Should we go after Iran next?

J

jbtrader23

Now Lawmakers want a "regime change" in Iran. Hmmmm.

First there was Al Qaeda. The original bad guys in all of this. Bin Laden's group killed more americans in the last 10 years around the world than any other group. We haven't found him in his cave yet, but that's ok.

Then there were the rogue elements in Afghanistan. We haven't captured Bin Laden's buddy Mullah Omar. But oh well. He disappeared faster than Jimmy Hoffa.

Then there was Iraq. We haven't found Saddam or his inner circle or the dreaded WMD, but oh well, we'll save that for a rainy day.

Then we made threats to Syria. Now we're making threats to Iran.

What in the hell do we think we are doing? We've missed the original bad guys, we used paper thin "evidence" to go after Saddam. Now Iran is the "threat".

They've helped in the war on terror, there is a large movement in the country for reform, they haven't threatened their neighbors or us.

Does anyone believe Iran is a clear and present danger to the US right now?
 
c'mon, I mean who isn't a clear and present danger?

Let's look at the words and find out.

Clear. Well, they don't mean clear like water now do they. So they must mean visible, right? Shit we've got cameras everywhere, sattelites, spy planes (btw, how can they call them spy planes when you see a picture of one on TV and they say - "yup, that is a spy plane"), night-vision, infra red vision, and whole crap load more they don't make public. So things should be pretty fuckin' visible now shouldn't they - oh, wait - I meant clear.
Then again, Saddam, Bin Laden, and the WMD aren't very clear - we can't make heads nor tails of them - and yet they still make the list. So I don't think clear really means too much. It's just a nice sounding word.

Present. Is everyone present for class today? Your teacher used to say that, right? What did she mean? ARE YOU HERE, you little sob's?? I think that's what was on her mind anyway. But then, in this context they don't mean to say that the guilty need to be here, not here in the U.S. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had to take boats and planes across the fuckin' ocean now would we? So they mean 'here' as in 'here on this planet.' Kinda helps narrow it down now doesn't it.
But..but.. present is a very nice word, makes you think of gifts and christmas and long white-bearded, jolly, fatmen. That must be why they use it - to make us feel good - or scared - or feel good about being scared, yeah that's the ticket.

Danger. Okay, now we are getting down to the bottom of things. Danger. It must be important - because there's danger involved. Not risk, not threats, not an outside chance, but DANGER - right now motherfucker, so listen up: These people, these people we are telling you about are dangerous. Nothing they do is safe, not for them and not for you. This word alone should scare you so shitless you are willing to empty your pockets and bend over a just little more so good and kind Uncle Sam can stick it in just a little bit deeper.
Fuck danger, I hate it when there isn't the slightest bit of danger in life - it makes things very, very boring. So bring it on. I'm being completely honest now: When that sniper was trolling the D.C. area, I took the time to visit. I wanted to see some shootin', but you know what - one day after I got there they caught the fucks and ruined my fun. The whole trip was a waste.
Now that I think about it, it wasn't all that bad. I had to drive for a combined 8 hours to get there and back - the whole way on I-95. Now that's some danger, and fun too.
 
Well, we do have a militaristic administration that likes to go around attacking other countries.

On the bright side, at least we're only attacking the really annoying assholes that are out there. Taliban, Saddam, Ayatollahs- if we gotta fight somebody, it might as well be them, right?
 
Let's see, we've picked a fight with 4 countries so far in 18 months (afghanistan, iraq, syria, iran). In the next 18 months before the elections, we'll probably have to pick 4 more countries:

Who's the next junior level partner of the axis of evil?

Libya, Sudan (??), The House of Saud, Burma (??), Cuba (the most absurd of all), Columbia (?), Pakistan (they may have nukes and dictator, but they're our friends), Algeria (?),....we're running out of countries. Ahhhhh......
 
Quote from jbtrader23:

Let's see, we've picked a fight with 4 countries so far in 18 months (afghanistan, iraq, syria, iran). In the next 18 months before the elections, we'll probably have to pick 4 more countries:

Who's the next junior level partner of the axis of evil?

Libya, Sudan (??), The House of Saud, Burma (??), Cuba (the most absurd of all), Columbia (?), Pakistan (they may have nukes and dictator, but they're our friends), Algeria (?),....we're running out of countries. Ahhhhh......
More...

hehehe, you forgot to include Venezuela.:D

The answer of who's next, is very simple,

Cross reference the following:

1. Third world country
2. The country has resources we want read: preferably oil for now and strategic geographical importance
3 The country has no means of defending it self, read: no nukes and/or extreme range delivery systems.

Iran? of course they are next, give it some time.

Rest is easy:

Every hour on major media stations, 9/11, terrorist threat, wmd's, then insert, country name, evildoers, axis of evil, tyrant, addiction to wmd's and imminent threat to US. Ahhh yes don't leave out the spreading of democracy.
Rinse and repeat. Daily dosage? the higher the better :D :D :D

Move troops invade, no word afterwards on reasons or claims, on to the next. Pretty simple but has worked miracles.:mad: :mad:
 
Well Iran looks like a good target...stock market up 30%+ last year, their currency relatively stable, they have a housing boom, their raising taxes to fund investment and they have over 1 billion dollars worth of physical gold.....looks as if capitalism has found a home....

Now seeing the intellectual one needs to get re-elected and the hypocrite religion (read: the Christians - why I call this a hypocrite religion is simple, they love war and state executions and killing and guns in general yet their savior Jesus Christ never promoted either)..anyway, since the hypocrite religion supporters make up the constituent you can surely bet the farm another easy win war (read: country that has no real army so there will be very few American casualties-there will be casualties cause American military love to crash helicopters and shoot each other and try to cover it up on the evil brown people they're fighting).

Anyone want to be that a civil war is coming... it'll get labeled as liberals vs democrats but underneath it all its really intellectuals vs the idiotic hypocrite religious nuts. My money is on the hypocrites, they're just so damn crazy they'll kill everything and anything for any dumb reason.
 
We should only go in if they ask for help. The Czechs asked the Soviets for help in 1968 and the Poles asked Germany for help in 1938 or whenever. Soon both Iran and Saudi Arabia will need help too. All they have to do is ask.:D
 
Rumsfeld pushes for regime change in Iran

By Guy Dinmore in Washington and Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Iran
Updated: May 29 2003 21:56

Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, is spearheading efforts to make "regime change" in Iran the official policy goal of the Bush administration, but his campaign is meeting with considerable resistance from other senior figures, according to officials and analysts.

A reassessment of US policy towards Iran coincides with an initiative launched by powerful conservative figures within the Islamic republic to engage the US in an attempt to restore relations -and thereby preserve the clerical regime in Tehran.

Media reports from Tehran claim that Mohsen Rezaei - a former Revolutionary Guards commander who is close to the former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani - has made a tentative approach to Washington.

According to one official, Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser, has stepped in to freeze the fierce debate within the administration over Iran. The official denied reports that a high-level policy meeting on Iran was to be held on Thursday.

For the moment, the policy of limited diplomatic engagement with Iran remains in place, although President George W. Bush bracketed Iran with Iraq and North Korea in his "axis of evil" speech.

If regime change were to become official policy, then the US would cut off diplomatic contacts, lend support to opposition groups and intensify economic pressure. It would not necessarily involve military action.

The Pentagon had no immediate response to suggestions of Mr Rumsfeld's proposed policy change. Mr Rumsfeld's case focuses on concerns over the advanced nature of Iran's nuclear programme, its attempts to influence events in Iraq and allegations that Tehran is harbouring al-Qaeda militants who played a key role in the May 12 suicide bombings in Riyadh.

This last allegation is contested by George Tenet, head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and has served to highlight the rivalry between the CIA and the Pentagon.

"Rumsfeld sees this opportunity to adopt a formal policy of regime change," said Flynt Leverett, who left his post as senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council in March and joined the Brookings Institution think-tank.

He said the view of hawks in the Pentagon is that the struggle in Iran is not between hardline clerics and elected reformists led by President Mohammed Khatami, but between the people and the system.

"They [in the Pentagon] see the whole superstructure as discredited, a house of cards ready to be pushed over the precipice," Mr Leverett added. The European Union, which has hitherto adopted a softer line than the US towards the regime in Tehran, is also expressing increasing concern over Iran's nuclear programme, adds Judy Dempsey in Brussels.

A senior EU official said: "We now have reason to believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons. We would be fooling ourselves if we thought it was anything else."

An EU delegation will spell out its concerns to Iran over its nuclear weapons capabilities when it travels to Tehran on Sunday for three days of talks.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1051390432932&p=1012571727088
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top