U.S. Draft Call - War with Iran

fuck · July 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

We're not going to war with Iran in the next six months.

Why do you say that?

There's not going to be a war with Iran, unless Iran does something super silly, like attack someone else first.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7500342.stm

"Israel's defence minister has warned of his country's readiness to act against Iran if it feels threatened."

Not the same as being attacked first.

If Israel is the one attacked, then Israel would probably do it. Assuming they haven't been nuked off the face of the earth themselves. Of course, given my answer to Nos. 1 and 2, I don't think it's likely Iran nukes Israel anytime soon.

You act as if it's a well-known fact that Iran has nukes... you do realize it's NOT a fact, right?

fuck · July 2008

Byrnzie wrote:

I wonder what ever became of the rule of international law?

Those documents are probably locked up in a drawer somewhere.

Im still here · July 2008

look, the draft has been in Committee for years now

Conyers really wants it to pass

he keeps introducing the bill under dif names

so from my point of view its just a matter of time

ages are 18-42, and it's called Civil Service, hahahahahaha

what a fukin joke.........

slightofjeff · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

Why do you say that?

Because it took them longer than that to come up with a bogus reason to attack Iraq. These things don't just happen overnight. They'll go the U.N., they'll fuck around in committee, yada yada. Barring an outright attack by Iran on someone else, there's no way to get this done in six months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7500342.stm

"Israel's defence minister has warned of his country's readiness to act against Iran if it feels threatened."

Not the same as being attacked first.

Sounds like typical bluster to try and scare Iran out of a potential first strike to me. A lot more effective then, "We will only attack Iran if they bomb us off the face of the map first."

You act as if it's a well-known fact that Iran has nukes... you do realize it's NOT a fact, right?

Yes, I realize this. Although they probably should learn from Saddam that it's best not to pretend you have weapons that you don't.

rebornFixer · July 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

Yes, I realize this. Although they probably should learn from Saddam that it's best not to pretend you have weapons that you don't.

Ding ding ding ... we've got a winner.

fuck · July 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

Because it took them longer than that to come up with a bogus reason to attack Iraq. These things don't just happen overnight. They'll go the U.N., they'll fuck around in committee, yada yada. Barring an outright attack by Iran on someone else, there's no way to get this done in six months.

they've been going to the UN about Iran for years. Plus, this is nowhere near as complicated as Iraq was. They wanted to invade Iraq back then. Right now, all they wanna do is bomb Iran... it's a big difference, and it can certainly happen in way less than 6 months.

Sounds like typical bluster to try and scare Iran out of a potential first strike to me. A lot more effective then, "We will only attack Iran if they bomb us off the face of the map first."

...I highly doubt that. If anything, Iran is trying to scare Israel out of a potential first strike... Israel is the aggressive one in this scenario, NOT Iran.

Yes, I realize this. Although they probably should learn from Saddam that it's best not to pretend you have weapons that you don't.

when did they ever pretend to have nukes?

rebornFixer · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

they've been going to the UN about Iran for years. Plus, this is nowhere near as complicated as Iraq was. They wanted to invade Iraq back then. Right now, all they wanna do is bomb Iran... it's a big difference, and it can certainly happen in way less than 6 months.

...I highly doubt that. If anything, Iran is trying to scare Israel out of a potential first strike... Israel is the aggressive one in this scenario, NOT Iran.

when did they ever pretend to have nukes?

I cry bullshit on that "Iran is not the aggressor" remark. That is just plain wrong. If Iran's president kept his yap shut, Israel wouldn't posture and ponder a strike.

slightofjeff · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

when did they ever pretend to have nukes?

You're right. The nuclear program they keep going on about is only for "energy purposes."

In another news, I keep a gun in the house, just because I like to look at shiny things.

slightofjeff · July 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

I cry bullshit on that "Iran is not the aggressor" remark. That is just plain wrong. If Iran's president kept his yap shut, Israel wouldn't posture and ponder a strike.

Yeah, seriously. If every country that surrounded you kept going on and on about how you should be wiped off the map ... it might make you a little edgy, too.

rebornFixer · July 2008

And ... Iran could also consider ceasing all efforts to fund, train, and equip Israel's Islamic fundamentalist enemies ... You know, if they're serious about Israel backing off and all.

fuck · July 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

Ding ding ding ... we've got a winner.

they never pretended anything. they've been saying since the beginning WE HAVE NO NUKES, THIS IS FOR CIVIL PURPOSE ONLY.

the fact that people actually find ways to translate that to: "We have nukes, but we're going to pretend we don't" is astonishing.

fuck · July 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

I cry bullshit on that "Iran is not the aggressor" remark. That is just plain wrong. If Iran's president kept his yap shut, Israel wouldn't posture and ponder a strike.

criticizing Israel's policies means you deserve to be bombed?

ok.

fuck · July 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

Yeah, seriously. If every country that surrounded you kept going on and on about how you should be wiped off the map ... it might make you a little edgy, too.

Actually, Iran never said Israel should be wiped off the map... and as far as I know, no surrounding country did.

In fact, the only people who claim the arab states did that is the MEDIA, and you seem to not know the difference.

rebornFixer · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

criticizing Israel's policies means you deserve to be bombed?

ok.

Um, no. But what this man does goes WAY beyond criticising Israel's policies. Believe it or not, the Americans, Israel's staunch ally, have begun to criticize Israel's actions. Criticism is not the problem here. Fomenting violence, funneling arms into Lebanon/Gaza, and direct threats are the problems of which I speak.

slightofjeff · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

Actually, Iran never said Israel should be wiped off the map... and as far as I know, no surrounding country did.

I guess Ahmadinejad was misquoted all those times, then.
And I'm about 99.9 percent sure Saddam was making similar threats before he met his untimely demise.

Seriously ... if you don't think most of the Middle East wants Israel gone, kaput, finito ... I don't even know how we can have a conversation about it. We're just existing in two distinct universes.

EDIT: From the first fuckin' entry Google brought up:

Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis

By SEAN YOONG
The Associated Press

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime."

Israel "is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence," he said.

fuck · July 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

And ... Iran could also consider ceasing all efforts to fund, train, and equip Israel's Islamic fundamentalist enemies ... You know, if they're serious about Israel backing off and all.

Islamic fundamentalist enemies?

If you're talking about Hezbollah, they're not an "Islamic fundamentalist enemy", they're actually a legitimate resistance group that controls lots of political power in the Lebanese government... the western-backed Lebanese government now negotiates and works with them...

Israel and the US should not have the authority to control which country does what.

JasonTeck · July 2008

puremagic wrote:

Lets discuss, since our leaders don't listen to the people. It will be us and the brits putting on uniforms. You can't hide in college, the national guard or your job. Remember the age limit for military service was raised to 40 something. So,

1. Will the next President have to institute a draft call if Bush takes the country into war with Iran before he leaves office?

We are stretched to the limit, shifting military personnel back and forth from Iraq and Afghanistan. If we go to war with Iran, the next President will not be able to withdraw troops from Iraq or Afghanistan because the entire region will be highly volatible.

2. Do you think the EU and other coalition nations will send large amounts of troops to assist the U.S. in a war with Iran?

3. Without EU and coalition support is a limited nuke strike on Iran a reality?

4. How do you think Russia and China will support Iran if attacked?

Is the world ready for this?

My ass is not fighting in any war....Canada here I come!!!!

fuck · July 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

I guess Ahmadinejad was misquoted all those times, then.

It was one time, and yes, he was COMPLETELY and KNOWINGLY misquoted. In fact, he was QUOTING someone else while saying that, and the ridiculous media misquoted that.

Seriously ... if you don't think most of the Middle East wants Israel gone, kaput, finito ... I don't even know how we can have a conversation about it. We're just existing in two distinct universes.

Unfortunately, I don't decide to bomb people based on what I "think" most of them want. Not only that, but just because they don't agree with the occupation does not mean they deserve to be bombed.

rebornFixer · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

Islamic fundamentalist enemies?

If you're talking about Hezbollah, they're not an "Islamic fundamentalist enemy", they're actually a legitimate resistance group that controls lots of political power in the Lebanese government... the western-backed Lebanese government now negotiates and works with them...

Israel and the US should not have the authority to control which country does what.

Like slight said, different universes. Hezbollah is grounded in fundamentalist doctrine, and the Lebanese government "works with them" because it has no choice. I do not view them as a legitimate resistence group. If they were, Israel would actually have to had conquered and occupied Lebanon. They invaded in 1982 and again more recently to battle militants. Then they left. What does Hez continue to resist? Answer: The existence of Israel. I don't view this as a legit political or social goal.

fuck · July 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

EDIT: From the first fuckin' entry Google brought up:

Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis

By SEAN YOONG
The Associated Press

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime."

Israel "is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence," he said.

WRONG. HE NEVER SAID THIS.

In fact, the idiot media translated it COMPLETELY wrong.
First of all, he was quoting a senior muslim scholar, he wasn't using his own words.
Second of all, he DID NOT call for Israel to be wiped off the map... he said "one day the Zionist regime [WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAT ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE COUNTRY OF ISRAEL] will be wiped from the pages of history."

Referring Israel to the "Zionist regime" is like referring the US to the "Bush administration." Ahmadinejad is against the illegal occupation. THat last quote you put was perfect:
Israel "is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence," he said.

He doesn't mean all Israelis deserve to die and go to hell. He means that Israel, in its current state, is illegal to exist. It's as simple as that.

EDIT: I'm at work. Can someone else please post that George Galloway video?

U.S. Draft Call - War with Iran

Comments

Categories