Is Iran next? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #16 03-24-2007, 03:19 PM

I hope Iran waits until Bush is out of office before they get really adventurous. Whatever we may think of the current situation and of the current administration, it is beyond doubt that Bush has lost the confidence of the majority of Americans. Anybody can fight a war. Winning a war requires leadership strongly supported by the people. We don't have that and I don't see how Bush can regain it.

B

dlssmith · #17 03-24-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I don't know how W would understand anything about them when he refuses to even speak with them. I've seen evidence that they are willing to do business (so to speak), but we refuse to engage them in any discussions. Seems foolish to me.How do you know that they were legally in place? The Iranians say otherwise.

There is a lot of talking going on using what diplomats call back channels. We have a long history of that type of diplomacy with our declared enemies.

Hm. The Iranians say the British were illegally in Iranian waters. What do the British say? If you want to take the Iranian's word for it, then fine. It takes a lot of nerve to do so and to defend your assumptions.

Honus · #18 03-24-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlssmith

...What do the British say?...

The Brits say that their marines were in Iraqi waters when the Iranians siezed them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6491577.stm

Quote:

If you want to take the Iranian's word for it, then fine. It takes a lot of nerve to do so and to defend your assumptions.

I don't know what that means. Who's taking the Iranians word for anything? I said that I couldn't vouch for what they said. You were the one who said that they were "legally in place." I don't know how you could know that. I have no idea where they were.

Honus · #19 03-24-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Lets see, a country bent on destroying Israel and all Jews everywhere can be reasoned with? Get a clue.

So, the entire country of Iran is bent on destroying Isreal? I know that a few of their leaders have expressed that wish. I wasn't aware that it was unanimous. I also wasn't aware that they would seek the destruction of Isreal to the exclusion of everything else we could use to influence them.

Quote:

...I could respect a true anti-war stance, even though it is an unrealistic way to live your life, it always assumes the other guy is rational and doesn't want you dead...

Of all the wrong things in your post, that is the wrongest. For one thing, there is no single, uniform anti-war stance. My personal anti-war stance does not assume that the other guy doesn't want me dead, but it does assume that he will act in his own selfish interest. If Bush had a clue, he would use that universal truth to our advantage.

Quote:

...But nothing you hear today is true anti-war, its just anti-Bush, and in case nobody noticed, thats not an idealogy, is a sickness.

Who says? I hear that accusation all the time. It's not only untrue, it doesn't even make sense, unless W is the center of the universe, and that is just not the case. Thank God.

Jim B. · #20 03-24-2007, 05:39 PM

The United States military at the present time simply doesn't have enough properly trained armedforces and equipment for them to mount a successful invasion and ocupation of Iran, and since there was no provocation towards American forces by this latest act, American intervention is unlikely. And as mentioned hereinabove, there'd be little American support for such intervention. (not that any of those matters would necessarily stop the President from intervening).

The true power in Iran resides not in its parliament, or in Ahmadinejad, but lies with the Mullahs and the revolutionary guards that back them. the country may have some trappings of a parliamentary democracy, but it most assuredly is NOT one. They are not sophisticated in matters of foreign policy, and there is a large portion of the population in disagreement with them, and their economy is in bad shape. It's possible these capers are undertaken by them to draw attention away from their problems at home...

dlssmith · #21 03-24-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

For one thing, there is no single, uniform anti-war stance. My personal anti-war stance does not assume that the other guy doesn't want me dead, but it does assume that he will act in his own selfish interest.

History does not support your argument. What part of the subjugation of Europe was in Hitler's "own selfish interest"? The destruction of Jews in Europe in who's selfish interest? The repression of eastern Europe by the Soviets was in who's interest? And worse yet, the attacks on the world trade center? In whose interest?

As a child of the 70s, I hear your argument - let's all live in peace! But human nature being what it is, proves that assumption wrong. We must assume a defensive stance as a nation. It is expensive and in many ways counter intuitive, but has been necessary since about 1914, when the concept of global warfare was born.

Botnst · #22 03-24-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

The United States military at the present time simply doesn't have enough properly trained armedforces and equipment for them to mount a successful invasion and ocupation of Iran, and since there was no provocation towards American forces by this latest act, American intervention is unlikely. And as mentioned hereinabove, there'd be little American support for such intervention. (not that any of those matters would necessarily stop the President from intervening).......

What you say is true if you are predicating military response on invasion. There are other options.

B

dannym · #23 03-24-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

..............The true power in Iran resides not in its parliament, or in Ahmadinejad, but lies with the Mullahs and the revolutionary guards that back them. the country may have some trappings of a parliamentary democracy, but it most assuredly is NOT one. They are not sophisticated in matters of foreign policy, and there is a large portion of the population in disagreement with them, and their economy is in bad shape. It's possible these capers are undertaken by them to draw attention away from their problems at home...

Thank you

450slcguy · #24 03-24-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

If you Bush bashers could understand the big picture in even the slightest way, you wouldn't make so many dumb-ass comments.

Your interpretation of the "Big Picture" is what got us into this mess in the first place. I don't share GWB's and your big picture ideology. Nor does the majority of the American public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

This war is won, we cannot be defeated militarily. Only pathetic iditos bent on defeat (Dems, media) can reverse this fact. Iran and N Korea are next. This was just a warmup.

Talking about "dumb-ass comments", I believe GWBs views and yours are prime examples of arrogance, ignorance and stupidity.

t walgamuth · #25 03-24-2007, 10:28 PM

pure unadulterated fantasy.

the war is not and cannot be won militarily.

and probably no other way either.

tom w

450slcguy · #26 03-24-2007, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

pure unadulterated fantasy.

Delusional would be a better word.

Austin85 · #27 03-24-2007, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Delusional would be a better word.

Delusional is accurate to the tee.

Even if for a 1/2 a second you were to take the side that winning is US having a "toe hold" in the midlle east- this occupation of Iraq is nowhere near being a secure one.

And it may never be secure - and if it ever is, as unlikely as that is... it will be a long time before that is known by anyone.

And if it was an occupation of Iraq was this admnins real objective to have this "base away from home in the ME", please explain to me how Iraq was the best choice for us to pitch tents.

It sounds like some Dudley Doowright recruiting officer rang this guys doorbell one Sunday morning and said, " Here kid, DRINK THIS KOOL AID and everything will be good again."

One of the problems with growing up in the seventies is you missed the 60's....and the lessons that came from them.

my 2c
......

t walgamuth · #28 03-25-2007, 02:18 AM

ahhhh yes.

the sixties were about ideals.

the seventies more about drugs.

tom w

Jim B. · #29 03-25-2007, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

What you say is true if you are predicating military response on invasion. There are other options.

B

Yeah, I s'pose he could just say, "F*** it", and push the button.

Give 'em a taste of the "Big Nuke"..........

Before THEY get their hands on one...

Honus · #30 03-25-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlssmith

History does not support your argument. What part of the subjugation of Europe was in Hitler's "own selfish interest"? The destruction of Jews in Europe in who's selfish interest? The repression of eastern Europe by the Soviets was in who's interest? And worse yet, the attacks on the world trade center? In whose interest?

You have stretched my argument beyond recognition. I said that Bush should engage Iran and see whether their selfish interests overlap with our own. For example, in 2001, Iran and the United States shared an interest in defeating the Taliban and I'm told that we got valuable cooperation from Iran during the early parts of the war in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, W lost interest in that war and decided to start a different war in Iraq. Even so, I will bet that Iran would like to talk to us about fighting the resurgent Taliban. There are other areas where we might have things that Iran wants. We should explore it. We might actually learn something.

Now, if Iran invades Poland or tries to exterminate a race of people or to repress its neighbors or bombs Manhattan, then the time for talking will be over. I just don't think we are there yet.

I don't see how you can say that history does not support my view that people act in their own selfish interest. I thought that was a universal truth throughout history.

Quote:

As a child of the 70s, I hear your argument - let's all live in peace!...

I would love to see you go back and find a single word I said that makes that argument.