We'd probably just stay airborne and blow them to kingdom come. Id guess there'd be few American body bags being filled. If push comes to shove and we feel there's no other alternative, that is.
i don't group america as the ppl in...just the america as the government. i just got a book on the iran/contra affair...ya know who was the head of the minority, more pleasing report? cheney. you just see these same ppl involved in all these fucked up things...cheney, rummy, wolfowitz, perle, addington, libby...
these ppl created mass graves in other countries...these ppl helped create, arm, tran, fund...death squads in other countries...these ppl helped overthrow democratic governments b/c they did what their ppl wanted, not what washington wanted...these ppl trained, funded, armed...nuts like bin laden while he created al qaeda (which started smuggling ppl and weapons to fight hte soviets)...i think it's far deeper than just the iran/contra affair. ppl say 'yeah, but we chose to side w/ the lesser of 2 evils' but that's bs b/c we armed iran at the same time we armed saddam...and we supposedly did that to fight iran!
under clinton's administration we armed over 50% of the 3rd world. if we stopped supporting and arming these fools we wouldn't have as much a mess as we do now. out of our past 5 wars 4 have been w/ former cia agents or ppl we helped arm and do the bad things we rail against now
i don't group america as the ppl in...just the america as the government. i just got a book on the iran/contra affair...ya know who was the head of the minority, more pleasing report? cheney. you just see these same ppl involved in all these fucked up things...cheney, rummy, wolfowitz, perle, addington, libby...
these ppl created mass graves in other countries...these ppl helped create, arm, tran, fund...death squads in other countries...these ppl helped overthrow democratic governments b/c they did what their ppl wanted, not what washington wanted...these ppl trained, funded, armed...nuts like bin laden while he created al qaeda (which started smuggling ppl and weapons to fight hte soviets)...i think it's far deeper than just the iran/contra affair. ppl say 'yeah, but we chose to side w/ the lesser of 2 evils' but that's bs b/c we armed iran at the same time we armed saddam...and we supposedly did that to fight iran!
under clinton's administration we armed over 50% of the 3rd world. if we stopped supporting and arming these fools we wouldn't have as much a mess as we do now. out of our past 5 wars 4 have been w/ former cia agents or ppl we helped arm and do the bad things we rail against now
Well said.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
We'd probably just stay airborne and blow them to kingdom come. Id guess there'd be few American body bags being filled. If push comes to shove and we feel there's no other alternative, that is.
Well that would really put your best pal, Israel, in a bind when a tonne of Sunburn missles fall down upon them....going into Iran would be a suicide mission at this point, considering the attempt that was made on Iraq has failed miserably and Iraq was country that was systematically disarmed....also an unjustied attack on Iran would bring the Russians/Chinese in being involved, as they have shown support for Iran in developing nuclear energy....
....going into Iran would be a suicide mission at this point, considering the attempt that was made on Iraq has failed miserably and Iraq was country that was systematically disarmed....
It depends upon the objective. We had NO trouble with the Iraqi army, or Saddam. In fact we went in there like a hot knife through butter. The problem has been being the police and force-feeding democracy. When the military was being the military there was never any doubt about who was controlling what. And we could do much the same with Iran. It only gets sticky when we have no clearly definited objectives, no exit strategy, and the politicians run the war instead of the generals. I never wanted the US in Iraq, and I hope we don't go into Iran. But I wanted to point out that there is a huge gap between how the politicians are prosecuting this war and what our actual military capabilities are.
also an unjustied attack on Iran would bring the Russians/Chinese in being involved, as they have shown support for Iran in developing nuclear energy....
Good point, and yet another reason not to attack Iran.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
what a sick and stupid comment...:rolleyes:
This is a good post.
Well said.
It'd be sick if its what I wished for. And it'd be stupid if it wasn't so very likely. Reality bites.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Well that would really put your best pal, Israel, in a bind when a tonne of Sunburn missles fall down upon them....going into Iran would be a suicide mission at this point, considering the attempt that was made on Iraq has failed miserably and Iraq was country that was systematically disarmed....also an unjustied attack on Iran would bring the Russians/Chinese in being involved, as they have shown support for Iran in developing nuclear energy....
It depends upon the objective. We had NO trouble with the Iraqi army, or Saddam. In fact we went in there like a hot knife through butter. The problem has been being the police and force-feeding democracy. When the military was being the military there was never any doubt about who was controlling what. And we could do much the same with Iran. It only gets sticky when we have no clearly definited objectives, no exit strategy, and the politicians run the war instead of the generals. I never wanted the US in Iraq, and I hope we don't go into Iran. But I wanted to point out that there is a huge gap between how the politicians are prosecuting this war and what our actual military capabilities are.
Good point, and yet another reason not to attack Iran.