War with Iran?

inmytree

jsand wrote:

You don't think I take the high road because you disagree with my politics. If I were to say, for instance, "FUCK BUSH!! THAT FUCKING LIAR," you would say I was taking the high road.

I'd say, "quit yelling, everybody already knows this"...

hey, how about the rest of my post...?

jsand

inmytree wrote:

I'd say, "quit yelling, everybody already knows this"...

hey, how about the rest of my post...?

What about it? I didn't see anything of substance to respond to. Seriously.

jsand

blackredyellow wrote:

The chickenhawk argument is a little tired, but it is still relevent in the fact that those in power that seem to push the hardest for war, avoided it at all costs when they had the chance, or even the obligation to go.

But I'm not those in power. I am a citizen of the US and I have certain views on foreign policy.

blackredyellow wrote:

As far as you comparison about leaving the country, that is not a good argument in comparison. If you don't like how something is going, then just leave? why not try to change things?

I don't like that argument either. That's why I brought it up. I have never said those who oppose what the government is doing should leave the country. I would like the same respect when I argue in support of war. Saying that if I didn't join the army then I should shut up is not a good counter-argument. Explaining or demonstrating why a war isn't warranted is.

RainDog

jsand wrote:

Except that I'm beyond draft age. Anyway, I'm not really for full-on war with Iran, at least at this point. Most of the populous isn't behind Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. I am for a strike on its nuclear development facilities.

Full-on war is the only way to hit them "hard." Otherwise, we'll end up with a new Iraq-like problem. Remember, most of the population wasn't behind Saddam (or so we were told - but, for the record, I believe they weren't). That doesn't automatically translate into a pro-U.S. mentality.

jsand

RainDog wrote:

Full-on war is the only way to hit them "hard." Otherwise, we'll end up with a new Iraq-like problem. Remember, most of the population wasn't behind Saddam (or so we were told - but, for the record, I believe they weren't). That doesn't automatically translate into a pro-U.S. mentality.

I disagree. Remember when Israel hit Saddam's reactor in the 80's?

RainDog

jsand wrote:

I disagree. Remember when Israel hit Saddam's reactor in the 80's?

I suppose that did take care of the Saddam problem. Why, then, the invasion in '03?

inmytree

jsand wrote:

What about it? I didn't see anything of substance to respond to. Seriously.

ha ha ha...."didn't see" or "that post was so good I couldn't argue against it"...

I say the latter...

Puck78

jsand wrote:

Here we go again. If you support war, you have to join the army. Give me a fucking break.

indeed, the right sentence is "if you support the war, try it from the side of a civilian (bombs, killings, lack of electricity -for years-, pollution of waters, unemployement..)

Byrnzie

RainDog wrote:

Full-on war is the only way to hit them "hard." Otherwise, we'll end up with a new Iraq-like problem.

So are you saying that Iraq wasn't hit hard? I don't understand your point. The present Iraq situation has nothing to do with how hard the U.S hit them. The reason Iraq is in such a mess is because the Bush Administration knew nothing about Iraqi politics and religion. The trouble with a lot of Americans is that they think sheer brute force is the answer to everything. They should have learnt theirn lesson in Vietnam. Unfortunately the U.S media machine does a fantastic job of keeping the public misinformed and war hungry.

RainDog

Byrnzie wrote:

So are you saying that Iraq wasn't hit hard? I don't understand your point. The present Iraq situation has nothing to do with how hard the U.S hit them. The reason Iraq is in such a mess is because the Bush Administration knew nothing about Iraqi politics and religion. The trouble with a lot of Americans is that they think sheer brute force is the answer to everything. They should have learnt theirn lesson in Vietnam. Unfortunately the U.S media machine does a fantastic job of keeping the public misinformed and war hungry.

I think Vietnam had other issues involved - namely the fact that we ran a war of attrition and really didn't attempt to take ground. Plus, it's a jungle.

And I don't really think we hit Iraq hard. Maybe with bombs, but not with troops. There is no substitute for boots on the ground - and that's pretty much what I mean by full-on war.

Byrnzie

RainDog wrote:

I think Vietnam had other issues involved - namely the fact that we ran a war of attrition and really didn't attempt to take ground. Plus, it's a jungle.

And I don't really think we hit Iraq hard. Maybe with bombs, but not with troops. There is no substitute for boots on the ground - and that's pretty much what I mean by full-on war.

Wars of colonialism always fail. The British failed in India. The French in Algeria and Vietnam. The U.S failed in Vietnam and are now failing in Iraq. The list is endless.

RainDog

Byrnzie wrote:

Wars of colonialism always fail. The British failed in India. The French in Algeria and Vietnam. The U.S failed in Vietnam and are now failing in Iraq. The list is endless.

I never said we should keep the country. I said we should have annihilated it - kind of like we did with Germany.

However, for the record, I don't think we should have gone into Iraq at all. It's not worth what I feel would be necessary.

hippiemom

jsand wrote:

The shit hit the fan in the Islamic world a while ago. I am sick of treating it with kid gloves. I want to hit Iran now - hard.

I'm sure our military would love to have your help.

http://www.marines.com

Go get 'em, tough guy.

Byrnzie

RainDog wrote:

I never said we should keep the country. I said we should have annihilated it - kind of like we did with Germany.

However, for the record, I don't think we should have gone into Iraq at all. It's not worth what I feel would be necessary.

So you think that the U.S should have annihilated Iraq - therefore slaughtering millions - but for the record you don't think we should have gone into Iraq at all. Interesting! :eek:

RainDog

Byrnzie wrote:

So you think that the U.S should have annihilated Iraq - therefore slaughtering millions - but for the record you don't think we should have gone into Iraq at all. Interesting! :eek:

Well, I think they're two different topics. I never thought invading Iraq was a good idea. There simply was not enough justification to do what I think is necessary to win. But, if the invasion of another nation is a foregone conclusion, and you ask me what I think we need to do, I'd say, like I said in another thread, make sure the enemy knows that we are the last word on aggression. Simply slotting in a new government doesn't work.

In my opinion of course.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

I hope the good ole U.S.A bombs Iran to the fucking stone age..........

hippiemom

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

I hope the good ole U.S.A bombs Iran to the fucking stone age..........

troublemaker

SPEEDY MCCREADY

hippiemom wrote:

troublemaker

good morning sunshine.......


and please dont tell me to join the marines.....hehehehe

im too old and fat......hehehehehe

Ahnimus

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

im too old and fat......hehehehehe

I'm suprised at that. Your attitude towards world matters implied to me your age was approximately 10 years old, give or take a few years.

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

I hope the good ole U.S.A bombs Iran to the fucking stone age..........

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

there are a few countries i wish the U.S.A. would "BOMB BACK TO THE STONE AGE"...................

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

lust is all you need.....

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

your great....

none of these 14 individuals had nothing to do with 9-11????

coughfuckingcoughgetafuckingcluecough...........

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

GITMO????

these prisons have been here in the good ole U.S.A for a long time....

because some people dont deserve the chance for rehabilitation....they deserve to be locked in cages 23 out of 24...

Yea, so anyway, it's not a personal attack. I'm just suprised. I guess age and the ability to accept alternate views and reform one's own view is kind of a bell curve. At the beginning of one's life they are totally convinced of what is told to them by figures they trust, such as their parents. In one's 20s and 30s they tend to look at things more analytically and think for themselves. Later in life people become set in their ways, with solid opinions that won't change for any evidence to the contrary.

What are your thoughts on this?