enough to react. Again, they don't need to fire a shot. Just stop shipping stuff to us, or call in their debts.
I'm sure they wouldn't be too happy about funding our bumbling ***** in Iran. That would be like expecting us to fund Israel as they invade Saudi Arabia. Funding the leeches who use us to attack our own fuel station? Not likely. - ad33lshahid, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Hey kinda like the lack of repercussions from the Iraq was right?? haha gas is 4.29$ on my street and its cuz of idiots like you
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1I'm still waiting to see the flower petals at the "liberators" feet like your team promised.
- mzx639, on 04/27/2008, -3/+1"You ***** warmonkeys have been wrong SO OFTEN in the last 7 years that I can't trust ANYTHING done by them, AT ALL."
And you have to audacity to compare me with " a pathetic as the sports fans who sit on the couch converting beer to piss and shouting "WE DID IT!" Hahaha....do you know ANYTHING about U.S. History? Do you know ANYTHING about the history of war in the United States?? There has NEVER been a war where that hasn't been criticized, ever! But the outcome of the war is only judge many years later, and this war will be no different! It is far to early to determine what the outcome will be and how it will affect the United States or Iraq. Japan and Germany seem to pull it together after WWII, but only after YEARS of work with the help of, you guessed it, THE U.S.! I've served my country, but that is not why I use the expression 'we'. I use this expression because I am a U.S. citizen, the United States of America. Does the word "United" mean anything to you? Probably not, I would'nt be surprised if your some terrorist sympathizer.
"There are other countries that buy Chinese made *****.We're not the only one. They have other buyers" The U.S. buys 100 times the amount of Chinese 'goods' then that of all of the other countries combined! If the United States got involved in an Iranian conflict, they would do nothing! They need the American $ more then they need the oil! And even if they didn't they would still do nothing of any significance. The fact is we don't need they *****! ***** China!- ad33lshahid, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1you're so so so so wrong. your american flag underwear was made in china, as was your american flag
- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Repercussions from who? With what? You don't think Iran NEEDS the U.S. to buy their oil? China would do NOTHING! China NEEDS the U.S. to buy all of their crappy goods! You need to pull your head out of your ass and stop smoking so much crack. So tell me about all these "repercussions" that would hurt the U.S. so badly, idiot.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -3/+5You really think there would be no repercussions from doing something as ***** stupid as attacking Iran?
- leexy, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4Iran is not Iraq. The two countries are very different. And while EVERYBODY (but the Baathists) hated Saddam, Iran is a different story. The people around the world know all about Mossadeq, the horror under the Sha'h and the subsequent revolution of the people. If Washington attacks or invade Iran unprovoked, you can be certain that bombs will detonate in the US mainland. And while I shed a tear for the victims of 9/11, I'm not so sure I'll do so if the Revolutionary Guards strikes back.
- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -5/+3"If the Revolutionary Guards strikes back"?? Haha, you have got to be joking. Hey, I have an idea, why don't YOU go join the Revolutionary Guards? And you can bet, I wouldn't be shedding a tear when the U.S. fries your ass, your ***** traitor.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+15Russia has already said they'd defend Iran. And China would be none too happy if we invaded one of their prime resource suppliers also.
- The3rdjj, on 04/26/2008, -7/+81I think Canada is gonna have an immigration problem soon
- Railz, on 04/26/2008, -2/+12Too bad Canada will probably end up getting dragged into this as well.
- crowbar77, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1Doubt it, we never went to Iraq.
- mzx639, on 04/26/2008, -23/+5Yes, please move, we have enough pansy ass, socialist appeasers in the country already.
- Infidelcastr0, on 04/26/2008, -2/+11Please die.
- sambapati87, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3I dugg you, threatening to leave is just sensationalist ***** for most people.
- Persian5Life, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3as in Iranian-Canadian that is the first time i felt "unwanted" in Canada in the 18 years i have been living in this country. what they hell are you talking about with regards to problem?
- allahuakbar, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4um, he's talking about americans - you know, sarcasm?
- RyanBlack, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2At least its Americans, I think we've filled our Pakistani quota for a good 5 years. They come to Canada, and then try to make it a little Pakistan. Look at Toronto for christ sakes. At least the US has it right in regards to immigration. You come to US you're an American, not a Pakistani-American. Should be like that in Canada. "Cultural Mosaic" my ass.
- LoJack, on 04/27/2008, -2/+1Canada is a diversified society. No room for rednecks. Take off eh!
- jooje, on 04/27/2008, -2/+1Yeah, I'm sure all those Iranian engineers and doctors bringing their life time savings to Toronto and are a large burden to the economy. And certainly in a country where a good percent professionals in training in universities are first generation immigrants, they DEFINITELY don't need more immigrants since Canada has work force shortage.
I'm sure Canada sharing a land border with Iran will take its toll if such a war would have happened.
/sarcasm
Besides the Sarcasm, there is not going to be any military action against Iran, any Iranian above the age of 25 remembers the war, and they lived through it, another would not be welcome, but it would be fought. Iranians tend to be very sensitive about foreign occupation due mostly to nationalist propaganda and pride in their history (who doesn't?). I'm going to Tehran in couple of days, and if there is a war, borders would be closed and I would loose my chance for post secondary education in my university of choice, thats how sure I am that a military attack against Iran is simply impossible to execute, even if U.S was economically strong as its pre 9/11 era.
- Railz, on 04/26/2008, -2/+12Too bad Canada will probably end up getting dragged into this as well.
- elebrio, on 04/26/2008, -9/+2How many times have we seen this exact headline plastered across every social media network? Zzz We can't go to war, everyone knows it.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3All it will take is one "incident".
We can't AFFORD it, but that doesn't mean we're not stupid enough to do it. We'll just toss it onto the debt for our grandkids to pay off too!
/YOUR grandkids. I'm not breeding. I wouldn't bring kids into this *****-hole.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3All it will take is one "incident".
- ichbeineinrcg, on 04/26/2008, -4/+12Didn't Bush Sr. get us involved in Somalia right about the time he was leaving office? Maybe this is just another example of the circle closing. If Shrub pulls the trigger on this, we owe it to the country to make sure he's prosecuted and that anyone who admits to having voted for the man is treated like the pariah they deserve to be.
- twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -12/+3In all fairness, I know quite a few people, myself included, who voted for Bush simply because Kerry couldn't make up his damned mind and flip-flopped more than a pair of beach sandals.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7If he was still "making up his mind" on an invasion, we wouldn't be neck-deep in this *****.
Flip-flopping would have been the lesser of two evils here. Instead, you willingly backed the destructive child-minded moron.
Thanks.- twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -7/+2indecisiveness is a bigger weakness IMO than being destructive and child-minded.
I by no means support Bush, but I'd rather know where someone stands and know that they can actually make a decision when the time comes.- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Yeah, George decisions alright.
BAD ones, but he made them. - bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2dammit. MADE decisions....
I should quit editing comments and just let the first draft go out as is.... I screw up as much with this edit system as I correct. - twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3And that's my point.. he MADE decisions unlike Kerry who didn't know if he was coming or going.
Kerry is a WEAK leader who cannot make choices. No choices are worse than bad choices because it lets everyone else choose for you.
Obviously we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this matter even though we both feel that bush is a horrible leader.
I simply decided to pick the candidate with some backbone. - bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3I'd rather that nothing got done than the wrong things got done.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Yeah, George decisions alright.
- blackjack75, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7Ever heard about the saying "only idiots never change their minds" ? Well it might be french, sorry if that disqualifies it.
- twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -7/+2indecisiveness is a bigger weakness IMO than being destructive and child-minded.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7If he was still "making up his mind" on an invasion, we wouldn't be neck-deep in this *****.
- methos75, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0Clinton sent us there, Bush had no part of it at all.
- ichbeineinrcg, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Wikipedia disagrees:
This coalition, (Unified Task Force or UNITAF) entered Somalia in December 1992 on Operation Restore Hope and was successful in restoring order and alleviating the famine. In May 1993, most of the United States troops withdrew and UNITAF was replaced by the United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#The_Somali_Ci ...
- ichbeineinrcg, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Wikipedia disagrees:
- twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -12/+3In all fairness, I know quite a few people, myself included, who voted for Bush simply because Kerry couldn't make up his damned mind and flip-flopped more than a pair of beach sandals.
- gk128, on 04/26/2008, -5/+18Attacking Iran is stupid and pointless. They are not a threat to Iraq at all. In fact Iran is friendly with Iraq's new Shia government.
Also how can we start war with Iran when we don't have enough troops to cover Iraq? More war is the last thing America needs, but Republicans and those who support anything without looking into it will be all for it.- akamurph, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1"They are not a threat to Iraq at all"
- blackjack75, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Even if it WAS a threat to iraq, what do we ***** care? Russia is a threat afghanistan. Did we invade Russia?
- helliottlaw, on 04/26/2008, -11/+2In Soviet Russia, Iran weighs readiness for military action against you!!
- carbonbasedunit, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Buried? Aw, come on! That was at least a little funny, even if the meme is pretty tired.
- helliottlaw, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3I guess the Russia - Iran connection went over these *****' heads...
- carbonbasedunit, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Buried? Aw, come on! That was at least a little funny, even if the meme is pretty tired.
- Owwmykneecap, on 04/26/2008, -3/+11so if you are someone's neighbour you can't meddle but its cool if you live really far away....;)
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -5/+4It depends on what Israel wants done. Not where you live.
- BikerDude69, on 04/26/2008, -6/+61In other news, oil surges $350/barrel and the Bush and Cheney family fortune increases by $50 billion a second.
- sambapati87, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2**whacking it** OHH YEAHH Bush and Cheney LOVE GOING TO WAR BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM RICH... OHHH YEAHHHHHH
let the bury commence.
- sambapati87, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2**whacking it** OHH YEAHH Bush and Cheney LOVE GOING TO WAR BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM RICH... OHHH YEAHHHHHH
- dawnraid, on 04/26/2008, -11/+49***** WAR
- TrancePX, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7I don't understand why you're getting dugg down. Do people like senseless violence and human suffering?
- ruddy, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3***** YES
/jk - diggrific, on 04/26/2008, -7/+6Using profanity shows emotional thinking and a lack of civil discourse. Certainly not intellectual. So, I dugg him down, as I do for all of the inappropriate comments. But, I'm old and from a different time. Back then, swearing in mixed company or in public was considered low class and rude.
- Phil1ip123, on 04/26/2008, -2/+5I agree.
- Firgof, on 04/26/2008, -4/+2Then get with the times instead of digging random people down. I don't digg you down for having said values, do I? Oh wait, I did so in retaliation.
- diggrific, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Firqof: "Getting with the times" isn't always good. When you live awhile, you find this out. I also don't digg random people down. Rather, I only digg those down that replace well thought out comments with vulgarity and cuss words since it lowers the value of the discussion. If you feel that kind of language adds to a discussion, that is sad and misguided.
- Jones4590, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1yeah, war is never justified. good point
- ruddy, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3***** YES
- TrancePX, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7I don't understand why you're getting dugg down. Do people like senseless violence and human suffering?
- RetlawST, on 04/26/2008, -8/+15Another war means more money borrowed from China, which means we lose. The US WILL crumble when China calls in its debts. The irony of it all is that it's the conservative base having us borrow all of this money with their wars will have the US succumb to socialist China, not the socialists they like to berate.
- Railz, on 04/26/2008, -7/+6China is not socialist. In fact, our economy and government is far more socialist then theirs.
- Lazydriver, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Dunno why you're being digged down, yer right.
They have a totalitarian uniparty government claiming to be 'pro citizen' but really 'pro me and all my buddies'.
- Lazydriver, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Dunno why you're being digged down, yer right.
- bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2China doesn't want us to invade Iran, and I really doubt they'd want to fund this miasma.
- RetlawST, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1You're right, but it's the double edged sword; they want to buy up more of our debt, but they don't want the US doing any more ***** with their other trade agreements. Which would make things interesting if China were to start collecting debt immediately after the US declared war on Iran.
- Railz, on 04/26/2008, -7/+6China is not socialist. In fact, our economy and government is far more socialist then theirs.
- Maevirko69, on 04/26/2008, -8/+14"Preparing military options"? Please, give me a break. They're talking about conflict readiness, this is normal in the military. You realize the US military has plans for a wide array of contingencies. The Washington Post is making a story out of nothing here. We prepare battle plans for many scenarios, no matter how likely or unlikely they are.
- Railz, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4Bingo. All "Preparing military options" is, is how the CTFs and logistics would move to Iran, and so on. They have battle plans against almost every country that isn't party of NATO afaik.
- andy314159pi, on 04/26/2008, -3/+12No end in sight
- madfrogurt, on 04/26/2008, -20/+9It's disgusting that in an article that doesn't mention Israel once, we have a threat with almost every single post attacking the Jews. I am ashamed that I participate in a community with so much raw hatred and flat out stupidity.
I know the internet can be an ugly place, but for a mainstream place like Digg to drudge up this kind of petty mindedness is astounding.- pintomp3,