U.S. warns Iran to back down

catefrances

Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, ruled out direct negotiations with Iran and said a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran was "not possible" until Iran halts uranium enrichment.

"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank.

no of course not. it's a region to be dominated by the united states for their own self interest and nothing more. how dare they.

Gary Carter

catefrances wrote:

can the united states just finish something they started.

no they cant its the american way, bomb the fuck out of a country and then leave. come one u should know the drill by now

fanch75

mammasan wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us


Who else think we will be seeing some air strike on Iran within the next few weeks.

I don't, Bush is too weakened right now and the threat isn't imminent enough to do it. However, I think (and I'm just speculating), that we'll see John Edwards, Hillary, or McCain ordering airstrikes a few years from now.

catefrances

metsfan531941 wrote:

no they cant its the american way, bomb the fuck out of a country and then leave. come one u should know the drill by now

not that i'd wish it upon anybody, but i wonder how different the reaction to such escapades from the american public and her friends would be if they were the targets of such destruction. just once. would they be so quick to stand behind the actions of their governments if their neighbourhoods looked like southern lebanon. if their infrastructure was bombed to the stone age. if the perpetrators didn't have to answer for their actions cause god damn it we are the defenders of freedom and democracy and all things good.

Cosmo

fanch75 wrote:

I don't, Bush is too weakened right now and the threat isn't imminent enough to do it. However, I think (and I'm just speculating), that we'll see John Edwards, Hillary, or McCain ordering airstrikes a few years from now.

...
It all depends upon how Iraq pans out.
Remember... Iraqi Shi'ites are in charge. Iran is a Shi'ite state. Our troops are in Iraq.
What happens to our troops if we take on the Shi'ia nation of Iran? How will that affect the Shi'ites living in Iraq? Will that place our troops in greater peril? Is that a good strategic move?
We've placed our military in a fucked up situation. I believe that we should place their safety as the highest priority... over domestic politics... over foriegn policy regarding Israel.
But... that's just my take.

catefrances

Cosmo wrote:

...
It all depends upon how Iraq pans out.
Remember... Iraqi Shi'ites are in charge. Iran is a Shi'ite state. Our troops are in Iraq.
What happens to our troops if we take on the Shi'ia nation of Iran? How will that affect the Shi'ites living in Iraq? Will that place our troops in greater peril? Is that a good strategic move?
We've placed our military in a fucked up situation. I believe that we should place their safety as the highest priority... over domestic politics... over foriegn policy regarding Israel.
But... that's just my take.

greater peril?
how could the troops in iraq be in any greater peril than they already are?
and i agree the safety of the soldiers should be the highest priority,along with the safety of civilians. a country's military if they have one, should be about defending their nation from imminent attack and threat. not putting the soldiers in harm's way and then bitching about it and wondering why they are being attacked when all they're trying to do is 'help'

Cosmo

catefrances wrote:

greater peril?
how could the troops in iraq be in any greater peril than they already are?
and i agree the safety of the soldiers should be the highest priority,along with the safety of civilians. a country's military if they have one, should be about defending their nation from imminent attack and threat. not putting the soldiers in harm's way and then bitching about it and wondering why they are being attacked when all they're trying to do is 'help'

...
Greater peril... as in you start some shit next door and the people where you're staying don't like it... and you are trainning them... and arming them... and sleeping in the same barracks as them... that's greater peril. Greater peril because you are close enough to roll a grenade under your bed as you sleep.
...
The Middle East is a culture that Americans don't understand. They are aligned to their religion, not thier borders. The Shi'ia are Shi'ia and will bond with other Shi'ia... even if tet live inside of another border. We bomb Shi'ias in Iran... we should expect Shi'ia retaliation in Iraq.
...
And our soldiers are on the front lines... not me. I'm a fucking half a world away in the safety of my home. The Shi'ites in Iraq aren't going to come after me... they will go after the Americans sitting next to them in the mess hall in the Green Zone.
..
And I agree with you 100%. I want my voluenteer military here at home... protecting ME... MY COUNTRY... at our borders... at our airports... at our shipping ports... Not on the other side of the planet because some old men over here hated some old men over there.

catefrances

Cosmo wrote:

...
Greater peril... as in you start some shit next door and the people where you're staying don't like it... and you are trainning them... and arming them... and sleeping in the same barracks as them... that's greater peril. Greater peril because you are close enough to roll a grenade under your bed as you sleep.
...
The Middle East is a culture that Americans don't understand. They are aligned to their religion, not thier borders. The Shi'ia are Shi'ia and will bond with other Shi'ia... even if tet live inside of another border. We bomb Shi'ias in Iran... we should expect Shi'ia retaliation in Iraq.
...
And our soldiers are on the front lines... not me. I'm a fucking half a world away in the safety of my home. The Shi'ites in Iraq aren't going to come after me... they will go after the Americans sitting next to them in the mess hall in the Green Zone.
..
And I agree with you 100%. I want my voluenteer military here at home... protecting ME... MY COUNTRY... at our borders... at our airports... at our shipping ports... Not on the other side of the planet because some old men over here hated some old men over there.

let's remember who put those borders in place. they were drawn up purely for the convenience of the imperialists, not the local people and without any consideration for them.

fanch75

mammasan wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us


Who else think we will be seeing some air strike on Iran within the next few weeks.

I don't see this link anywhere:

Iran: Israel, US will soon die
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356154,00.htm

fanch75

mammasan wrote:

I never said it would be ok for Iran to have nukes and have stated several times that Iran possessing nukes is a troubling senerio. I just believe that military action is not the solution to the problem. I believe that this issue should be resolved via diplomacy and I'm very concerned because diplomacy is not this administrations strong suit.

He says that Israel should be wiped off the earth and that the US will be destroyed. What do you say to him? Where do you start? Seriously.

To your point re: diplomacy, we absolutely should work with other nations and be a helluva lot less unilateral in these matters. We can talk to other people, but talking to the Iranians won't yield anything.

Collin

fanch75 wrote:

He says that Israel should be wiped off the earth and that the US will be destroyed. What do you say to him? Where do you start? Seriously.

The US is too weak to do anything about it right now. I think it would be better if they at least tried to resolve this via diplomacy.

Last Exodus

Collin wrote:

The US is too weak to do anything about it right now. I think it would be better if they at least tried to resolve this via diplomacy.

With two carrier battle groups sitting off the Iranian shore, and 175,000 American stroops on its border, id hardly call America weak vis a vis Iran, a chicken shit little country with a chicken shit little leader. One Carrier and one US sub can handle the entire infratructure of Iran. And they know it. Why do you think they are so boisterous. They are scared shitless and with good reason.

Last Exodus

ledvedderman wrote:

I don't lose sleep about Iran having nukes. If Israel wants to take care of them, let them fight their own fight. I know I don't want my friends going to war for something that poses no threat to our country.

Don't bring up terrorism too, because I would just then remind you that the vast majority of terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis and you don't see us going after them.

Hezbollah murdered over 250 US MARINES on a peacekeeping mission. Iran is doing everything it can to get Hezbollah its long range missiles. But for Israels dispruption of the supply line to Lebanon they would have them. Now do you think its no biggy? Should we just say its cool and trust them? Brilliant idea

Last Exodus

mammasan wrote:

The result would be causing more tension in an already highly explosive region. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has strong ties with several high ranking and influential Iraqi officials. They can make a whole lot of trouble for us on many fronts and that is the last think we need right now.

The IRG would go the way of the Republican Guard in short order if they actively confronted the US...

Kann

Last Exodus wrote:

With two carrier battle groups sitting off the Iranian shore, and 175,000 American stroops on its border, id hardly call America weak vis a vis Iran, a chicken shit little country with a chicken shit little leader. One Carrier and one US sub can handle the entire infratructure of Iran. And they know it. Why do you think they are so boisterous. They are scared shitless and with good reason.

I don't think America is weak or doesn't have the possibility to attack Iran. I just think (and really hope) America is smart enough to not do that. I'm sorry for the 250 marines (peacekeeping is a dangerous task) but that does not call for an attack.
And one more thing : when you attack a country not only does it affect the country it also affects the neighbours, the consequences would be a little more dramatic than just "kicking Iranian asses **ck yeah, woohoo!".

Last Exodus

Kann wrote:

I don't think America is weak or doesn't have the possibility to attack Iran. I just think (and really hope) America is smart enough to not do that. I'm sorry for the 250 marines (peacekeeping is a dangerous task) but that does not call for an attack.
And one more thing : when you attack a country not only does it affect the country it also affects the neighbours, the consequences would be a little more dramatic than just "kicking Iranian asses **ck yeah, woohoo!".

Im not for that either. But the Iranian intention through deed and word is clear. An Islamic bomb already exists and it's not fantasy that Iran could and would have plenty of desire to use one on the West or Israel. I hate to agree with our President, but to leave this task to another generation would be a disaster. Regimes who have no accoutability to the international community and defy it at every turn have to be treated as hostile. If we err on the side of trusting them, many people could lose their lives. Not to mention the economic side of selling nuke technology. We have to stop it now even if it means short term hard to the regime. we all stand to lose if we dont. while the Iraq thing backfired, we do need to stay after rogue regimes actively seeking these weapons. it is a matter of life and death

Collin

Last Exodus wrote:

With two carrier battle groups sitting off the Iranian shore, and 175,000 American stroops on its border, id hardly call America weak vis a vis Iran, a chicken shit little country with a chicken shit little leader. One Carrier and one US sub can handle the entire infratructure of Iran. And they know it. Why do you think they are so boisterous. They are scared shitless and with good reason.

I you have more faith in the US military than I do. Sure, it may be able to 'handle the entire infrastructure of Iran' but somehow, considering the opinion of Americans about Iraq, I doubt the American people want the US to be involved in yet another war.

enharmonic

We've F'd with Iran for over 4 decades. They need the bomb to keep us honest.

DinghyDog

-

mammasan

fanch75 wrote:

He says that Israel should be wiped off the earth and that the US will be destroyed. What do you say to him? Where do you start? Seriously.

To your point re: diplomacy, we absolutely should work with other nations and be a helluva lot less unilateral in these matters. We can talk to other people, but talking to the Iranians won't yield anything.

I understand what you are saying. Ahmadinejad is a nut and there is probably no reasoning with him, but he is also loosing support with in his own government. I believe that now would be the time to engage, diplomatically, certain people within Iran's government. Maybe we task the EU, UN, or Arab League to initiate the talks. Bring about a resolution that would be favorable to all parties and at the same time increase the power of the opposition to Ahmadinejad in Iran. I'm not saying that it's the best solution or that it will work, but military strikes will not work. Ahmadinejad can then fire up his ant-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric and point to the strikes as proof that we mean to destroy them.