# Its time to militarily conduct regime change in Iran



## rhodescholar

Since the animals that have illegally and illegitimately retained power continue to attack and beat civilians, including trespassing into their homes at night, as the Basij cowards are smashing into the homes of people when they see them chanting on their roofs in the evening, the regime can no longer be tolerated.

A dictatorship that would attack and murder sleeping college students - sending in armed thugs into dorms, again late at night, is not one that can be trusted - or negotiated with.  

THERE IS NOTHING FOR OBAMA TO DISCUSS WITH THEM, NOTHING.

Only an outside military intervention to destroy the regime, the IRGC, and certainly the Basij, is a feasible method of stopping the onslaught internally in iran, and the external funding of terrorist proxies abroad.

To those that screech about the past history of Western imperialism and colonialism, it is not a justification for iran's internal repressions or stoking of terrorist flames throughout the middle east. Nor is it acceptable to allow more iranian civilians to suffer because of Western guilt over past misdeeds.

In 1945, the US liberated China from Japan, 5 years later China sent troops and support into North Korea, so it goes both ways. The US deposed Mossadegh 50 years ago, that event has exhausted its political mileage and capital long ago. The only reason its even mentioned is so that filth like Ahmadinejihadist can continue to try and deflect his government's abject failings onto manufactured external enemies.

Given that the regime will continue to use infinite amounts of force internally to retain power, and is working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons and prevent external threats, time is running out on deposing this monstrous regime - and our children will never forgive us for failing to do so when we had the chance.

I see the regime as an existential, apocalyptic, lunatic death cult who is a threat to the safety and security of not just the middle east, but entire planet. It is well known amongst clandestine agencies it has developed and maintained terrorist cells throughout the West, who must be located and exterminated when the military campaign is initiated.

Further concerns that iranians will "rally around the government" should the West attack are no longer valid, given that their choice is to be further tormented and murdered indefinitely by a known devil - or take their chances with a new regime formulated by the people, for the people, as in the case with Iraq.

The US and West know that they cannot implant a pliant dictatorship as in the past; there are too many obstacles to doing so, not least being the fact that past history proves one will not last without using the same horrific methods the illegal regime has just used itself.

A major initial strike, with the major regime figures captured and/or killed, regime defense forces liquidated, and a representative, secular democracy implanted - and an accounting for and termination of funds and support for the various proxy armies.

See:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/..._iran_election


----------



## JBeukema

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/79542-how-should-the-us-approach-iran.html


----------



## Markjw

Personally I don't think it is a good time for America to go over to Iran. We have so much on our plate right now and our military is already to thin. I think it's about time someone else hike up their undies and help those people out in Iran.

I agree that something needs to be done. I agree. But I don't think we have the ability at this point in time to lead any kind of invasion.

WWIII. Everyone ready?


----------



## rhodescholar

JBeukema said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/79542-how-should-the-us-approach-iran.html



Ha, I was the one vote at the bottom pressing for military support...


----------



## elvis

How would we conduct regime change in Iran?  How many troops would that require?  Sounds like a draft would be required.  I am sure it would require more troops than Iraq did.


----------



## Xenophon

I would not send one US soldier for Iran.

If they want a new gov they will have to fight for it themselves.


----------



## Bfgrn

rhodescholar said:


> Since the animals that have illegally and illegitimately retained power continue to attack and beat civilians, including trespassing into their homes at night, as the Basij cowards are smashing into the homes of people when they see them chanting on their roofs in the evening, the regime can no longer be tolerated.
> 
> A dictatorship that would attack and murder sleeping college students - sending in armed thugs into dorms, again late at night, is not one that can be trusted - or negotiated with.
> 
> THERE IS NOTHING FOR OBAMA TO DISCUSS WITH THEM, NOTHING.
> 
> Only an outside military intervention to destroy the regime, the IRGC, and certainly the Basij, is a feasible method of stopping the onslaught internally in iran, and the external funding of terrorist proxies abroad.
> 
> To those that screech about the past history of Western imperialism and colonialism, it is not a justification for iran's internal repressions or stoking of terrorist flames throughout the middle east. Nor is it acceptable to allow more iranian civilians to suffer because of Western guilt over past misdeeds.
> 
> In 1945, the US liberated China from Japan, 5 years later China sent troops and support into North Korea, so it goes both ways. The US deposed Mossadegh 50 years ago, that event has exhausted its political mileage and capital long ago. The only reason its even mentioned is so that filth like Ahmadinejihadist can continue to try and deflect his government's abject failings onto manufactured external enemies.
> 
> Given that the regime will continue to use infinite amounts of force internally to retain power, and is working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons and prevent external threats, time is running out on deposing this monstrous regime - and our children will never forgive us for failing to do so when we had the chance.
> 
> I see the regime as an existential, apocalyptic, lunatic death cult who is a threat to the safety and security of not just the middle east, but entire planet. It is well known amongst clandestine agencies it has developed and maintained terrorist cells throughout the West, who must be located and exterminated when the military campaign is initiated.
> 
> Further concerns that iranians will "rally around the government" should the West attack are no longer valid, given that their choice is to be further tormented and murdered indefinitely by a known devil - or take their chances with a new regime formulated by the people, for the people, as in the case with Iraq.
> 
> The US and West know that they cannot implant a pliant dictatorship as in the past; there are too many obstacles to doing so, not least being the fact that past history proves one will not last without using the same horrific methods the illegal regime has just used itself.
> 
> A major initial strike, with the major regime figures captured and/or killed, regime defense forces liquidated, and a representative, secular democracy implanted - and an accounting for and termination of funds and support for the various proxy armies.
> 
> See:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/..._iran_election



HERE you go...put up or SHUT up...

*GoArmy.com > Contact the Army > Find a Recruiter*


----------



## editec

> *Its time to militarily conduct regime change in Iran *




Dumb idea.

Truly dumb.


----------



## Lycurgus

Xenophon said:


> I would not send one US soldier for Iran.
> 
> If they want a new gov they will have to fight for it themselves.




Exactly! They themselves can bring the change they wish, if they truly want it. And yes, it will mean the s[illing of a lot more blood.


----------



## Care4all

ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)

NO

Change from within, is the only way to go....

We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....


----------



## Douger

elvis3577 said:


> How would we conduct regime change in Iran?  How many troops would that require?  Sounds like a draft would be required.  I am sure it would require more troops than Iraq did.


Oh there's enough brainwashed flag wavers around to volunteer if Their Shepherd were to come on TV and ask for "help".....and maybe 20 grand for a new house trailer and a 9mm Beretta to hide under their Bible.
Take them over some freeDumb and DemoNcracy...AKA Bomb them into the stone age and take control of their natural resources.

If they do I'm going to find a body bag company and an artificial limb company and buy some stock. Iran has a real military. Afghan and Iraq didn't.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Care4all said:


> ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)
> 
> NO
> 
> Change from within, is the only way to go....
> 
> We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....



Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.  On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us?  What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided?  Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.

Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home?  After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves?  Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?


----------



## Dr Grump

toomuchtime_ said:


> Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.  On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us?  What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided?  Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.
> 
> Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home?  After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves?  Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?



1) Comparing Germany and Japan to the ME is wrong. Two different kettle of fish.
2) Japan and Germany were expansionist in nature, Iran has kept within its own borders.
3) The Europeans were willing to fight during WWII, but with the exception of Britain, they lost.


----------



## editec

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)
> 
> NO
> 
> Change from within, is the only way to go....
> 
> We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.
Click to expand...

 
Good point, but hardly the same situation.





> On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us?


 
No





> What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided?
> 
> Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.[/


 
Surely you cannot believe that this analogy is valid, can you?




> Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home?


 
_Hmmm_...that's exactly what we did. It worked out fairly well, too.





> After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?


 
Silly argument.


----------



## toomuchtime_

editec said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)
> 
> NO
> 
> Change from within, is the only way to go....
> 
> We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point, but hardly the same situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you cannot believe that this analogy is valid, can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Hmmm_...that's exactly what we did. It worked out fairly well, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly argument.
Click to expand...


Translation: you don't like what I said, but you have no idea why.


----------



## rdking647

after were done with Iran should we invade north korea?  how abour myanmar?I know how about china?????


----------



## Care4all

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)
> 
> NO
> 
> Change from within, is the only way to go....
> 
> We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As others have said, these situations are not remotely similar?
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us?  What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummmmm, Japan ATTACKED us, at Pearl Harbor?  And Germany declared war against us BEFORE we got involved in WWII?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You truly are not making any sense too much time?
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home?  After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves?  Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War was declared on us, it is the only legal reason we constitutionally had, to go in to world war II imo....
> 
> Genocide is not occurring in Iran, yes they had some brutality with this election, but no where near the brutality and systematic killing that is going on in the Sudan and other regions of the world, where we may have to send help....NOT declare war.
> 
> Care
Click to expand...


----------



## editec

toomuchtime_ said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but hardly the same situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you cannot believe that this analogy is valid, can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Hmmm_...that's exactly what we did. It worked out fairly well, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: you don't like what I said, but you have no idea why.
Click to expand...

 
Well it's fairly clear that_ you_ have no idea why, that I'll give ya'.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Dr Grump said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.  On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us?  What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided?  Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.
> 
> Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home?  After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves?  Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Comparing Germany and Japan to the ME is wrong. Two different kettle of fish.
> 2) Japan and Germany were expansionist in nature, Iran has kept within its own borders.
> 3) The Europeans were willing to fight during WWII, but with the exception of Britain, they lost.
Click to expand...


1)  Still, a kettle is a kettle and a fish is a fish.  From the standpoint of American policy, the same questions apply: will regime change, such as we forced on Japan and Germany, last; should the US act to curb the national ambitions of a nation that is not directly threatening us here at home; how much in blood and treasure should the US be willing to spend to relieve the suffering of foreign peoples.

2)  Iran has acted to destabilize the government of Iraq and through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, it has acted to destabilize the Palestinian Authority as well as the government of Lebanon, and Hezbollah is reported to have significant presences in parts of Africa and South America; in addition Iran talks about about wiping out Israel in parallel with its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.  Iran may not be expansionist in exactly the ways Japan and Germany were, but it clearly uses military force to expand its influence beyond its borders and provides strong reasons for us to believe it hopes to expand this policy when it finally develops nuclear weapons.

Is staying within your borders a license to do anything you want?  Should the genocide in Rwanda have been immune to foreign intervention because it did not cross any borders?  Would the gassing of the Jews have been ok if only German Jews had been gassed and only within Germany's borders?  Certainly there will be a political purge in Iran in which many people will go to prison to prevent further dissent in the future and some in the government are talking about executing the protest leaders: is there a point beyond which foreign intervention is justified?

3) After the national armies were defeated, determined opposition to German oppression was rare, small in scale and not often supported by the surrounding populations, despite Hollywood's misrepresentations.  Why should Americans have fought and died to liberate France when it is reported the French resistance at its peak never counted more than 200 fighters?


----------



## rhodescholar

Bfgrn said:


> HERE you go...put up or SHUT up...



Oooh kid you are funny.  I just retired after over 20 years in the grind, most of them clandestine operations for JSOC.  You're a bit late in the game...

Sorry, but I'm probably the last person here you can use that line on, and if Jim Jones needs people, I can still fit into the same uniform I put on 24 years ago, and would happily _ volunteer _ to go (back) there.

Hi Elvis.  I wrote up a full description of my attack plan earlier, which is the type of plan I'm sure has been under War Game Review in SOCOM since, oh, about 20 years ago...


----------



## Sunni Man

rhodescholar said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> HERE you go...put up or SHUT up...
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote up a full description of my attack plan earlier, which is the type of plan I'm sure has been under War Game Review in SOCOM since, oh, about 20 years ago...
Click to expand...


No wonder we have been losing in all of our overseas military adventures


----------



## toomuchtime_

Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)
> 
> NO
> 
> Change from within, is the only way to go....
> 
> We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As others have said, these situations are not remotely similar?
> 
> 
> Ummmmm, Japan ATTACKED us, at Pearl Harbor?  And Germany declared war against us BEFORE we got involved in WWII?
> 
> 
> You truly are not making any sense too much time?
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home?  After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves?  Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War was declared on us, it is the only legal reason we constitutionally had, to go in to world war II imo....
> 
> Genocide is not occurring in Iran, yes they had some brutality with this election, but no where near the brutality and systematic killing that is going on in the Sudan and other regions of the world, where we may have to send help....NOT declare war.
> 
> Care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No two situations are exactly the same, but with respect to the point you originally made about regime change from the outside not lasting, Japan and Germany show that regime change from the outside can last.
> 
> In fact, we attacked Japan before Pearl Harbor.  The famous Flying Tigers, while technically part of the Chinese army, were US pilots flying US planes given to China who were secretly being paid by the US government and who received full credit on their service records for time served in the Chinese army.  In addition, FDR acted to block resource poor Japan from taking control of raw materials on the mainland and also ended the sale of essential raw materials to Japan from US sources.  There are credible reports that while FDR campaigned for reelection in 1940 by promising to keep the US out of the war, he was also assuring Churchill that he would work to bring us into the war.  In addition, the military aid we were giving to Britain before Pearl Harbor was essential to their war effort.  So we were clearly waging proxy wars against Japan and Germany before Pearl Harbor.
> 
> My point is that if we believe oppressed people can win their freedom if they are willing to pay the price, wouldn't it have been smarter for FDR to have been understanding about Japan's and German's national ambitions and not to have aided the Chinese and British and to have allowed the oppressed peoples of Asia and Europe to have fought their, in effect, revolutions, as we did our's?  Had we behaved this way, there is absolutely no indication that either Japan or Germany would have had any interest in attacking us here at home, and there is no reason to think they would have had any objection to continuing to do business with us.
Click to expand...


----------



## rhodescholar

Lycurgus said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not send one US soldier for Iran.
> 
> If they want a new gov they will have to fight for it themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They themselves can bring the change they wish, if they truly want it. And yes, it will mean the s[illing of a lot more blood.
Click to expand...


The questions I put then to all those who are against a military strike:

1) 6 years of diplomatic efforts have failed - do you realistically think that further talks can accomplish anything at this point?

2) iran has used the last 6 years of "talks" as a fig leaf to continue their nuclear weapons development - are you willing to allow them more time to develop them towards completion?

3) since iran is the primary rejectionist state in the middle east, and will never allow a peaceful resolution to the israeli-pal arab conflict, what is the purpose of attempting to solve that crises if the US allows iran's current regime to continue to exist?

4) Since it is not realistic for the US to simply pull out of the middle east - it provides a protective umbrella so that other allies can receive uninterrupted oil flow - like japan, for instance - and would lead to a power vacuum which would be filled by enemies such as China, Russia, iran, etc., what other option, since diplomacy is not viable, to work in time before iran constructs nuclear weapons?


----------



## rhodescholar

toomuchtime_ said:


> Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.  On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us?  What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided?  Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.
> 
> Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home?  After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves?  Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?



After this post, Gunny can close this thread.

Everything that needed to be said, that could be said, that should be said, on this topic, was said, in this post.

Screw you toomuch, for being born with a more efficient, capable skillset at presenting ideas and facts succinctly and eloquently.  Damn you


----------



## rhodescholar

Dr Grump said:


> 1) Comparing Germany and Japan to the ME is wrong. Two different kettle of fish.



Incorrect, iran's governing structure is nearly identical to Nazi Germany's, and retains the same firecely religious, mystical belief as in Japan of an unchallengeable leader.



> 2) Japan and Germany were expansionist in nature, Iran has kept within its own borders.



This line borders on trolling...



> 3) The Europeans were willing to fight during WWII, but with the exception of Britain, they lost.



What does this mean?


----------



## Sunni Man

rhodescholar said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without.  On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us?  What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided?  Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.
> 
> Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home?  After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves?  Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After this post, Gunny can close this thread.
> 
> Everything that needed to be said, that could be said, that should be said, on this topic, was said, in this post.
> 
> Screw you toomuch, for being born with a more efficient, capable skillset at presenting ideas and facts succinctly and eloquently.  Damn you
Click to expand...

RhodesStupid you are nothing but a wind bag full of idiotic statements


----------



## rhodescholar

editec said:


> Good point, but hardly the same situation.



Why is that?

The whole point is that FDR and Churchill wanted to attack early on, while Germany was still militarily vulnerable, and acquired such a powerful military, but because of people like yourself, had to wait until Pearl Harbor, and millions dead, before Congress would accept funding towards a military buildup.

The fact that the US army got its ass kicked for 3 years in WW2 owes alot to the resistance of those who preferred to hide like sheep while the world burned, ala Ron Paul, and just so that the US could fool itself and think it could just sit safely on the other side of the ocean and wait things out.

The world is not 1750 - or even 1850 - it is globally connected, and the US military provides an umbrella of protection allowing worldwide trade to flourish.

Countries either engage in trade or war, and if the US pulls back, countries like China will use war to increase their trade at the expense of the US, and iran will use war to spread further their diseased ideology, neither scenario is tolerable.


----------



## Bfgrn

rhodescholar said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> HERE you go...put up or SHUT up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh kid you are funny.  I just retired after over 20 years in the grind, most of them clandestine operations for JSOC.  You're a bit late in the game...
> 
> Sorry, but I'm probably the last person here you can use that line on, and if Jim Jones needs people, I can still fit into the same uniform I put on 24 years ago, and would happily _ volunteer _ to go (back) there.
> 
> Hi Elvis.  I wrote up a full description of my attack plan earlier, which is the type of plan I'm sure has been under War Game Review in SOCOM since, oh, about 20 years ago...
Click to expand...


Oh really...well, on weekends, I'm Jesus Christ...during the week I'm just superman...

One thing about these boards Einstein...WHO you claim to be cannot be verified. Your thoughts and your ideas must stand on their own... 

So, because it's the weekend... I revoke your screen name...you are now Pea Brain Scholar... you are welcome...


----------



## MaggieMae

rhodescholar said:


> Lycurgus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not send one US soldier for Iran.
> 
> If they want a new gov they will have to fight for it themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! They themselves can bring the change they wish, if they truly want it. And yes, it will mean the s[illing of a lot more blood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The questions I put then to all those who are against a military strike:
> 
> 1) 6 years of diplomatic efforts have failed - do you realistically think that further talks can accomplish anything at this point?
> 
> 2) iran has used the last 6 years of "talks" as a fig leaf to continue their nuclear weapons development - are you willing to allow them more time to develop them towards completion?
> 
> 3) since iran is the primary rejectionist state in the middle east, and will never allow a peaceful resolution to the israeli-pal arab conflict, what is the purpose of attempting to solve that crises if the US allows iran's current regime to continue to exist?
> 
> 4) Since it is not realistic for the US to simply pull out of the middle east - it provides a protective umbrella so that other allies can receive uninterrupted oil flow - like japan, for instance - and would lead to a power vacuum which would be filled by enemies such as China, Russia, iran, etc., what other option, since diplomacy is not viable, to work in time before iran constructs nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...


The flow of oil is probably THE major reason that Iran will never be invaded. It controls access through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, and should an attack on the country become imminent, Iran has the power to close off that access to oil tankers from many countries, including our own, which would in days create a global oil crisis like we've never seen before.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/Hormuz.html


----------



## Sunni Man

Bfgrn said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> HERE you go...put up or SHUT up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh kid you are funny.  I just retired after over 20 years in the grind, most of them clandestine operations for JSOC.  You're a bit late in the game...
> 
> Sorry, but I'm probably the last person here you can use that line on, and if Jim Jones needs people, I can still fit into the same uniform I put on 24 years ago, and would happily _ volunteer _ to go (back) there.
> 
> Hi Elvis.  I wrote up a full description of my attack plan earlier, which is the type of plan I'm sure has been under War Game Review in SOCOM since, oh, about 20 years ago...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really...well, on weekends, I'm Jesus Christ...during the week I'm just superman...
> 
> One thing about these boards Einstein...WHO you claim to be cannot be verified. Your thoughts and your ideas must stand on their own...
> 
> So, because it's the weekend... I revoke your screen name...you are now Pea Brain Scholar... you are welcome...
Click to expand...

LOL!!  you really nailed RhodesStupid


----------



## rhodescholar

Bfgrn said:


> Oh really...well, on weekends, I'm Jesus Christ...during the week I'm just superman...One thing about these boards Einstein...WHO you claim to be cannot be verified. Your thoughts and your ideas must stand on their own... So, because it's the weekend... I revoke your screen name...you are now Pea Brain Scholar... you are welcome...



Personally, I don't give a flying fuck who or what you believe.  I've stated that unlike a lot of war hawks, that I WOULD go to iran to fight - today, if asked.

Second, I've explained in detail both HOW I would launch a full scale assault on the country, AND the justifications for doing so.  Since you'd rather personally insult than debate on the merits, you can fuck off and be ignored until you do provide something of substance.


----------



## rhodescholar

MaggieMae said:


> The flow of oil is probably THE major reason that Iran will never be invaded. It controls access through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, and should an attack on the country become imminent, Iran has the power to close off that access to oil tankers from many countries, including our own, which would in days create a global oil crisis like we've never seen before.



I can tell you with certainty that there are subs and other vessels in those waters that would eliminate any mines the fascists attempt to position, and any attempt to scuttle large ships to block the waters would be dealt with harshly during a time of engagement.


----------



## geauxtohell

rhodescholar said:


> Second, I've explained in detail both HOW I would launch a full scale assault on the country, AND the justifications for doing so.  Since you'd rather personally insult than debate on the merits, you can fuck off and be ignored until you do provide something of substance.



Unless we are simply going to admit that we have become a nation of military interventionism, we have no justification for using our military to secure other people's liberties.

Furthermore, as we found in Iraq, no matter how much we think people will embrace us as liberators, the natives tend to get pissed when you invade them.  

Kind of like when outsiders try to intervene in a family spat, no matter how right they are in doing so.

Your plan of attack sounds like Iraq redux.  It ignores the inevitable insurgency.


----------



## Sunni Man

geauxtohell said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I've explained in detail both HOW I would launch a full scale assault on the country, AND the justifications for doing so.  Since you'd rather personally insult than debate on the merits, you can fuck off and be ignored until you do provide something of substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless we are simply going to admit that we have become a nation of military interventionism, we have no justification for using our military to secure other people's liberties.
> 
> Furthermore, as we found in Iraq, no matter how much we think people will embrace us as liberators, the natives tend to get pissed when you invade them.
> 
> Kind of like when outsiders try to intervene in a family spat, no matter how right they are in doing so.
> 
> Your plan of attack sounds like Iraq redux.  It ignores the inevitable insurgency.
Click to expand...

RhodesStupid is an idiot

Iran is bigger than Iraq and has a larger population.

If attacked, all of the people would fight against us.

Whereas, Iraq was divided between Sunni, Shite, and Kurds.

Iran is 99% Shia and would be united against any invaders.

If you think Iraq was a mess and hard to subdue. Iran would be 10 times worse

Plus where in our Constitution is the government given the green light to prowl the world  invading and occupying other countries?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Intervening in Iran has never worked out for us yet, why in the world do you think it would work now?  What would be the blowback of our getting militarily involved in Iran?  A regime worse than what they already have?  Us getting mired down in another war that can't possibly be won?


----------



## Bfgrn

rhodescholar said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really...well, on weekends, I'm Jesus Christ...during the week I'm just superman...One thing about these boards Einstein...WHO you claim to be cannot be verified. Your thoughts and your ideas must stand on their own... So, because it's the weekend... I revoke your screen name...you are now Pea Brain Scholar... you are welcome...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't give a flying fuck who or what you believe.  I've stated that unlike a lot of war hawks, that I WOULD go to iran to fight - today, if asked.
> 
> Second, I've explained in detail both HOW I would launch a full scale assault on the country, AND the justifications for doing so.  Since you'd rather personally insult than debate on the merits, you can fuck off and be ignored until you do provide something of substance.
Click to expand...



Well guess WHAT Pea Brain Scholar... you ARE a war hawk. And if you're too old to fight then you're just an old coward that sends other people's children off to die...

WHO is going to PAY for this "full scale assault" Pea Brain Scholar...that never rattles around in your tiny pea does it? BIG military and BIG prisons are not BIG government in your twisted little mind...

You talk about failed negotiations for the last 6 years...*WHAT* negotiations? Are you talking about 2001 and 2002, when Iran worked closely with American negotiators in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors, until Rumsfeld stepped in to end it? OR, are you talking about 2003, when Bush and his band of depots rejected negotiations after Iran made a bold proposal to Washington to hold direct talks with sweeping changes like: reorientation of Iranian policy toward Israel, stopping any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.), assisting America in stabilizing Iraq and a dramatic set of specific policy concessions on its nuclear program? The proposal the neocon war hawks helped undermine?

So Pea Brain Scholar, before you come to the table, first get more than a pea brain education on history and then bring us your pea brain way of paying for your murderous plot...

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
*Dwight D. Eisenhower*

"War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals."
*Charles Evans Hughes*


----------



## geauxtohell

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Intervening in Iran has never worked out for us yet, why in the world do you think it would work now?  What would be the blowback of our getting militarily involved in Iran?  A regime worse than what they already have?  Us getting mired down in another war that can't possibly be won?



Establishment of another government that is viewed as illegitimate by the people and ripe for another extremist take over in a couple of decades. 

"Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it."

Self determination must come from within.


----------



## Sunni Man

Bfgrn said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really...well, on weekends, I'm Jesus Christ...during the week I'm just superman...One thing about these boards Einstein...WHO you claim to be cannot be verified. Your thoughts and your ideas must stand on their own... So, because it's the weekend... I revoke your screen name...you are now Pea Brain Scholar... you are welcome...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't give a flying fuck who or what you believe.  I've stated that unlike a lot of war hawks, that I WOULD go to iran to fight - today, if asked.
> 
> Second, I've explained in detail both HOW I would launch a full scale assault on the country, AND the justifications for doing so.  Since you'd rather personally insult than debate on the merits, you can fuck off and be ignored until you do provide something of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well guess WHAT Pea Brain Scholar... you ARE a war hawk. And if you're too old to fight then you're just an old coward that sends other people's children off to die...
> 
> WHO is going to PAY for this "full scale assault" Pea Brain Scholar...that never rattles around in your tiny pea does it? BIG military and BIG prisons are not BIG government in your twisted little mind...
> 
> You talk about failed negotiations for the last 6 years...*WHAT* negotiations? Are you talking about 2001 and 2002, when Iran worked closely with American negotiators in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors, until Rumsfeld stepped in to end it? OR, are you talking about 2003, when Bush and his band of depots rejected negotiations after Iran made a bold proposal to Washington to hold direct talks with sweeping changes like: reorientation of Iranian policy toward Israel, stopping any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.), assisting America in stabilizing Iraq and a dramatic set of specific policy concessions on its nuclear program? The proposal the neocon war hawks helped undermine?
> 
> So Pea Brain Scholar, before you come to the table, first get more than a pea brain education on history and then bring us your pea brain way of paying for your murderous plot...
Click to expand...

Be careful!!!

You will only confuse RhodesStupid by giving him too many facts


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Intervening in Iran has never worked out for us yet, why in the world do you think it would work now?  What would be the blowback of our getting militarily involved in Iran?  A regime worse than what they already have?  Us getting mired down in another war that can't possibly be won?



Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan.  One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.  

We could certainly win a war with Iran in the sense of defeating its regular and irregular military forces but what would be the long term consequence of that victory?  It would certainly destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program and cripple its ability to support international terrorism or otherwise destabilize the PA and Lebanese government through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and that would go a long way towards promoting regional peace, but would we find enough Iranians who want a different kind of government to institutionalize these benefits?  Most important of all, even if we could, are we willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve this victory and those benefits and to inflict the kind of damage on the Iranian people it would require?


----------



## geauxtohell

toomuchtime_ said:


> Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan.  One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.



One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.

And so would our nation, if it even existed.

We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.


----------



## neurosport

rhodescholar said:


> Since the animals that have illegally and illegitimately retained power continue to attack and beat civilians, including trespassing into their homes at night, as the Basij cowards are smashing into the homes of people when they see them chanting on their roofs in the evening, the regime can no longer be tolerated.
> 
> A dictatorship that would attack and murder sleeping college students - sending in armed thugs into dorms, again late at night, is not one that can be trusted - or negotiated with.
> 
> THERE IS NOTHING FOR OBAMA TO DISCUSS WITH THEM, NOTHING.
> 
> Only an outside military intervention to destroy the regime, the IRGC, and certainly the Basij, is a feasible method of stopping the onslaught internally in iran, and the external funding of terrorist proxies abroad.
> 
> To those that screech about the past history of Western imperialism and colonialism, it is not a justification for iran's internal repressions or stoking of terrorist flames throughout the middle east. Nor is it acceptable to allow more iranian civilians to suffer because of Western guilt over past misdeeds.
> 
> In 1945, the US liberated China from Japan, 5 years later China sent troops and support into North Korea, so it goes both ways. The US deposed Mossadegh 50 years ago, that event has exhausted its political mileage and capital long ago. The only reason its even mentioned is so that filth like Ahmadinejihadist can continue to try and deflect his government's abject failings onto manufactured external enemies.
> 
> Given that the regime will continue to use infinite amounts of force internally to retain power, and is working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons and prevent external threats, time is running out on deposing this monstrous regime - and our children will never forgive us for failing to do so when we had the chance.
> 
> I see the regime as an existential, apocalyptic, lunatic death cult who is a threat to the safety and security of not just the middle east, but entire planet. It is well known amongst clandestine agencies it has developed and maintained terrorist cells throughout the West, who must be located and exterminated when the military campaign is initiated.
> 
> Further concerns that iranians will "rally around the government" should the West attack are no longer valid, given that their choice is to be further tormented and murdered indefinitely by a known devil - or take their chances with a new regime formulated by the people, for the people, as in the case with Iraq.
> 
> The US and West know that they cannot implant a pliant dictatorship as in the past; there are too many obstacles to doing so, not least being the fact that past history proves one will not last without using the same horrific methods the illegal regime has just used itself.
> 
> A major initial strike, with the major regime figures captured and/or killed, regime defense forces liquidated, and a representative, secular democracy implanted - and an accounting for and termination of funds and support for the various proxy armies.
> 
> See:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/..._iran_election



you can be the first one to go to Iran.

knock yourself out.

in fact pack up your shit and go already.  why do you need to be "asked" to go ?  no ifs no buts just go.

show them animals !

let us know how it goes !


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intervening in Iran has never worked out for us yet, why in the world do you think it would work now?  What would be the blowback of our getting militarily involved in Iran?  A regime worse than what they already have?  Us getting mired down in another war that can't possibly be won?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan.  One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.
> 
> We could certainly win a war with Iran in the sense of defeating its regular and irregular military forces but what would be the long term consequence of that victory?  It would certainly destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program and cripple its ability to support international terrorism or otherwise destabilize the PA and Lebanese government through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and that would go a long way towards promoting regional peace, but would we find enough Iranians who want a different kind of government to institutionalize these benefits?  Most important of all, even if we could, are we willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve this victory and those benefits and to inflict the kind of damage on the Iranian people it would require?
Click to expand...


Propping up a military dictator didn't work out for us whatsoever.  We earned the hatred of the Iranian citizens and had to deal with the hostage situation.  There are always unintended consequences for what we do around the world.

There's no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, only the same kind of propaganda that we heard prior to the Iraq war.  And no, it's not worth the price in blood and treasure, especially considering we don't know what else could go wrong on top of that.


----------



## toomuchtime_

geauxtohell said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan.  One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.
> 
> And so would our nation, if it even existed.
> 
> We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.
Click to expand...


One could call it progress.  

The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.  

However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.

So maybe the times aren't so different.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan.  One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.
> 
> And so would our nation, if it even existed.
> 
> We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One could call it progress.
> 
> The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.
> 
> However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.
> 
> So maybe the times aren't so different.
Click to expand...


Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.


----------



## geauxtohell

toomuchtime_ said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan.  One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.
> 
> And so would our nation, if it even existed.
> 
> We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One could call it progress.
> 
> The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.
> 
> However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.
> 
> So maybe the times aren't so different.
Click to expand...


I fail to see how perpetual war to prevent future wars is an improvement.  In fact, it sounds like something that is straight out of 1984.

People can do their best to recreate cold war era hysteria by playing the "what if" game, but the reality is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to their own use as they have always been.  No matter how crazy the regime, they know they will be destroyed if they ever launch against us.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intervening in Iran has never worked out for us yet, why in the world do you think it would work now?  What would be the blowback of our getting militarily involved in Iran?  A regime worse than what they already have?  Us getting mired down in another war that can't possibly be won?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan.  One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.
> 
> We could certainly win a war with Iran in the sense of defeating its regular and irregular military forces but what would be the long term consequence of that victory?  It would certainly destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program and cripple its ability to support international terrorism or otherwise destabilize the PA and Lebanese government through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and that would go a long way towards promoting regional peace, but would we find enough Iranians who want a different kind of government to institutionalize these benefits?  Most important of all, even if we could, are we willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve this victory and those benefits and to inflict the kind of damage on the Iranian people it would require?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propping up a military dictator didn't work out for us whatsoever.  We earned the hatred of the Iranian citizens and had to deal with the hostage situation.  There are always unintended consequences for what we do around the world.
> 
> There's no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, only the same kind of propaganda that we heard prior to the Iraq war.  And no, it's not worth the price in blood and treasure, especially considering we don't know what else could go wrong on top of that.
Click to expand...


Propping up the Shah, if that's what we did, did work out for us; not propping him up in 1979 is what got us in trouble.  

There's lots of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but it's not an airtight case, if that's what you mean, however, is that because there is no nuclear weapons program or because Iran refuses the IAEA the full access to its nuclear programs it is asking for?  There are only three reasons I can think why Iran would continue to deny the IAEA the full access it seeks: there is a nuclear weapons program, the regime wants the world to think there is because it makes Iran look tougher, stronger and more dangerous or the leadership is either stupid or crazy.  

It's true that we don't know what might go wrong if we do intervene, but we also don't know what might go wrong if we don't intervene.  If we had known in 1979 what not intervening to keep the Shah in power would lead to, would we have acted differently?  After all, Saddam would not have attacked Iran if Iran still had the support of the US, and millions of lives could have been saved if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power.  Arguably, Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if not for his failure to make any gains from the years of war with Iran, and had he not invaded Kuwait, we would not have become involved in the first Gulf War, and we would not have had to increase our presence in the ME, especially in Saudi Arabia, to contain Saddam afterwards and one could argue that it was the increased US military presence in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam that fueled the growth of al Qaeda and that led to 9/11 and our present wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to some extent, Pakistan.  

So, on balance, what could have gone wrong if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power in 1979?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan.  One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.
> 
> We could certainly win a war with Iran in the sense of defeating its regular and irregular military forces but what would be the long term consequence of that victory?  It would certainly destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program and cripple its ability to support international terrorism or otherwise destabilize the PA and Lebanese government through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and that would go a long way towards promoting regional peace, but would we find enough Iranians who want a different kind of government to institutionalize these benefits?  Most important of all, even if we could, are we willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve this victory and those benefits and to inflict the kind of damage on the Iranian people it would require?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propping up a military dictator didn't work out for us whatsoever.  We earned the hatred of the Iranian citizens and had to deal with the hostage situation.  There are always unintended consequences for what we do around the world.
> 
> There's no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, only the same kind of propaganda that we heard prior to the Iraq war.  And no, it's not worth the price in blood and treasure, especially considering we don't know what else could go wrong on top of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propping up the Shah, if that's what we did, did work out for us; not propping him up in 1979 is what got us in trouble.
> 
> There's lots of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but it's not an airtight case, if that's what you mean, however, is that because there is no nuclear weapons program or because Iran refuses the IAEA the full access to its nuclear programs it is asking for?  There are only three reasons I can think why Iran would continue to deny the IAEA the full access it seeks: there is a nuclear weapons program, the regime wants the world to think there is because it makes Iran look tougher, stronger and more dangerous or the leadership is either stupid or crazy.
> 
> It's true that we don't know what might go wrong if we do intervene, but we also don't know what might go wrong if we don't intervene.  If we had known in 1979 what not intervening to keep the Shah in power would lead to, would we have acted differently?  After all, Saddam would not have attacked Iran if Iran still had the support of the US, and millions of lives could have been saved if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power.  Arguably, Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if not for his failure to make any gains from the years of war with Iran, and had he not invaded Kuwait, we would not have become involved in the first Gulf War, and we would not have had to increase our presence in the ME, especially in Saudi Arabia, to contain Saddam afterwards and one could argue that it was the increased US military presence in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam that fueled the growth of al Qaeda and that led to 9/11 and our present wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to some extent, Pakistan.
> 
> So, on balance, what could have gone wrong if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power in 1979?
Click to expand...


We can't know what would have gone wrong, which is why we need to apply a non-interventionist foreign policy in all cases not just a select few.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.
> 
> And so would our nation, if it even existed.
> 
> We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could call it progress.
> 
> The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.
> 
> However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.
> 
> So maybe the times aren't so different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.
Click to expand...


Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans.  Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could call it progress.
> 
> The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.
> 
> However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.
> 
> So maybe the times aren't so different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans.  Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.
Click to expand...


We can't base our foreign policy on what-if doomsday scenarios.  Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S.  North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be.  However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.


----------



## rhodescholar

Bfgrn- you are a fucking idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge.  You are a typical middle american idiot asshole, who I would gladly trade for 3 halfway functional africans or chinese; at least they might add something to this great nation, and not weasel off of it like a turd like you...



> You talk about failed negotiations for the last 6 years...negotiations?



Wrong ****...ever heard of the EU-3 or the IAEA, you stupid fucking asshole?

Timeline: Iran´s Nuclear Programme

"October 2003: After meeting French, German and UK foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is produced to confirm the end of enrichment."

Excuse me, make that SIX years of failed diplomacy, not five.



> Are you talking about 2001 and 2002...OR, are you talking about 2003, when Bush and his band of depots rejected negotiations after Iran made a bold proposal to Washington to hold direct talks with sweeping changes like: reorientation of Iranian policy toward Israel, stopping any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.), assisting America in stabilizing Iraq and a dramatic set of specific policy concessions on its nuclear program? The proposal the neocon war hawks helped undermine?



No I am talking about the overtures from Clinton, when they stood him up at the UN, making him look like an asshole, or the dozens of other times American presidents have reached out, and not been reciprocated.

A dictatorship like this that exists solely through the re-direction towards external enemies will never, ever negotiate in good faith.

6 years ago - undoubtedly, when you were in second grade, the hawks like me said fine, we will grant the Europeans the option and room to negotiate, instead of a military strike - and it got nowhere - except to buy them more time to construct a nuclear weapon.  Judging by your low intelligence and arrogance, it sounds like you are a typical leftist POS anti-American, who wants to see a nuclear-armed iran.

Someday an idiot like you might present an original thought, assuming it landed on you.


----------



## geauxtohell

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could call it progress.
> 
> The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.
> 
> However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.
> 
> So maybe the times aren't so different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans.  Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.
Click to expand...


As I said, perpetual war to prevent possible future war seems like a dismal future to me.  No matter what, we can't stop every rogue nation from getting nuclear weapons.  

On a side note, thanks for being able to discuss this issue without use of the words "idiot", "fuck (or any derivative thereof)", "****", "jackass", "dumbass", "pussy", etc.


----------



## rhodescholar

toomuchtime_ said:


> Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan.  One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.



What a lot of ignorant, leftist trash here conveniently fails to mention is that Mossadegh had turned towards the USSR for support.



> We could certainly win a war with Iran in the sense of defeating its regular and irregular military forces but what would be the long term consequence of that victory?  It would certainly destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program and cripple its ability to support international terrorism or otherwise destabilize the PA and Lebanese government through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and that would go a long way towards promoting regional peace, but would we find enough Iranians who want a different kind of government to institutionalize these benefits?  Most important of all, even if we could, are we willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve this victory and those benefits and to inflict the kind of damage on the Iranian people it would require?



At this point, all I seek is 3 goals:

1-stopping their nuclear weapons program
2-containing their funding and use of terrorism outside their borders
3-stopping their attacks against iranian civilians

At this point, we could put Genghis Khan in as president there, and he'd have more credibility than their current regime.

As long as we (and by "we" I mean the West, not just the US) install a republican democracy, and have a strict timetable to exit, there would be less of an insurgency than in iraq.

Look boys and girls, its either deal with them now militarily when the West can, or deal with them later when they have nuclear weapons.  A penny spent now can save 1,000 later...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> You are a fucking **** idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge.
> ..




I could not read any further.


----------



## rhodescholar

toomuchtime_ said:


> One could call it progress.
> 
> The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.
> 
> However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.
> 
> So maybe the times aren't so different.



It is hilarious how the luddites and isolationsists want to turn back the clock to 1750, when  life was so simple, and there was no threats of today's magnitude.  Washington, Hamilton  and Jefferson, if they were alive today, would have probably slaughtered 1/2 of the world by now if they were facing the level of threats we do today...


----------



## geauxtohell

rhodescholar said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could call it progress.
> 
> The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.
> 
> However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.
> 
> So maybe the times aren't so different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is hilarious how the luddites and isolationsists want to turn back the clock to 1750, when  life was so simple, and there was no threats of today's magnitude.  Washington, Hamilton  and Jefferson, if they were alive today, would have probably slaughtered 1/2 of the world by now if they were facing the level of threats we do today...
Click to expand...


I am not a strict isolationist, but I do think running into every country that poses a problem for us with guns blazing is disastrous.  

Especially when the largest threat to our stability right now is from our economic rivals, and we are already in debt.


----------



## rhodescholar

geauxtohell said:


> I fail to see how perpetual war to prevent future wars is an improvement.  In fact, it sounds like something that is straight out of 1984.
> 
> People can do their best to recreate cold war era hysteria by playing the "what if" game, but the reality is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to their own use as they have always been.  No matter how crazy the regime, they know they will be destroyed if they ever launch against us.



Noone is claiming that iran would "launch a first-strike nuclear missile" at the continental US; all they would have to do is hand one off to one of their proxies, known to the West or unknown, and claim plausible deniability.

Let's say they openly transfer nukes to hezbolah, and hez uses one against the US, or another allied country, like france or saudi arabia...then what do you do?

And since the iranian filth refuse IAEA inspections, there is no way to trace the material back to iran if it were to come from one of their reactors (as was shown in the movie "Sum of All Fears").

The leftist dream of applying MAD here won't work for a number or reasons, but first and foremost is the lack of who to track the nuke back to.


----------



## geauxtohell

rhodescholar said:


> Noone is claiming that iran would "launch a first-strike nuclear missile" at the continental US; all they would have to do is hand one off to one of their proxies, known to the West or unknown, and claim plausible deniability.
> 
> Let's say they openly transfer nukes to hezbolah, and hez uses one against the US, or another allied country, like france or saudi arabia...then what do you do?
> 
> And since the iranian filth refuse IAEA inspections, there is no way to trace the material back to iran if it were to come from one of their reactors (as was shown in the movie "Sum of All Fears").
> 
> The leftist dream of applying MAD here won't work for a number or reasons, but first and foremost is the lack of who to track the nuke back to.



That scenario is not unique to Iran.  Terrorists don't need to wait for a nation state to acquire a nuclear weapon to try and obtain one.  

Our assets are better spent, IMO, keeping our eye on that ball as opposed to others.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S.  North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be.  However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.



WTF are you talking about?  Iran just put 2 satellites into space - read the news lately, beside Communist Times?

And its even more hilarious how, all of a sudden, now the left is leaning back on the missile defense program AKA star wars - the very program they spent enormous clout and effort trying to stop - screeching "it won't work" - for over 20 years.

So, leftist, after decrying the Star Wars program, now you think you can say "hey, I was there all along"?  Don't fucking think so.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fucking **** idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge.
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not read any further.
Click to expand...


Hysterical how douchebags like you are so one-sided, did you take not of that asshole's personal insults on the prior page?  

Oh that's right, only leftists are allowed to do that...


----------



## toomuchtime_

geauxtohell said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.
> 
> And so would our nation, if it even existed.
> 
> We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could call it progress.
> 
> The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.
> 
> However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.
> 
> So maybe the times aren't so different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fail to see how perpetual war to prevent future wars is an improvement.  In fact, it sounds like something that is straight out of 1984.
> 
> People can do their best to recreate cold war era hysteria by playing the "what if" game, but the reality is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to their own use as they have always been.  No matter how crazy the regime, they know they will be destroyed if they ever launch against us.
Click to expand...


Of course the classic argument in support of taking preemptive action is that if we or the western Europeans attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives could have been saved.  That would certainly have been an improvement over WWII.

If you believe that having nuclear weapons is a deterrent against another country nuking you, then how would you dispute the argument that if a potential adversary has nukes, you must also have them for the sake of deterrence?  So then doesn't almost every country need nukes for the sake of deterrence?  

If fact, the theory of mutually assured destruction requires that you have a second strike nuclear capability to act as a deterrent to a nuclear attack, so if Iran has nukes and Israel has nukes and neither has a second strike capability, the advantage, perhaps survival, goes to the one that launches its nukes first.  

Finally, the Iranian leaders understand that if they launched a nuke at us, a great many Americans, perhaps you included, would argue that it would be wrong of us to nuke Iran because it would kill a great many innocent Iranians for the actions of a few leaders, and perhaps even the madmen who run North Korea understand this.  These Americans, perhaps you included, would argue that we should have a more limited response, perhaps, only using conventional weapons to take out Iran's ability to further attack us, thus sparing the lives of innocent Iranians.  What more can we gain from a nuclear response?  Is revenge a just motive for a nuclear response?  Many would make this argument even as millions of funerals were taking place in and around NYC and D.C.  

Do the Islamic revolutionaries in Tehran really believe the US would wipe out millions or tens of millions of people, a whole nation, because of the actions of its leaders?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S.  North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be.  However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?  Iran just put 2 satellites into space - read the news lately, beside Communist Times?
> 
> And its even more hilarious how, all of a sudden, now the left is leaning back on the missile defense program AKA star wars - the very program they spent enormous clout and effort trying to stop - screeching "it won't work" - for over 20 years.
> 
> So, leftist, after decrying the Star Wars program, now you think you can say "hey, I was there all along"?  Don't fucking think so.
Click to expand...


I'm not a "leftist," and don't have a subscription to Communist Times.


----------



## rhodescholar

geauxtohell said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noone is claiming that iran would "launch a first-strike nuclear missile" at the continental US; all they would have to do is hand one off to one of their proxies, known to the West or unknown, and claim plausible deniability.
> 
> Let's say they openly transfer nukes to hezbolah, and hez uses one against the US, or another allied country, like france or saudi arabia...then what do you do?
> 
> And since the iranian filth refuse IAEA inspections, there is no way to trace the material back to iran if it were to come from one of their reactors (as was shown in the movie "Sum of All Fears").
> 
> The leftist dream of applying MAD here won't work for a number or reasons, but first and foremost is the lack of who to track the nuke back to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That scenario is not unique to Iran.  Terrorists don't need to wait for a nation state to acquire a nuclear weapon to try and obtain one.
> 
> Our assets are better spent, IMO, keeping our eye on that ball as opposed to others.
Click to expand...


If we can reduce the number of sources for nuclear weapons material by one major threat - in particular, the iranian fascists, that would be progress.

I agree, it is VERY difficult to try and prevent EVERY rogue regime from acquiring nukes, but iran is also hegemonistic; they export both weapons and ideology.  NKorea is a puppy compared to them, at least NK doesn't have expansionist dreams.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Propping up a military dictator didn't work out for us whatsoever.  We earned the hatred of the Iranian citizens and had to deal with the hostage situation.  There are always unintended consequences for what we do around the world.
> 
> There's no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, only the same kind of propaganda that we heard prior to the Iraq war.  And no, it's not worth the price in blood and treasure, especially considering we don't know what else could go wrong on top of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propping up the Shah, if that's what we did, did work out for us; not propping him up in 1979 is what got us in trouble.
> 
> There's lots of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but it's not an airtight case, if that's what you mean, however, is that because there is no nuclear weapons program or because Iran refuses the IAEA the full access to its nuclear programs it is asking for?  There are only three reasons I can think why Iran would continue to deny the IAEA the full access it seeks: there is a nuclear weapons program, the regime wants the world to think there is because it makes Iran look tougher, stronger and more dangerous or the leadership is either stupid or crazy.
> 
> It's true that we don't know what might go wrong if we do intervene, but we also don't know what might go wrong if we don't intervene.  If we had known in 1979 what not intervening to keep the Shah in power would lead to, would we have acted differently?  After all, Saddam would not have attacked Iran if Iran still had the support of the US, and millions of lives could have been saved if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power.  Arguably, Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if not for his failure to make any gains from the years of war with Iran, and had he not invaded Kuwait, we would not have become involved in the first Gulf War, and we would not have had to increase our presence in the ME, especially in Saudi Arabia, to contain Saddam afterwards and one could argue that it was the increased US military presence in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam that fueled the growth of al Qaeda and that led to 9/11 and our present wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to some extent, Pakistan.
> 
> So, on balance, what could have gone wrong if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power in 1979?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can't know what would have gone wrong, which is why we need to apply a non-interventionist foreign policy in all cases not just a select few.
Click to expand...


But since we do know what went wrong when we didn't intervene in 1979 to keep the Shah in power and that it was catastrophic, and since it is unimaginable, apparently even to you, that intervention could have led to worse outcomes, clearly we should consider intervention in an uncertain situation as a valid option.


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fucking **** idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge.
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not read any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hysterical how douchebags like you are so one-sided, did you take not of that asshole's personal insults on the prior page?
> 
> Oh that's right, only leftists are allowed to do that...
Click to expand...


Hysterical how clowns like you don't even see the massive self-ownage you perpetrated here. No reference point is needed. You really should buy a new mirror, yours is kaput.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Propping up the Shah, if that's what we did, did work out for us; not propping him up in 1979 is what got us in trouble.
> 
> There's lots of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but it's not an airtight case, if that's what you mean, however, is that because there is no nuclear weapons program or because Iran refuses the IAEA the full access to its nuclear programs it is asking for?  There are only three reasons I can think why Iran would continue to deny the IAEA the full access it seeks: there is a nuclear weapons program, the regime wants the world to think there is because it makes Iran look tougher, stronger and more dangerous or the leadership is either stupid or crazy.
> 
> It's true that we don't know what might go wrong if we do intervene, but we also don't know what might go wrong if we don't intervene.  If we had known in 1979 what not intervening to keep the Shah in power would lead to, would we have acted differently?  After all, Saddam would not have attacked Iran if Iran still had the support of the US, and millions of lives could have been saved if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power.  Arguably, Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if not for his failure to make any gains from the years of war with Iran, and had he not invaded Kuwait, we would not have become involved in the first Gulf War, and we would not have had to increase our presence in the ME, especially in Saudi Arabia, to contain Saddam afterwards and one could argue that it was the increased US military presence in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam that fueled the growth of al Qaeda and that led to 9/11 and our present wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to some extent, Pakistan.
> 
> So, on balance, what could have gone wrong if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power in 1979?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't know what would have gone wrong, which is why we need to apply a non-interventionist foreign policy in all cases not just a select few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But since we do know what went wrong when we didn't intervene in 1979 to keep the Shah in power and that it was catastrophic, and since it is unimaginable, apparently even to you, that intervention could have led to worse outcomes, clearly we should consider intervention in an uncertain situation as a valid option.
Click to expand...


Yet had we not intervened in 1953 perhaps by 1979 Iran would have maintained it's elected officials and not had a revolution, and maybe they would not have taken American citizens as hostages.  And maybe we wouldn't hear "Death to America!" chants there today.  Which all goes back to what I said before, we need to apply non-interventionism in all cases instead of picking and choosing where we want to meddle.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> Hysterical how clowns like you don't even see the massive self-ownage you perpetrated here. No reference point is needed. You really should buy a new mirror, yours is kaput.



Lets see now, complete inability to debate a point, sticks to personal insults, continuing the same inability from prior threads, I guess you don't get tired of being made to look like an idiot?

You still never admitted how stupid you looked from the other iran thread, where you demanded proof, I posted it from the jerusalem post within 2 minutes, and then you spent _ days _ trying to spin your way out of that one.  Yeah, your credibility is somewhere between the current iranian fascists and Baghdad Bob.


----------



## Soaring

Other than securing the flow of Iran's oil to the United States, there is absolutely zero reason for us to go to war with them just like it was zero reasons to go to war with Vietnam.  Right now we don't have the money or the military strength to take on anybody else.  Who elected the U.S. as the country who protects everybody else's countrymen?   Let them protect themselves.  I guarantee you that Iran would not send troops to create a political change here in the United States.  Neither would any other country.  We Americans would be saddled with doing that.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yet had we not intervened in 1953 perhaps by 1979 Iran would have maintained it's elected officials and not had a revolution, and maybe they would not have taken American citizens as hostages.  And maybe we wouldn't hear "Death to America!" chants there today.  Which all goes back to what I said before, we need to apply non-interventionism in all cases instead of picking and choosing where we want to meddle.



Is reading not fundamental in your family?

I already said that Mossadegh had been turning towards the USSR and against the West.

Given this imbecilism, since:

1-china attacked US troops only 5 years after we saved them from Japan
2-has sent poisonous food to kill our children and pets

perhaps we should start "Death to China" chants as well?  

I love how the left wants the West to forgive every possible insult and bad behaviour from the third world - but the third world can use every iota of actions by the west for oh, 12,000 years...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hysterical how clowns like you don't even see the massive self-ownage you perpetrated here. No reference point is needed. You really should buy a new mirror, yours is kaput.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see now, complete inability to debate a point, sticks to personal insults, continuing the same inability from prior threads, I guess you don't get tired of being made to look like an idiot?
> 
> You still never admitted how stupid you looked from the other iran thread, where you demanded proof, I posted it from the jerusalem post within 2 minutes, and then you spent _ days _ trying to spin your way out of that one.  Yeah, your credibility is somewhere between the current iranian fascists and Baghdad Bob.
Click to expand...


ahem, it took you more than a day to find the j-post rumour. to the rescue. here i come.

no i am not tired. you provide enough entertainment. come on, call for terror attacks against the civilian population of iran again and tell me how you are rooting for ahmadinejad. and then couch your attack plan to kill filthy muslim animals in pseudo-compassion for iranian students.

dance, motherfucker.


EDIT: btw, you are still in check. spreading lies in another forum (IRAN forum) about who should apologize is SHOCKing and AWEsome coming from you.


----------



## rhodescholar

Soaring said:


> Other than securing the flow of Iran's oil to the United States, there is absolutely zero reason for us to go to war with them just like it was zero reasons to go to war with Vietnam.  Right now we don't have the money or the military strength to take on anybody else.  Who elected the U.S. as the country who protects everybody else's countrymen?   Let them protect themselves.  I guarantee you that Iran would not send troops to create a political change here in the United States.  Neither would any other country.  We Americans would be saddled with doing that.



So its alright to see our allies in the middle east fall under iran's power - and watch lebanon vanish as a satellite of iran like hungary and the other eastern european countries did under russia?

So it is alright to see japan, saudi arabia, jordan and egypt and others be driven to develop nuclear weapons because their primary protector, the US, failed to do so?

The Ron Paul moronic notion of pulling back into our hemisphere is just that, a completely failed and absurd idea, and noone major politician with an ounce of respectability could present as viable.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans.  Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can't base our foreign policy on what-if doomsday scenarios.  Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S.  North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be.  However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.
Click to expand...


In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe.  Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that.  I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet had we not intervened in 1953 perhaps by 1979 Iran would have maintained it's elected officials and not had a revolution, and maybe they would not have taken American citizens as hostages.  And maybe we wouldn't hear "Death to America!" chants there today.  Which all goes back to what I said before, we need to apply non-interventionism in all cases instead of picking and choosing where we want to meddle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is reading not fundamental in your family?
> 
> I already said that Mossadegh had been turning towards the USSR and against the West.
> 
> Given this imbecilism, since:
> 
> 1-china attacked US troops only 5 years after we saved them from Japan
> 2-has sent poisonous food to kill our children and pets
> 
> perhaps we should start "Death to China" chants as well?
> 
> I love how the left wants the West to forgive every possible insult and bad behaviour from the third world - but the third world can use every iota of actions by the west for oh, 12,000 years...
Click to expand...


So are you done pretending you don't insult people unless they insult you first?

Again, I am not on the left.  Mossadegh may have been turning towards the Soviet Union, but we had no right to remove him as Iran's elected Prime Minister and re-establish a military dictator.  And regardless of the reason, had we not done so then the revolution and the hostage crisis may have been avoided.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> ahem, it took you more than a day to find the j-post rumour. to the rescue. here i come.



Asshole's post requesting proof:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1281153-post86.html

@ 06-17-2009, 02:35 AM

My response:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1281430-post89.html

06-17-2009, 08:22 AM

Pretty damn good, since it was first thing in the morning especially since it was during the overnight EST...and 6 hours is not a day, dimwit.

Again, you look like an asshole.  You demanded proof, got it, then _ complained _ about the Jerusalem post.  Fucking predictable - and incredibly funny.



> come on, call for terror attacks against the civilian population of iran again and tell me how you are rooting for ahmadinejad. and then couch your attack plan to kill filthy muslim animals in pseudo-compassion for iranian students..



Yes, every war is terrorism to a socialist pacifist idiot like you, isn't it?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans.  Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't base our foreign policy on what-if doomsday scenarios.  Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S.  North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be.  However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe.  Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that.  I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.
Click to expand...


There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> So are you done pretending you don't insult people unless they insult you first?



No, since Bfgrn or WTF his id is personally attacked first, and I responded.  Go back through the thread for evidence.



> Again, I am not on the left.  Mossadegh may have been turning towards the Soviet Union, but we had no right to remove him as Iran's elected Prime Minister and re-establish a military dictator.  And regardless of the reason, had we not done so then the revolution and the hostage crisis may have been avoided.



And to the point, the US is blamed for the operation, but we just went along with the British.  That in no way absolves us, but I find it interesting how so many wish to blame solely the US.  Smells like AGENDA to me...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahem, it took you more than a day to find the j-post rumour. to the rescue. here i come.[/quote[
> 
> Asshole's post requesting proof:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1281153-post86.html
> 
> @ 06-17-2009, 02:35 AM
> 
> My response:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1281430-post89.html
> 
> 06-17-2009, 08:22 AM
> 
> Pretty damn good, since it was first thing in the morning...
> 
> Again, you look like an asshole.  You demanded proof, got it, then complained _ about _ the Jerusalem post.  Fucking predictable - and incredibly funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *come on, call for terror attacks against the civilian population of iran again and tell me how you are rooting for ahmadinejad. and then couch your attack plan to kill filthy muslim animals in pseudo-compassion for iranian students..*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, every war is terrorism to a socialist pacifist idiot like you, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why don't we take this to the original thread. i don't think many are interested in our dance.
> 
> you lied again. several times btw. and in the bolded part i was paraphrasing your previous posts from other threads, i have a functioning memory, you know.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you done pretending you don't insult people unless they insult you first?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, since Bfgrn or WTF his id is personally attacked first, and I responded.  Go back through the thread for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am not on the left.  Mossadegh may have been turning towards the Soviet Union, but we had no right to remove him as Iran's elected Prime Minister and re-establish a military dictator.  And regardless of the reason, had we not done so then the revolution and the hostage crisis may have been avoided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And to the point, the US is blamed for the operation, but we just went along with the British.  That in no way absolves us, but I find it interesting how so many wish to blame solely the US.  Smells like AGENDA to me...
Click to expand...


So because somebody else insulted you you think it's ok to insult me?

I am not blaming solely the U.S.  I am aware that it was primarily Great Britain's objective to overthrow Mossadegh, and that the U.S. went along.  I'm simply reserving my criticism for my own government's role.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> why don't we take this to the original thread. i don't think many are interested in our dance.
> 
> you lied again. several times btw. and in the bolded part i was paraphrasing your previous posts from other threads, i have a functioning memory, you know.



What a worthless pos.  I posted WHEN you asked for proof, and I posted my response, which you claimed required "a full day."

You are PROVEN WRONG ASSHOLE.  It was less than 6 hours later.

Clearly, your "functioning memory" is anything BUT functional, you fucking sore-losing twit. Go cry to mama.


----------



## toomuchtime_

geauxtohell said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans.  Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, perpetual war to prevent possible future war seems like a dismal future to me.  No matter what, we can't stop every rogue nation from getting nuclear weapons.
> 
> On a side note, thanks for being able to discuss this issue without use of the words "idiot", "fuck (or any derivative thereof)", "****", "jackass", "dumbass", "pussy", etc.
Click to expand...


There is nothing to like about any war and the future is uncertain, but if we think we have strong reason to believe a small war now can prevent a large war later, then we should seriously consider that option.  Our failure to act to keep the Shah in power in 1979 was a critical factor leading to the Iran-Iraq war and the loss of millions of lives and arguably it was a critical factor leading to 9/11 and our current wars.  It is hard to imagine that intervention to keep the Shah in power would have led to worse outcomes for us or anyone else.

We cannot count on being able to prevent rogue nations from acquiring nukes forever, but with determined action we can probably prevent it for a while, and then for a while longer and perhaps a while longer, etc., and maybe this will give the world enough time to work out some of the problems that lead to war and to the determination to acquire nukes.  I don't believe in war; I believe in progress.

I also appreciate you not turning to personal attacks.  Imo, if you believe you have good facts and arguments to support your positions, you don't feel the need to turn to personal attacks, and if you don't believe this, you have no business holding strong opinions.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can't base our foreign policy on what-if doomsday scenarios.  Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S.  North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be.  However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe.  Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that.  I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.
Click to expand...


Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?


----------



## Diuretic

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I am not blaming solely the U.S.  I am aware that it was primarily Great Britain's objective to overthrow Mossadegh, and that the U.S. went along.  I'm simply reserving my criticism for my own government's role.



Look at it this way.  The overthrow of Mossadegh by Britain and the US governments who were acting in the interests of western oil companies was at least about something useful - oil.  Invading Iran to protect human rights from the theocracy is a bit wussy and should be dismissed.


----------



## Diuretic

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a hyperactive and broken military?
> 
> There's the government scanning the world for the next about-to-become powerful nation to invade.  As has been pointed out - perpetual war or at least perpetual war-readiness.
> 
> However at least my country would be safe
Click to expand...


----------



## Soaring

"There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong. "
__________________

It's not just wrong Kevin, it would be just plain stupid for the U.S. to meddle in the political affairs of Iran because Iran has the right to run their own country without the interference of any other nation, unless there is mass genocide or a declaration of war by Iran.  They have not produced an Atom bomb yet, and if they do and aim it at anybody, to include our allies in the ME, it will be taken out post haste.  We have a powerful defensive military.  Let's keep it defensive and well informed.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe.  Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that.  I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?
Click to expand...


Had we not gotten involved in World War 1 then Hitler may never have come to power in the first place.  Had we not intervened in 1953 then perhaps the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened.


----------



## Soaring

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe.  Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that.  I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?
Click to expand...

You don't know much about WWII do you TooMuch?  At the time we attacked in North Africa, the American soldier got his ass kicked royally.   Our military had been downsized so much between 1918 and 1939 that the draft had to be made into law, and the training of troops had to start from scratch.  The soldiers we sent to North Africa were rookies, and cut and ran under fire.  So, invading the Nazi Army which was made up of seasoned troops was an impossibility.


----------



## Bfgrn

rhodescholar said:


> Bfgrn- you are a fucking idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge.  You are a typical middle american idiot asshole, who I would gladly trade for 3 halfway functional africans or chinese; at least they might add something to this great nation, and not weasel off of it like a turd like you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about failed negotiations for the last 6 years...negotiations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong ****...ever heard of the EU-3 or the IAEA, you stupid fucking asshole?
> 
> Timeline: Iran´s Nuclear Programme
> 
> "October 2003: After meeting French, German and UK foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is produced to confirm the end of enrichment."
> 
> Excuse me, make that SIX years of failed diplomacy, not five.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about 2001 and 2002...OR, are you talking about 2003, when Bush and his band of depots rejected negotiations after Iran made a bold proposal to Washington to hold direct talks with sweeping changes like: reorientation of Iranian policy toward Israel, stopping any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.), assisting America in stabilizing Iraq and a dramatic set of specific policy concessions on its nuclear program? The proposal the neocon war hawks helped undermine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am talking about the overtures from Clinton, when they stood him up at the UN, making him look like an asshole, or the dozens of other times American presidents have reached out, and not been reciprocated.
> 
> A dictatorship like this that exists solely through the re-direction towards external enemies will never, ever negotiate in good faith.
> 
> 6 years ago - undoubtedly, when you were in second grade, the hawks like me said fine, we will grant the Europeans the option and room to negotiate, instead of a military strike - and it got nowhere - except to buy them more time to construct a nuclear weapon.  Judging by your low intelligence and arrogance, it sounds like you are a typical leftist POS anti-American, who wants to see a nuclear-armed iran.
> 
> Someday an idiot like you might present an original thought, assuming it landed on you.
Click to expand...


LOL... judging from your hyper response, you're toast; and bluster is all you have...and faux attacks...

You are the typical right wing scum bag that has no regard for human life...the MOST UN American creature ever created...

I'll take you back more than 46 year ago, when I WAS a young man...CIA moron war hawks like Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell neglected to inform our new President that a band of exiles had NO chance of overthrowing Castro without a US invasion...their intent: when the exile invasion failed, the president would cave...he didn't...Dulles and Bissell were fired. Then more Joint Chief war hawks like Lyman Lemnitzer, Arleigh Burke and Curtis LeMay pushed the same President a year later to invade Cuba and assured him there were no nuclear warheads on the island and no fire ready sites...WRONG...had that president invaded Cuba, half the cities within 1000 miles of Cuba would have been reduced to radioactive rubble; smoking holes, and the American men women and children that inhabited those cities; shadows...the lucky ones anyways. Add to the ignorance of you war hawk morons, had we invaded Cuba, the enclave of West Berlin would have been taken over by the Soviets...American troops in Germany were so outnumbered, it would been America that was forced to resort to a nuclear attack, or face defeat...

JFK had it right..."The one thing about the military and their solutions, if they fail, there will be no one left to tell them they were wrong"

You pea brains are driven by FEAR...the strongest human EMOTION... 

Ironic; in your time line, Iran's cooperation begins to significantly deteriorate after 2003... refer back to your history lesson I was kind enough to provide for you... 

Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in...war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
*General Douglas MacArthur*

BTW, I love to quote fellow "leftists"...LOL

Hey, you never answered...HOW do you plan to PAY for your mass murder...Pea Brain Scholar???


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had we not gotten involved in World War 1 then Hitler may never have come to power in the first place.  Had we not intervened in 1953 then perhaps the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened.
Click to expand...


You would prefer we allow the kaiser to sink our ships at will?  You speak of free trade, yet the Kaiser was sinking the American ships bound for Britain, which interferes with free trade.  but you think we should have let the Kaiser continue sub warfare at will.


----------



## elvis

Bfgrn said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn- you are a fucking idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge.  You are a typical middle american idiot asshole, who I would gladly trade for 3 halfway functional africans or chinese; at least they might add something to this great nation, and not weasel off of it like a turd like you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about failed negotiations for the last 6 years...negotiations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong ****...ever heard of the EU-3 or the IAEA, you stupid fucking asshole?
> 
> Timeline: Iran´s Nuclear Programme
> 
> "October 2003: After meeting French, German and UK foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is produced to confirm the end of enrichment."
> 
> Excuse me, make that SIX years of failed diplomacy, not five.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about 2001 and 2002...OR, are you talking about 2003, when Bush and his band of depots rejected negotiations after Iran made a bold proposal to Washington to hold direct talks with sweeping changes like: reorientation of Iranian policy toward Israel, stopping any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.), assisting America in stabilizing Iraq and a dramatic set of specific policy concessions on its nuclear program? The proposal the neocon war hawks helped undermine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am talking about the overtures from Clinton, when they stood him up at the UN, making him look like an asshole, or the dozens of other times American presidents have reached out, and not been reciprocated.
> 
> A dictatorship like this that exists solely through the re-direction towards external enemies will never, ever negotiate in good faith.
> 
> 6 years ago - undoubtedly, when you were in second grade, the hawks like me said fine, we will grant the Europeans the option and room to negotiate, instead of a military strike - and it got nowhere - except to buy them more time to construct a nuclear weapon.  Judging by your low intelligence and arrogance, it sounds like you are a typical leftist POS anti-American, who wants to see a nuclear-armed iran.
> 
> Someday an idiot like you might present an original thought, assuming it landed on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... judging from your hyper response, you're toast; and bluster is all you have...and faux attacks...
> 
> You are the typical right wing scum bag that has no regard for human life...the MOST UN American creature ever created...
> 
> I'll take you back more than 46 year ago, when I WAS a young man...CIA moron war hawks like Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell neglected to inform our new President that a band of exiles had NO chance of overthrowing Castro without a US invasion...their intent: when the exile invasion failed, the president would cave...he didn't...Dulles and Bissell were fired. Then more Joint Chief war hawks like Lyman Lemnitzer, Arleigh Burke and Curtis LeMay pushed the same President a year later to invade Cuba and assured him there were no nuclear warheads on the island and no fire ready sites...WRONG...had that president invaded Cuba, half the cities within 1000 miles of Cuba would have been reduced to radioactive rubble; smoking holes, and the American men women and children that inhabited those cities; shadows...the lucky ones anyways. Add to the ignorance of you war hawk morons, had we invaded Cuba, the enclave of West Berlin would have been taken over by the Soviets...American troops in Germany were so outnumbered, it would been America that was forced to resort to a nuclear attack, or face defeat...
> 
> JFK had it right..."The one thing about the military and their solutions, if they fail, there will be no one left to tell them they were wrong"
> 
> You pea brains are driven by FEAR...the strongest human EMOTION...
> 
> Ironic; in your time line, Iran's cooperation begins to significantly deteriorate after 2003... refer back to your history lesson I was kind enough to provide for you...
> 
> Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in...war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
> *General Douglas MacArthur*
> 
> BTW, I love to quote fellow "leftists"...LOL
> 
> Hey, you never answered...HOW do you plan to PAY for your mass murder...Pea Brain Scholar???
Click to expand...


another jackass calling people who don't agree with her unamerican.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can't know what would have gone wrong, which is why we need to apply a non-interventionist foreign policy in all cases not just a select few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But since we do know what went wrong when we didn't intervene in 1979 to keep the Shah in power and that it was catastrophic, and since it is unimaginable, apparently even to you, that intervention could have led to worse outcomes, clearly we should consider intervention in an uncertain situation as a valid option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet had we not intervened in 1953 perhaps by 1979 Iran would have maintained it's elected officials and not had a revolution, and maybe they would not have taken American citizens as hostages.  And maybe we wouldn't hear "Death to America!" chants there today.  Which all goes back to what I said before, we need to apply non-interventionism in all cases instead of picking and choosing where we want to meddle.
Click to expand...


By the time the UK and US intervened in 1953, Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament, was ruling by decree and was demanding powers forbidden to him by the Iranian constitution.  In addition, the USSR had twice been forced to abandon attempts to take over Iran by the threat of a UK and US intervention since WWII.  At the time when we intervened, the constitutional government had collapsed, the economy was in ruins, chaos ruled in the streets, civil war seemed probable and a USSR takeover seemed plausible.  Given the history, context and realities of the situation, our intervention to restore the Shah to power give the best possible outcome for both the Iranian people and for us.  This is not to say keeping the Shah in power was a good outcome, but it was likely the best possible outcome.

The CIA has in the last few years released some contemporaneous documents showing this was the analysis at the time based on reports from officials in Iran that led to the decision to intervene.  I have seen no facts or reports that would dispute it, so there is no basis for assuming that if the US had not acted as it did, the outcome would have been different than predicted.


----------



## Bfgrn

elvis3577 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn- you are a fucking idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge. * You are a typical middle american idiot asshole, who I would gladly trade for 3 halfway functional africans or chinese; at least they might add something to this great nation, and not weasel off of it like a turd like you...
> *
> 
> 
> Wrong ****...ever heard of the EU-3 or the IAEA, you stupid fucking asshole?
> 
> Timeline: Iran´s Nuclear Programme
> 
> "October 2003: After meeting French, German and UK foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is produced to confirm the end of enrichment."
> 
> Excuse me, make that SIX years of failed diplomacy, not five.
> 
> 
> 
> No I am talking about the overtures from Clinton, when they stood him up at the UN, making him look like an asshole, or the dozens of other times American presidents have reached out, and not been reciprocated.
> 
> A dictatorship like this that exists solely through the re-direction towards external enemies will never, ever negotiate in good faith.
> 
> 6 years ago - undoubtedly, when you were in second grade, the hawks like me said fine, we will grant the Europeans the option and room to negotiate, instead of a military strike - and it got nowhere - except to buy them more time to construct a nuclear weapon.  Judging by your low intelligence and arrogance, *it sounds like you are a typical leftist POS anti-American*, who wants to see a nuclear-armed iran.
> 
> Someday an idiot like you might present an original thought, assuming it landed on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... judging from your hyper response, you're toast; and bluster is all you have...and faux attacks...
> 
> You are the typical right wing scum bag that has no regard for human life...the MOST UN American creature ever created...
> 
> I'll take you back more than 46 year ago, when I WAS a young man...CIA moron war hawks like Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell neglected to inform our new President that a band of exiles had NO chance of overthrowing Castro without a US invasion...their intent: when the exile invasion failed, the president would cave...he didn't...Dulles and Bissell were fired. Then more Joint Chief war hawks like Lyman Lemnitzer, Arleigh Burke and Curtis LeMay pushed the same President a year later to invade Cuba and assured him there were no nuclear warheads on the island and no fire ready sites...WRONG...had that president invaded Cuba, half the cities within 1000 miles of Cuba would have been reduced to radioactive rubble; smoking holes, and the American men women and children that inhabited those cities; shadows...the lucky ones anyways. Add to the ignorance of you war hawk morons, had we invaded Cuba, the enclave of West Berlin would have been taken over by the Soviets...American troops in Germany were so outnumbered, it would been America that was forced to resort to a nuclear attack, or face defeat...
> 
> JFK had it right..."The one thing about the military and their solutions, if they fail, there will be no one left to tell them they were wrong"
> 
> You pea brains are driven by FEAR...the strongest human EMOTION...
> 
> Ironic; in your time line, Iran's cooperation begins to significantly deteriorate after 2003... refer back to your history lesson I was kind enough to provide for you...
> 
> Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in...war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
> *General Douglas MacArthur*
> 
> BTW, I love to quote fellow "leftists"...LOL
> 
> Hey, you never answered...HOW do you plan to PAY for your mass murder...Pea Brain Scholar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another jackass calling people who don't agree with him unamerican.
Click to expand...


Yea elvis, she has a lot of nerve!


----------



## Paulie

rhodescholar is just TEARING this thread up 

Not only does he make his points via the use of the nastiest names he can think of to call someone, he misspelled his own username, and actually made a reference to a _movie_ to back up one of his points!  

You sold me rhodes, I've decided to advocate your position.  You're just too damn good.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had we not gotten involved in World War 1 then Hitler may never have come to power in the first place.  Had we not intervened in 1953 then perhaps the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would prefer we allow the kaiser to sink our ships at will?  You speak of free trade, yet the Kaiser was sinking the American ships bound for Britain, which interferes with free trade.  but you think we should have let the Kaiser continue sub warfare at will.
Click to expand...


And Great Britain was blockading and setting mines in international waters around Germany.  Germany's submarine-warfare was a result of the blockade, and anyone willing to travel in a declared war-zone does so at their own risk.


----------



## elvis

Bfgrn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... judging from your hyper response, you're toast; and bluster is all you have...and faux attacks...
> 
> You are the typical right wing scum bag that has no regard for human life...the MOST UN American creature ever created...
> 
> I'll take you back more than 46 year ago, when I WAS a young man...CIA moron war hawks like Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell neglected to inform our new President that a band of exiles had NO chance of overthrowing Castro without a US invasion...their intent: when the exile invasion failed, the president would cave...he didn't...Dulles and Bissell were fired. Then more Joint Chief war hawks like Lyman Lemnitzer, Arleigh Burke and Curtis LeMay pushed the same President a year later to invade Cuba and assured him there were no nuclear warheads on the island and no fire ready sites...WRONG...had that president invaded Cuba, half the cities within 1000 miles of Cuba would have been reduced to radioactive rubble; smoking holes, and the American men women and children that inhabited those cities; shadows...the lucky ones anyways. Add to the ignorance of you war hawk morons, had we invaded Cuba, the enclave of West Berlin would have been taken over by the Soviets...American troops in Germany were so outnumbered, it would been America that was forced to resort to a nuclear attack, or face defeat...
> 
> JFK had it right..."The one thing about the military and their solutions, if they fail, there will be no one left to tell them they were wrong"
> 
> You pea brains are driven by FEAR...the strongest human EMOTION...
> 
> Ironic; in your time line, Iran's cooperation begins to significantly deteriorate after 2003... refer back to your history lesson I was kind enough to provide for you...
> 
> Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in...war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
> *General Douglas MacArthur*
> 
> BTW, I love to quote fellow "leftists"...LOL
> 
> Hey, you never answered...HOW do you plan to PAY for your mass murder...Pea Brain Scholar???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another jackass calling people who don't agree with him unamerican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea elvis, she has a lot of nerve!
Click to expand...


Fixed it.  You're still a jackass.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since we do know what went wrong when we didn't intervene in 1979 to keep the Shah in power and that it was catastrophic, and since it is unimaginable, apparently even to you, that intervention could have led to worse outcomes, clearly we should consider intervention in an uncertain situation as a valid option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet had we not intervened in 1953 perhaps by 1979 Iran would have maintained it's elected officials and not had a revolution, and maybe they would not have taken American citizens as hostages.  And maybe we wouldn't hear "Death to America!" chants there today.  Which all goes back to what I said before, we need to apply non-interventionism in all cases instead of picking and choosing where we want to meddle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time the UK and US intervened in 1953, Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament, was ruling by decree and was demanding powers forbidden to him by the Iranian constitution.  In addition, the USSR had twice been forced to abandon attempts to take over Iran by the threat of a UK and US intervention since WWII.  At the time when we intervened, the constitutional government had collapsed, the economy was in ruins, chaos ruled in the streets, civil war seemed probable and a USSR takeover seemed plausible.  Given the history, context and realities of the situation, our intervention to restore the Shah to power give the best possible outcome for both the Iranian people and for us.  This is not to say keeping the Shah in power was a good outcome, but it was likely the best possible outcome.
> 
> The CIA has in the last few years released some contemporaneous documents showing this was the analysis at the time based on reports from officials in Iran that led to the decision to intervene.  I have seen no facts or reports that would dispute it, so there is no basis for assuming that if the US had not acted as it did, the outcome would have been different than predicted.
Click to expand...


And yet the Iranian people clearly preferred him to the repressive Shah, and it is their government after all.  What right does the United States have to go in and decide for the Iranian people what government they should have?


----------



## Bfgrn

elvis3577 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another jackass calling people who don't agree with him unamerican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea elvis, she has a lot of nerve!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fixed it.  You're still a jackass.
Click to expand...


It takes one to know one...LOL


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had we not gotten involved in World War 1 then Hitler may never have come to power in the first place.  Had we not intervened in 1953 then perhaps the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened.
Click to expand...


Had we not gotten into WWI, perhaps the war would have dragged on for years longer, millions more would have died and in the end Germany would have lost and been severely punished by the victors, leading to Hitler's rise to power, WWII, which we would have stayed out of if we follow your non interventionist policy, Britain would have fallen, Russia would have been unable to mount a strong enough resistance because we would not have been supplying them with weapons and vehicles, and tens of millions more would have died as this war dragged on and on and on, until all of Europe were either at war or occupied, with no end in sight.

On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war.  The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.  

Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had we not gotten involved in World War 1 then Hitler may never have come to power in the first place.  Had we not intervened in 1953 then perhaps the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had we not gotten into WWI, perhaps the war would have dragged on for years longer, millions more would have died and in the end Germany would have lost and been severely punished by the victors, leading to Hitler's rise to power, WWII, which we would have stayed out of if we follow your non interventionist policy, Britain would have fallen, Russia would have been unable to mount a strong enough resistance because we would not have been supplying them with weapons and vehicles, and tens of millions more would have died as this war dragged on and on and on, until all of Europe were either at war or occupied, with no end in sight.
> 
> On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war.  The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
> 
> Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?
Click to expand...


It was because of the United States' involvement in WW1 that the allies were able to impose the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, which allowed Hitler to rise to power by denouncing the repressive treaty and appealing to the Germans' nationalistic pride.  Had the U.S. not gotten involved the allies would have had to have adopted a more agreeable peace treaty for Germany.


----------



## Paulie

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet had we not intervened in 1953 perhaps by 1979 Iran would have maintained it's elected officials and not had a revolution, and maybe they would not have taken American citizens as hostages.  And maybe we wouldn't hear "Death to America!" chants there today.  Which all goes back to what I said before, we need to apply non-interventionism in all cases instead of picking and choosing where we want to meddle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time the UK and US intervened in 1953, Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament, was ruling by decree and was demanding powers forbidden to him by the Iranian constitution.  In addition, the USSR had twice been forced to abandon attempts to take over Iran by the threat of a UK and US intervention since WWII.  At the time when we intervened, the constitutional government had collapsed, the economy was in ruins, chaos ruled in the streets, civil war seemed probable and a USSR takeover seemed plausible.  Given the history, context and realities of the situation, our intervention to restore the Shah to power give the best possible outcome for both the Iranian people and for us.  This is not to say keeping the Shah in power was a good outcome, but it was likely the best possible outcome.
> 
> The CIA has in the last few years released some contemporaneous documents showing this was the analysis at the time based on reports from officials in Iran that led to the decision to intervene.  I have seen no facts or reports that would dispute it, so there is no basis for assuming that if the US had not acted as it did, the outcome would have been different than predicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet the Iranian people clearly preferred him to the repressive Shah, and it is their government after all.  What right does the United States have to go in and decide for the Iranian people what government they should have?
Click to expand...


Because we're America, and only WE'RE entitled to the standards that we desire.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had we not gotten involved in World War 1 then Hitler may never have come to power in the first place.  Had we not intervened in 1953 then perhaps the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had we not gotten into WWI, perhaps the war would have dragged on for years longer, millions more would have died and in the end Germany would have lost and been severely punished by the victors, leading to Hitler's rise to power, WWII, which we would have stayed out of if we follow your non interventionist policy, Britain would have fallen, Russia would have been unable to mount a strong enough resistance because we would not have been supplying them with weapons and vehicles, and tens of millions more would have died as this war dragged on and on and on, until all of Europe were either at war or occupied, with no end in sight.
> 
> On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war.  The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
> 
> Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was because of the United States' involvement in WW1 that the allies were able to impose the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, which allowed Hitler to rise to power by denouncing the repressive treaty and appealing to the Germans' nationalistic pride.  Had the U.S. not gotten involved the allies would have had to have adopted a more agreeable peace treaty for Germany.
Click to expand...


Wilson's stroke had a lot to do with the unfair treaty signed in the Hall of Mirrors.


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hysterical how clowns like you don't even see the massive self-ownage you perpetrated here. No reference point is needed. You really should buy a new mirror, yours is kaput.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see now, complete inability to debate a point, sticks to personal insults, continuing the same inability from prior threads, I guess you don't get tired of being made to look like an idiot?
> 
> You still never admitted how stupid you looked from the other iran thread, where you demanded proof, I posted it from the jerusalem post *within 2 minutes*, and then you spent _ *days *_ trying to spin your way out of that one.  Yeah, your credibility is somewhere between the current iranian fascists and Baghdad Bob.
Click to expand...


statement made @ 06-16-2009, 08:39 AM

called the first time @ 06-16-2009, 08:51 AM

called the second time when i saw you posting in the thread @  06-17-2009, 02:35 AM

your first try to provide a shred of proof @ 06-17-2009 08:22 AM

my answer @  06-17-2009, 08:52 AM



> thanks for the attempt, but this is not enough.
> 
> some alleged lebanese almost 10 years ago do not make the basij primarily palestinian.
> 
> you as an ME expert surely know the difference between shiite lebanese hizbullah and sunni palestinians. there are rumors that NOW about 5000 lebanese hezbullah fighters are among the basij. unconfirmed of course.
> 
> you'd be better off to retract your claim.



J-post to the rescue, here i come @  06-17-2009, 10:40 AM



> LOL, perfect timing, J-Post to the rescue
> 
> Protesters tell "Post' Hamas helping Iran crush dissent | Iran news | Jerusalem Post
> ...
> 
> ..
> 
> *When asked if these militia fighters could have been mistaken for Lebanese Shi'ites, sent by Hizbullah, he rejected the idea. "Ask anyone, they will tell you the same thing. They [Palestinian extremists] are out beating Iranians in the streets&#8230; The more we gave this arrogant race, the more they want&#8230; [But] we will not let them push us around in our own country."
> *
> ..




what can you learn from this? your sense of time sucks. and you think an anonymous rumour gets you off the hook. you once posted there were more than 11 million in the basij, now how many palestinians do there have to be among the basij to make your statement become true? primarily? i would not be riding this at all if you weren't such a pathetic punk who has to exaggerate all the time and cannot admit to the simplest mistakes. that and you have a clear anti muslim/arab/palestinian agenda. the palestinian one is the strongest.

my last post in that thread:



L.K.Eder said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...can you point to where in the J post article is said that Basij were *primarily* made up of Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, the article does not mention they are "primarily" palestinians, *but IIRC both you and the other turd challenging me on this point claimed incorrectly that "there were no palestinians involved", *which the article showed to be false.
> 
> The other poster claimed that the article was false outright, which is bullshit, as this fact is all over iranian-based blogs by iranians inside iran, and is a claim that has been around for a long time.
> 
> All I had to do was edit my post to remove "primarily," but you both were wrong about the overall facts in the case.  Arabs HAVE been attacking iranians as part of paramilitary groups aligned with the government, and if you refuse to believe it, fucking good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I am the other turd. I am here to inform you, that you did not recall correctly.
> 
> If i am also the "other poster", you misrepresent what i stated. I did not claim the article was false alright. I don't care for your Jpost rumors that rescued you, bwahah. I called your statement "on the face false". And it is.
> 
> You made an indefensible stupid exaggerated statement, i called you on it. You could have retracted, you could have edited your post to delete "primarily". but you also had to slam "the media" additionally to palestinians.
> 
> But apart from your ongoing misrepresentations your last post was actually the kind of clarification i was looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs HAVE been attacking iranians as part of paramilitary groups aligned with the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you had used this sort of statement in the first post, i would never have butted in. i have never seen anything but rumors though supporting this statement.
Click to expand...


so, now, why do i do this and don't add anything worthy to your precious thread? that is because i read previous statements from you:



rhodescholar said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> right now, both candidates claim an election victory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, yeah.  Its sort of hilarious if there wasn't such a danger of election tampering.  Apparently "election officials" are saying that with 19% of the vote in, Ahmadinejad is winning 69% of the vote.  Not a great beginning, but apparently its mostly from rural areas...so we'll see.
> 
> They also kept voting open until Midnight Iranian time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm rooting for Adminiejihadist, so there is no veneer for the european idiots to hide behind and say: "but we need to negotiate more..."
> 
> With Moussavi, the Left can say: "But but but we now have a person we can  TALK  to, as if the iranian pres has any real power, which they do NOT.
> 
> Electing the little monkey to another term would allow the realists and intelligent to come out clean and give the US/Israel plenty of cover in which to light the iranian fascists up like the animals they are...*
Click to expand...


and this gem:



rhodescholar said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that surprise you? The Iranian government is hostile to the US.
> 
> The fact that the protests aren't spontaneous and have to be sponsored by the government demonstrates that there is not widespread animosity towards America in Iran, or at least not moreso than most other countries.  This thread is about the Iranian population, not the Iranian government.
> 
> Most Iranians were born after the Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current polling shows massive support for the dog admadinejihadist, close to half the pop, and the Basij - the True Believers - number *some 11 million*.  That's alot of people and is why I support a military strike to conduct regime change; it is like Nazi Germany or Hirohito's Japan, the people for the most part support the current awful government because they are not really being made to suffer directly the violent consequences of its militaristic adventures.
> 
> Just like in WW2, once the supporting populations began to be bombed like their armies did to the rest of Europe, their support for the War decreased significantly.
> 
> *Nothing would please me more than to see Israel and a few other nations establish proxy armies on Iran's borders and lob missiles, mortars and rockets into iran aimed at civilian population centers, and to detonate bombs inside iranian malls and shopping centers.
> *
> I think that once they have been made to endure the shit these fucking assholes have put so many others through, they will cease their support for it - political opportunism via terrorism.
Click to expand...


all this work in finding your shit just to tell you to fuck off. my time management sucks.


----------



## elvis

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe.  Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that.  I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?
Click to expand...


NO way to know that.  We very well could have been overwhelmed by Hitler's blitzkrieg, a style of warfare never seen before.  The Brits were EXTREMELY lucky that Hitler failed to slaughter them at Dunquerque.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had we not gotten into WWI, perhaps the war would have dragged on for years longer, millions more would have died and in the end Germany would have lost and been severely punished by the victors, leading to Hitler's rise to power, WWII, which we would have stayed out of if we follow your non interventionist policy, Britain would have fallen, Russia would have been unable to mount a strong enough resistance because we would not have been supplying them with weapons and vehicles, and tens of millions more would have died as this war dragged on and on and on, until all of Europe were either at war or occupied, with no end in sight.
> 
> On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war.  The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
> 
> Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was because of the United States' involvement in WW1 that the allies were able to impose the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, which allowed Hitler to rise to power by denouncing the repressive treaty and appealing to the Germans' nationalistic pride.  Had the U.S. not gotten involved the allies would have had to have adopted a more agreeable peace treaty for Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wilson's stroke had a lot to do with the unfair treaty signed in the Hall of Mirrors.
Click to expand...


Because he wouldn't have agreed to such a harsh treaty?

But be that as it may, without U.S. involvement the allies wouldn't have been in a position to force that treaty on the Germans.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet had we not intervened in 1953 perhaps by 1979 Iran would have maintained it's elected officials and not had a revolution, and maybe they would not have taken American citizens as hostages.  And maybe we wouldn't hear "Death to America!" chants there today.  Which all goes back to what I said before, we need to apply non-interventionism in all cases instead of picking and choosing where we want to meddle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time the UK and US intervened in 1953, Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament, was ruling by decree and was demanding powers forbidden to him by the Iranian constitution.  In addition, the USSR had twice been forced to abandon attempts to take over Iran by the threat of a UK and US intervention since WWII.  At the time when we intervened, the constitutional government had collapsed, the economy was in ruins, chaos ruled in the streets, civil war seemed probable and a USSR takeover seemed plausible.  Given the history, context and realities of the situation, our intervention to restore the Shah to power give the best possible outcome for both the Iranian people and for us.  This is not to say keeping the Shah in power was a good outcome, but it was likely the best possible outcome.
> 
> The CIA has in the last few years released some contemporaneous documents showing this was the analysis at the time based on reports from officials in Iran that led to the decision to intervene.  I have seen no facts or reports that would dispute it, so there is no basis for assuming that if the US had not acted as it did, the outcome would have been different than predicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet the Iranian people clearly preferred him to the repressive Shah, and it is their government after all.  What right does the United States have to go in and decide for the Iranian people what government they should have?
Click to expand...


Some of the Iranian people preferred Mossadegh to the Shah, but it is not clear the majority did.  In any case, although Mossadegh, a member of the Qajar royal family who was only allowed to run for office because of reforms the Shah made when he succeeded his father to the throne, was democratically elected, by dissolving the Parliament and abandoning the constitution, he had removed any means by which the Iranian people could choose their government other than through street violence, and this was the means by which the Shah was restored and Mossadegh's coup was undone.  Our intervention there was organizational advice and money to the Shah's supporters, which would have been meaningless and useless if Mossadegh had not already destroyed the constitutional government and used street violence as his means of holding on to power.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had we not gotten involved in World War 1 then Hitler may never have come to power in the first place.  Had we not intervened in 1953 then perhaps the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had we not gotten into WWI, perhaps the war would have dragged on for years longer, millions more would have died and in the end Germany would have lost and been severely punished by the victors, leading to Hitler's rise to power, WWII, which we would have stayed out of if we follow your non interventionist policy, Britain would have fallen, Russia would have been unable to mount a strong enough resistance because we would not have been supplying them with weapons and vehicles, and tens of millions more would have died as this war dragged on and on and on, until all of Europe were either at war or occupied, with no end in sight.
> 
> On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war.  The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
> 
> Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was because of the United States' involvement in WW1 that the allies were able to impose the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, which allowed Hitler to rise to power by denouncing the repressive treaty and appealing to the Germans' nationalistic pride.  Had the U.S. not gotten involved the allies would have had to have adopted a more agreeable peace treaty for Germany.
Click to expand...


No, the US ended the war more quickly by entering it and thereby saved millions of lives.  The repressive Versailles treaty resulted from the US not staying involved in the peace.  But even if the US couldn't have exerted that much influence over France and Britain, or if other factors brought Hitler to power anyway, had the US stayed involved we could have intervened early to prevent Hitler's Germany from becoming powerful and thereby saved tens of millions of lives.


----------



## rcajun90

Markjw said:


> Personally I don't think it is a good time for America to go over to Iran. We have so much on our plate right now and our military is already to thin. I think it's about time someone else hike up their undies and help those people out in Iran.
> 
> I agree that something needs to be done. I agree. But I don't think we have the ability at this point in time to lead any kind of invasion.
> 
> WWIII. Everyone ready?



If Carter would have had a pair we wouldn't be dealing with Iran now.  My biggest problem with Bush was that he picked Iraq to invade.  Iran is the mother of the terrorist state.  Heck we probably could have got Saddam to support us then once we were done with Iran then we could have attacked Iraq or given the Israels the green light to get some payback for all those SCUDS Saddam shot at them during the Gulf War.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the time the UK and US intervened in 1953, Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament, was ruling by decree and was demanding powers forbidden to him by the Iranian constitution.  In addition, the USSR had twice been forced to abandon attempts to take over Iran by the threat of a UK and US intervention since WWII.  At the time when we intervened, the constitutional government had collapsed, the economy was in ruins, chaos ruled in the streets, civil war seemed probable and a USSR takeover seemed plausible.  Given the history, context and realities of the situation, our intervention to restore the Shah to power give the best possible outcome for both the Iranian people and for us.  This is not to say keeping the Shah in power was a good outcome, but it was likely the best possible outcome.
> 
> The CIA has in the last few years released some contemporaneous documents showing this was the analysis at the time based on reports from officials in Iran that led to the decision to intervene.  I have seen no facts or reports that would dispute it, so there is no basis for assuming that if the US had not acted as it did, the outcome would have been different than predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the Iranian people clearly preferred him to the repressive Shah, and it is their government after all.  What right does the United States have to go in and decide for the Iranian people what government they should have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Iranian people preferred Mossadegh to the Shah, but it is not clear the majority did.  In any case, although Mossadegh, a member of the Qajar royal family who was only allowed to run for office because of reforms the Shah made when he succeeded his father to the throne, was democratically elected, by dissolving the Parliament and abandoning the constitution, he had removed any means by which the Iranian people could choose their government other than through street violence, and this was the means by which the Shah was restored and Mossadegh's coup was undone.  Our intervention there was organizational advice and money to the Shah's supporters, which would have been meaningless and useless if Mossadegh had not already destroyed the constitutional government and used street violence as his means of holding on to power.
Click to expand...


Mossadegh was clearly the preferred leader considering the Shah felt it necessary to flee the country to Rome for his safety.


----------



## L.K.Eder

I personally blame Timur for the mess in Iran.


----------



## toomuchtime_

elvis3577 said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO way to know that.  We very well could have been overwhelmed by Hitler's blitzkrieg, a style of warfare never seen before.  The Brits were EXTREMELY lucky that Hitler failed to slaughter them at Dunquerque.
Click to expand...


The point is that would not have happened if we had stopped Hitler before Germany became powerful again.  Is it better to fight a small war now if you think it will prevent a big war later or to just hope for the best?  The US and Europeans did the latter as Hitler rose to power and began to rebuild, in violation of the peace treaty, the German military.  Had we and they intervened early to prevent this, there would have been no WWII, at least not in Europe.


----------



## Soaring

rhodescholar said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than securing the flow of Iran's oil to the United States, there is absolutely zero reason for us to go to war with them just like it was zero reasons to go to war with Vietnam.  Right now we don't have the money or the military strength to take on anybody else.  Who elected the U.S. as the country who protects everybody else's countrymen?   Let them protect themselves.  I guarantee you that Iran would not send troops to create a political change here in the United States.  Neither would any other country.  We Americans would be saddled with doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So its alright to see our allies in the middle east fall under iran's power - and watch lebanon vanish as a satellite of iran like hungary and the other eastern european countries did under russia?
> 
> So it is alright to see japan, saudi arabia, jordan and egypt and others be driven to develop nuclear weapons because their primary protector, the US, failed to do so?
> 
> The Ron Paul moronic notion of pulling back into our hemisphere is just that, a completely failed and absurd idea, and noone major politician with an ounce of respectability could present as viable.
Click to expand...

 What power are you talking about.  Iran has no power other within its' own borders.  What does Lebanon and Hungary have to offer us in exchange for our military might?  The American people are finally waking up to the bullshit expenditures our legislators and presidents are spending to keep other nations afloat financially and politically.  Ron Paul is certainly not a moron who wishes to bring our troops home and basically close our borders to foreign invaders and use our troops to protect our American citizens and not some rag heads whose religion dictates they kill Americans.  Whose fuckin' side are you on?


----------



## eots

rhodescholar said:


> Since the animals that have illegally and illegitimately retained power continue to attack and beat civilians, including trespassing into their homes at night, as the Basij cowards are smashing into the homes of people when they see them chanting on their roofs in the evening, the regime can no longer be tolerated.
> 
> A dictatorship that would attack and murder sleeping college students - sending in armed thugs into dorms, again late at night, is not one that can be trusted - or negotiated with.
> 
> THERE IS NOTHING FOR OBAMA TO DISCUSS WITH THEM, NOTHING.
> 
> Only an outside military intervention to destroy the regime, the IRGC, and certainly the Basij, is a feasible method of stopping the onslaught internally in iran, and the external funding of terrorist proxies abroad.
> 
> To those that screech about the past history of Western imperialism and colonialism, it is not a justification for iran's internal repressions or stoking of terrorist flames throughout the middle east. Nor is it acceptable to allow more iranian civilians to suffer because of Western guilt over past misdeeds.
> 
> In 1945, the US liberated China from Japan, 5 years later China sent troops and support into North Korea, so it goes both ways. The US deposed Mossadegh 50 years ago, that event has exhausted its political mileage and capital long ago. The only reason its even mentioned is so that filth like Ahmadinejihadist can continue to try and deflect his government's abject failings onto manufactured external enemies.
> 
> Given that the regime will continue to use infinite amounts of force internally to retain power, and is working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons and prevent external threats, time is running out on deposing this monstrous regime - and our children will never forgive us for failing to do so when we had the chance.
> 
> I see the regime as an existential, apocalyptic, lunatic death cult who is a threat to the safety and security of not just the middle east, but entire planet. It is well known amongst clandestine agencies it has developed and maintained terrorist cells throughout the West, who must be located and exterminated when the military campaign is initiated.
> 
> Further concerns that iranians will "rally around the government" should the West attack are no longer valid, given that their choice is to be further tormented and murdered indefinitely by a known devil - or take their chances with a new regime formulated by the people, for the people, as in the case with Iraq.
> 
> The US and West know that they cannot implant a pliant dictatorship as in the past; there are too many obstacles to doing so, not least being the fact that past history proves one will not last without using the same horrific methods the illegal regime has just used itself.
> 
> A major initial strike, with the major regime figures captured and/or killed, regime defense forces liquidated, and a representative, secular democracy implanted - and an accounting for and termination of funds and support for the various proxy armies.
> 
> See:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/..._iran_election



regime change is Orwellian newspeak for invade a sovereign nation and bomb the hell out of the woman and children for oil interest


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the Iranian people clearly preferred him to the repressive Shah, and it is their government after all.  What right does the United States have to go in and decide for the Iranian people what government they should have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Iranian people preferred Mossadegh to the Shah, but it is not clear the majority did.  In any case, although Mossadegh, a member of the Qajar royal family who was only allowed to run for office because of reforms the Shah made when he succeeded his father to the throne, was democratically elected, by dissolving the Parliament and abandoning the constitution, he had removed any means by which the Iranian people could choose their government other than through street violence, and this was the means by which the Shah was restored and Mossadegh's coup was undone.  Our intervention there was organizational advice and money to the Shah's supporters, which would have been meaningless and useless if Mossadegh had not already destroyed the constitutional government and used street violence as his means of holding on to power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mossadegh was clearly the preferred leader considering the Shah felt it necessary to flee the country to Rome for his safety.
Click to expand...


Mossadegh was the preferred leader by those who were threatening the Shah's safety, but we have no way of knowing how many these were.  We do know that Mossadegh dissolved the parliament because they would no longer support his unconstitutional demands, so at least the majority of the democratically elected representatives of the people no longer preferred Mossadegh.  

As Mossadegh's demands and threats to the Shah mounted, to the dismay of many in Iran, the Shah refused to rally his supporters to resist Mossadegh, but when you consider that the US aid to Shah consisted of nothing more than help organizing his supporters to resist Mossadegh's coup, it's arguable that more Iranians supported the Shah than supported Mossadegh in the end.


----------



## eots

arguably..the moon is made of cheese


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Iranian people preferred Mossadegh to the Shah, but it is not clear the majority did.  In any case, although Mossadegh, a member of the Qajar royal family who was only allowed to run for office because of reforms the Shah made when he succeeded his father to the throne, was democratically elected, by dissolving the Parliament and abandoning the constitution, he had removed any means by which the Iranian people could choose their government other than through street violence, and this was the means by which the Shah was restored and Mossadegh's coup was undone.  Our intervention there was organizational advice and money to the Shah's supporters, which would have been meaningless and useless if Mossadegh had not already destroyed the constitutional government and used street violence as his means of holding on to power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mossadegh was clearly the preferred leader considering the Shah felt it necessary to flee the country to Rome for his safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mossadegh was the preferred leader by those who were threatening the Shah's safety, but we have no way of knowing how many these were.  We do know that Mossadegh dissolved the parliament because they would no longer support his unconstitutional demands, so at least the majority of the democratically elected representatives of the people no longer preferred Mossadegh.
> 
> As Mossadegh's demands and threats to the Shah mounted, to the dismay of many in Iran, the Shah refused to rally his supporters to resist Mossadegh, but when you consider that the US aid to Shah consisted of nothing more than help organizing his supporters to resist Mossadegh's coup, it's arguable that more Iranians supported the Shah than supported Mossadegh in the end.
Click to expand...


If that were the case then British and American aid for the Shah would have been wholly unnecessary to restore the Shah to power.  Perhaps some of the Iranians didn't want Mossadegh, but I'm willing to bet they didn't want the Shah either.  If we hadn't interfered for the benefit of our ally then there's no telling how Iran would have solved it's own problems.  Though it's likely that they'd have been much better off.


----------



## del

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe.  Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that.  I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?
Click to expand...


and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. 
try again.


----------



## Soaring

rcajun90 said:


> Markjw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I don't think it is a good time for America to go over to Iran. We have so much on our plate right now and our military is already to thin. I think it's about time someone else hike up their undies and help those people out in Iran.
> 
> I agree that something needs to be done. I agree. But I don't think we have the ability at this point in time to lead any kind of invasion.
> 
> WWIII. Everyone ready?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Carter would have had a pair we wouldn't be dealing with Iran now.  My biggest problem with Bush was that he picked Iraq to invade.  Iran is the mother of the terrorist state.  Heck we probably could have got Saddam to support us then once we were done with Iran then we could have attacked Iraq or given the Israels the green light to get some payback for all those SCUDS Saddam shot at them during the Gulf War.
Click to expand...

Whether or not Carter had a pair back in 1979 is irevelant today.  Obama needs to grow a pair and answer the Iranian challenge, if indeed there actually is a challenge.  I don't see it.


----------



## rhodescholar

Paulie said:


> rhodescholar is just TEARING this thread up
> 
> Not only does he make his points via the use of the nastiest names he can think of to call someone, he misspelled his own username, and actually made a reference to a _movie_ to back up one of his points!
> 
> You sold me rhodes, I've decided to advocate your position.  You're just too damn good.



Another dipshit who cannot address my original post.  Is there anyone here on the left who can debate on the points, or are they all mentally distraught lemmings?


----------



## rhodescholar

toomuchtime_ said:


> On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war.  The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
> 
> Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?



There are some who forget that Wilson knew the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake, and tried to convince the Brits and French not to push for such hard reparations, but they would not yield...


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> statement made @ 06-16-2009, 08:39 AM
> 
> called the first time @ 06-16-2009, 08:51 AM
> 
> called the second time when i saw you posting in the thread @  06-17-2009, 02:35 AM
> 
> your first try to provide a shred of proof @ 06-17-2009 08:22 AM
> 
> ......
> 
> what can you learn from this? your sense of time sucks. ....my time management sucks.



1st 4 links don't work, which isn't a surprise since you have no brains, and the 2 posts I linked support me perfectly.  

You can try to whine and scream, insult and whatnot - but the facts remain, you _ demanded _ proof, got it from a mainstream reputable source, and, as all defeated Leftist monkeys do: blame and attack the source.

I'll take my winnings in cash, thank you.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> I personally blame Timur for the mess in Iran.



The intellectual giant proffers its wisdom, enlightening us all and adding greatly to the thread...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> statement made @ 06-16-2009, 08:39 AM
> 
> called the first time @ 06-16-2009, 08:51 AM
> 
> called the second time when i saw you posting in the thread @  06-17-2009, 02:35 AM
> 
> your first try to provide a shred of proof @ 06-17-2009 08:22 AM
> 
> ......
> 
> what can you learn from this? your sense of time sucks. ....my time management sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1st 4 links don't work, which isn't a surprise since you have no brains, and the 2 posts I linked support me perfectly.
> 
> You can try to whine and scream, insult and whatnot - but the facts remain, you _ demanded _ proof, got it from a mainstream reputable source, and, as all defeated Leftist monkeys do: blame and attack the source.
> 
> I'll take my winnings in cash, thank you.
Click to expand...


hey you are right, some of the links don't work. i will fix them. and then i will tell you that i fixed them, and then i will get my winnings in cash. seriously, do you have any interaction with real people? you don't have any social skills, dude.


----------



## Soaring

rhodescholar said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war.  The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
> 
> Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some who forget that Wilson knew the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake, and tried to convince the Brits and French not to push for such hard reparations, but they would not yield...
Click to expand...

 Yes the treaty of Versailles was a harsh treaty imposed on the losers of WWI, the opressive Germans.  Too fuckin' bad.  The problem is that the Coalition forces left Germany to rebuild its' political force, and the Nazi party prevailed during the time WWI and WWII were generated.  Had we Americans posted bases and posts throughout Germany after WWI like we did after WWII, then WWII would have never happened.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mossadegh was clearly the preferred leader considering the Shah felt it necessary to flee the country to Rome for his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mossadegh was the preferred leader by those who were threatening the Shah's safety, but we have no way of knowing how many these were.  We do know that Mossadegh dissolved the parliament because they would no longer support his unconstitutional demands, so at least the majority of the democratically elected representatives of the people no longer preferred Mossadegh.
> 
> As Mossadegh's demands and threats to the Shah mounted, to the dismay of many in Iran, the Shah refused to rally his supporters to resist Mossadegh, but when you consider that the US aid to Shah consisted of nothing more than help organizing his supporters to resist Mossadegh's coup, it's arguable that more Iranians supported the Shah than supported Mossadegh in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were the case then British and American aid for the Shah would have been wholly unnecessary to restore the Shah to power.  Perhaps some of the Iranians didn't want Mossadegh, but I'm willing to bet they didn't want the Shah either.  If we hadn't interfered for the benefit of our ally then there's no telling how Iran would have solved it's own problems.  Though it's likely that they'd have been much better off.
Click to expand...


There is no way to know how many supported Mossadegh and how many supported the Shah, but it required very little effort on the part of the US and UK to rally the Shah's supporters to victory, so they couldn't have been outnumbered by much if at all.  

With no functioning government, no constitution, the economy in ruins, chaos in the streets, the military with divided loyalties and the USSR waiting to move in, what makes you think the outcome would have been better if the US and UK had not acted to restore the constitutional government?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Soaring said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war.  The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
> 
> Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some who forget that Wilson knew the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake, and tried to convince the Brits and French not to push for such hard reparations, but they would not yield...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the treaty of Versailles was a harsh treaty imposed on the losers of WWI, the opressive Germans.  Too fuckin' bad.  The problem is that the Coalition forces left Germany to rebuild its' political force, and the Nazi party prevailed during the time WWI and WWII were generated.  Had we Americans posted bases and posts throughout Germany after WWI like we did after WWII, then WWII would have never happened.
Click to expand...


And had the Treaty of Versailles not been forced on the Germans in the first place then Hitler may not have come to power.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Rhodescholar, i fixed tha links. Now what is your next excuse?


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> hey you are right, some of the links don't work. i will fix them. and then i will tell you that i fixed them, and then i will get my winnings in cash. seriously, do you have any interaction with real people? you don't have any social skills, dude.



The only 2 links that matter are the 2 that I posted; you asking for proof, and my link to the J-post article.  Anything else is nonsense.

I don't need social skills, I just need to be right - and there is no question whatsoever - that I am correct in this instance.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mossadegh was the preferred leader by those who were threatening the Shah's safety, but we have no way of knowing how many these were.  We do know that Mossadegh dissolved the parliament because they would no longer support his unconstitutional demands, so at least the majority of the democratically elected representatives of the people no longer preferred Mossadegh.
> 
> As Mossadegh's demands and threats to the Shah mounted, to the dismay of many in Iran, the Shah refused to rally his supporters to resist Mossadegh, but when you consider that the US aid to Shah consisted of nothing more than help organizing his supporters to resist Mossadegh's coup, it's arguable that more Iranians supported the Shah than supported Mossadegh in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were the case then British and American aid for the Shah would have been wholly unnecessary to restore the Shah to power.  Perhaps some of the Iranians didn't want Mossadegh, but I'm willing to bet they didn't want the Shah either.  If we hadn't interfered for the benefit of our ally then there's no telling how Iran would have solved it's own problems.  Though it's likely that they'd have been much better off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no way to know how many supported Mossadegh and how many supported the Shah, but it required very little effort on the part of the US and UK to rally the Shah's supporters to victory, so they couldn't have been outnumbered by much if at all.
> 
> With no functioning government, no constitution, the economy in ruins, chaos in the streets, the military with divided loyalties and the USSR waiting to move in, what makes you think the outcome would have been better if the US and UK had not acted to restore the constitutional government?
Click to expand...


Well they probably wouldn't have taken American citizens hostage had they not had that event to point to and stir up resentment against the U.S.


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally blame Timur for the mess in Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intellectual giant proffers its wisdom, enlightening us all and adding greatly to the thread...
Click to expand...


why don't you look up what timur did? hey he might be your cup of tea, he killed a lot of muslims. but actually your MO is so limited, the fun diminishes, you are so predictable.


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey you are right, some of the links don't work. i will fix them. and then i will tell you that i fixed them, and then i will get my winnings in cash. seriously, do you have any interaction with real people? you don't have any social skills, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only 2 links that matter are the 2 that I posted; you asking for proof, and my link to the J-post article.  Anything else is nonsense.
> 
> I don't need social skills, I just need to be right - and there is no question whatsoever - that I am correct in this instance.
Click to expand...



wow that is progress. we agree that you have no social skills.

why do you need to be right?

and, more importantly, why do you fail so badly at it constantly?


----------



## toomuchtime_

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that were the case then British and American aid for the Shah would have been wholly unnecessary to restore the Shah to power.  Perhaps some of the Iranians didn't want Mossadegh, but I'm willing to bet they didn't want the Shah either.  If we hadn't interfered for the benefit of our ally then there's no telling how Iran would have solved it's own problems.  Though it's likely that they'd have been much better off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way to know how many supported Mossadegh and how many supported the Shah, but it required very little effort on the part of the US and UK to rally the Shah's supporters to victory, so they couldn't have been outnumbered by much if at all.
> 
> With no functioning government, no constitution, the economy in ruins, chaos in the streets, the military with divided loyalties and the USSR waiting to move in, what makes you think the outcome would have been better if the US and UK had not acted to restore the constitutional government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well they probably wouldn't have taken American citizens hostage had they not had that event to point to and stir up resentment against the U.S.
Click to expand...


There's no telling who "they" would have been by 1979.  Mossadegh's support was pretty evenly divided between the Islamists and the communists with the advantage probably going to the communists because of Soviet support.  When support for the Shah was overcome, it is likely the communists and Islamists would have turned against each other.  The USSR would have at least peeled off the northern provinces as they had tried to do before and Iraq would likely have tried to take the disputed shoreline.  So exactly who would not have taken American citizens hostage?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way to know how many supported Mossadegh and how many supported the Shah, but it required very little effort on the part of the US and UK to rally the Shah's supporters to victory, so they couldn't have been outnumbered by much if at all.
> 
> With no functioning government, no constitution, the economy in ruins, chaos in the streets, the military with divided loyalties and the USSR waiting to move in, what makes you think the outcome would have been better if the US and UK had not acted to restore the constitutional government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well they probably wouldn't have taken American citizens hostage had they not had that event to point to and stir up resentment against the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no telling who "they" would have been by 1979.  Mossadegh's support was pretty evenly divided between the Islamists and the communists with the advantage probably going to the communists because of Soviet support.  When support for the Shah was overcome, it is likely the communists and Islamists would have turned against each other.  The USSR would have at least peeled off the northern provinces as they had tried to do before and Iraq would likely have tried to take the disputed shoreline.  So exactly who would not have taken American citizens hostage?
Click to expand...


It's unlikely that anyone would have taken American citizens hostage.


----------



## elvis

toomuchtime_ said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved.  How can this be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO way to know that.  We very well could have been overwhelmed by Hitler's blitzkrieg, a style of warfare never seen before.  The Brits were EXTREMELY lucky that Hitler failed to slaughter them at Dunquerque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that would not have happened if we had stopped Hitler before Germany became powerful again.  Is it better to fight a small war now if you think it will prevent a big war later or to just hope for the best?  The US and Europeans did the latter as Hitler rose to power and began to rebuild, in violation of the peace treaty, the German military.  Had we and they intervened early to prevent this, there would have been no WWII, at least not in Europe.
Click to expand...


I think we pretty much agree there.  The first violation was in 1936, I believe, when Hitler sent troops into the Rheinland.  Had France sent its armies into the Rheinland, Hitler would have been forced to withdraw.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had we not gotten involved in World War 1 then Hitler may never have come to power in the first place.  Had we not intervened in 1953 then perhaps the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would prefer we allow the kaiser to sink our ships at will?  You speak of free trade, yet the Kaiser was sinking the American ships bound for Britain, which interferes with free trade.  but you think we should have let the Kaiser continue sub warfare at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Great Britain was blockading and setting mines in international waters around Germany.  Germany's submarine-warfare was a result of the blockade, and anyone willing to travel in a declared war-zone does so at their own risk.
Click to expand...


Regardless, after the Lusitania sinking, in 1915,  Wilson warned the Germans to allow American ships to sail freely on the atlantic.  In 1917, the Germans declared all-out warfare on all ships on the Atlantic, regardless their flag.  Wilson responded by cutting diplomatic ties to Berlin.  Germany followed that up by sinking several American ships, including a hospital ship bound for Belgium.  So what were we supposed to do?


----------



## L.K.Eder

elvis3577 said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO way to know that.  We very well could have been overwhelmed by Hitler's blitzkrieg, a style of warfare never seen before.  The Brits were EXTREMELY lucky that Hitler failed to slaughter them at Dunquerque.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that would not have happened if we had stopped Hitler before Germany became powerful again.  Is it better to fight a small war now if you think it will prevent a big war later or to just hope for the best?  The US and Europeans did the latter as Hitler rose to power and began to rebuild, in violation of the peace treaty, the German military.  Had we and they intervened early to prevent this, there would have been no WWII, at least not in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we pretty much agree there.  The first violation was in 1936, I believe, when Hitler sent troops into the Rheinland.  Had France sent its armies into the Rheinland, Hitler would have been forced to withdraw.
Click to expand...


fucking hitler dude, all of germany looks like shit because of this guy and his loyal supporters, and enablers....


----------



## elvis

L.K.Eder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that would not have happened if we had stopped Hitler before Germany became powerful again.  Is it better to fight a small war now if you think it will prevent a big war later or to just hope for the best?  The US and Europeans did the latter as Hitler rose to power and began to rebuild, in violation of the peace treaty, the German military.  Had we and they intervened early to prevent this, there would have been no WWII, at least not in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we pretty much agree there.  The first violation was in 1936, I believe, when Hitler sent troops into the Rheinland.  Had France sent its armies into the Rheinland, Hitler would have been forced to withdraw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fucking hitler dude, all of germany looks like shit because of this guy and his loyal supporters, and enablers....
Click to expand...


He was extremely lucky, but at the same time, every opportunity he was given, he took full advantage of.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would prefer we allow the kaiser to sink our ships at will?  You speak of free trade, yet the Kaiser was sinking the American ships bound for Britain, which interferes with free trade.  but you think we should have let the Kaiser continue sub warfare at will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Great Britain was blockading and setting mines in international waters around Germany.  Germany's submarine-warfare was a result of the blockade, and anyone willing to travel in a declared war-zone does so at their own risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless, after the Lusitania sinking, in 1915,  Wilson warned the Germans to allow American ships to sail freely on the atlantic.  In 1917, the Germans declared all-out warfare on all ships on the Atlantic, regardless their flag.  Wilson responded by cutting diplomatic ties to Berlin.  Germany followed that up by sinking several American ships, including a hospital ship bound for Belgium.  So what were we supposed to do?
Click to expand...


Yes, Wilson demanded that Americans be allowed to ride on British ships carrying munitions through a declared war-zone.  He also demanded that armed American ships be given the right to sail through the war-zone.  Wilson was far more critical of the German's submarine warfare than he was of the British blockade which was a direct attack on innocent civilians.  The German policy was too shoot any ship they saw, and they warned all neutral nations that they would not be able to differentiate between neutral and belligerent nations.

"All the waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole English Channel, are hereby declared to be a war zone.  From February 18 onwards every enemy merchant vessel found within this war zone will be destroyed without it always being possible to avoid dangers to the crews and passengers.

Neutral ships will also be exposed to danger in the war zone, as, in view of the misuse of neutral flags ordered on January 31 by the British Government, and owing to unforeseen incidents to which naval warfare is liable, it is impossible to avoid attacks being made on neutral ships in mistake for those of the enemy." - German response to British blockade

What Wilson could have done is tell American citizens that they travel through that war zone at their own risk, and a Resolution was proposed in Congress to say just that.  However, it was defeated.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Great Britain was blockading and setting mines in international waters around Germany.  Germany's submarine-warfare was a result of the blockade, and anyone willing to travel in a declared war-zone does so at their own risk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, after the Lusitania sinking, in 1915,  Wilson warned the Germans to allow American ships to sail freely on the atlantic.  In 1917, the Germans declared all-out warfare on all ships on the Atlantic, regardless their flag.  Wilson responded by cutting diplomatic ties to Berlin.  Germany followed that up by sinking several American ships, including a hospital ship bound for Belgium.  So what were we supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Wilson demanded that Americans be allowed to ride on British ships carrying munitions through a declared war-zone.  He also demanded that armed American ships be given the right to sail through the war-zone.  Wilson was far more critical of the German's submarine warfare than he was of the British blockade which was a direct attack on innocent civilians.  The German policy was too shoot any ship they saw, and they warned all neutral nations that they would not be able to differentiate between neutral and belligerent nations.
> 
> "All the waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole English Channel, are hereby declared to be a war zone.  From February 18 onwards every enemy merchant vessel found within this war zone will be destroyed without it always being possible to avoid dangers to the crews and passengers.
> 
> Neutral ships will also be exposed to danger in the war zone, as, in view of the misuse of neutral flags ordered on January 31 by the British Government, and owing to unforeseen incidents to which naval warfare is liable, it is impossible to avoid attacks being made on neutral ships in mistake for those of the enemy." - German response to British blockade
> 
> What Wilson could have done is tell American citizens that they travel through that war zone at their own risk, and a Resolution was proposed in Congress to say just that.  However, it was defeated.
Click to expand...


So you believe the German claim that the Lusitania was carrying arms?


----------



## L.K.Eder

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we pretty much agree there.  The first violation was in 1936, I believe, when Hitler sent troops into the Rheinland.  Had France sent its armies into the Rheinland, Hitler would have been forced to withdraw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fucking hitler dude, all of germany looks like shit because of this guy and his loyal supporters, and enablers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was extremely lucky, but at the same time, every opportunity he was given, he took full advantage of.
Click to expand...



have you been to germany? looked at the major cities? wondered why they are ugly? there was no luck about the bombing, that was systematical. did kill a lot of civilians, but strenghtened their spirits. more proof that shock and awe does not work.


----------



## elvis

L.K.Eder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> fucking hitler dude, all of germany looks like shit because of this guy and his loyal supporters, and enablers....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was extremely lucky, but at the same time, every opportunity he was given, he took full advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> have you been to germany? looked at the major cities? wondered why they are ugly? there was no luck about the bombing, that was systematical. did kill a lot of civilians, but strenghtened their spirits. more proof that shock and awe does not work.
Click to expand...


Yes, I've been to Germany back in 1993.  Saw Leipzig and former East Berlin.  There was still rubble from the bombings that the DDR failed to clean up.  

My point was that Hitler was lucky in his ascent to power and in foreign affairs.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, after the Lusitania sinking, in 1915,  Wilson warned the Germans to allow American ships to sail freely on the atlantic.  In 1917, the Germans declared all-out warfare on all ships on the Atlantic, regardless their flag.  Wilson responded by cutting diplomatic ties to Berlin.  Germany followed that up by sinking several American ships, including a hospital ship bound for Belgium.  So what were we supposed to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Wilson demanded that Americans be allowed to ride on British ships carrying munitions through a declared war-zone.  He also demanded that armed American ships be given the right to sail through the war-zone.  Wilson was far more critical of the German's submarine warfare than he was of the British blockade which was a direct attack on innocent civilians.  The German policy was too shoot any ship they saw, and they warned all neutral nations that they would not be able to differentiate between neutral and belligerent nations.
> 
> "All the waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole English Channel, are hereby declared to be a war zone.  From February 18 onwards every enemy merchant vessel found within this war zone will be destroyed without it always being possible to avoid dangers to the crews and passengers.
> 
> Neutral ships will also be exposed to danger in the war zone, as, in view of the misuse of neutral flags ordered on January 31 by the British Government, and owing to unforeseen incidents to which naval warfare is liable, it is impossible to avoid attacks being made on neutral ships in mistake for those of the enemy." - German response to British blockade
> 
> What Wilson could have done is tell American citizens that they travel through that war zone at their own risk, and a Resolution was proposed in Congress to say just that.  However, it was defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe the German claim that the Lusitania was carrying arms?
Click to expand...


I do, but even if it's not true the fact remains that you travel through a war zone at your own risk.


----------



## L.K.Eder

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was extremely lucky, but at the same time, every opportunity he was given, he took full advantage of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you been to germany? looked at the major cities? wondered why they are ugly? there was no luck about the bombing, that was systematical. did kill a lot of civilians, but strenghtened their spirits. more proof that shock and awe does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I've been to Germany back in 1993.  Saw Leipzig and former East Berlin.  There was still rubble from the bombings that the DDR failed to clean up.
> 
> My point was that Hitler was lucky in his ascent to power and in foreign affairs.
Click to expand...


ok, i get your point. everyone is kind of lucky. but for the posters on this board who advocate a war against iran and use germany for effective regime change as an example, it would be a start to actually see the devastation it wrecks on city landscape. i focus this on landscape because people are kind of (weasel) irrelevent in war. and you can't imagine how many died decades later but you can still see the destruction of the allied bombers.


----------



## Dr Grump

toomuchtime_ said:


> 1)  Still, a kettle is a kettle and a fish is a fish.  From the standpoint of American policy, the same questions apply: will regime change, such as we forced on Japan and Germany, last; should the US act to curb the national ambitions of a nation that is not directly threatening us here at home; how much in blood and treasure should the US be willing to spend to relieve the suffering of foreign peoples.



You should be willing to spill no blood. Stay at home, it's none of your business. And Japan and Germany are completely different scenarios...
The problem with America butting in in ME politics is that a lot of your politicians (especially the right-wing ones) treat the ME like it does Western Civilisations. News flash! They're not. Trying to impose western mores, morals and codes of conduct on foreign countries is pointless and arrogant. Don't believe me? Ask any right winger what they think of all the Mexican overstayers in the US, or how some suburbs in your mains centres turned in Chinatowns, mini Viet Nams, Little Odessas and you'll get some feel how people resent other cultures trying to encroach on theirs...



toomuchtime_ said:


> 2)  Iran has acted to destabilize the government of Iraq and through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, it has acted to destabilize the Palestinian Authority as well as the government of Lebanon, and Hezbollah is reported to have significant presences in parts of Africa and South America; in addition Iran talks about about wiping out Israel in parallel with its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.  Iran may not be expansionist in exactly the ways Japan and Germany were, but it clearly uses military force to expand its influence beyond its borders and provides strong reasons for us to believe it hopes to expand this policy when it finally develops nuclear weapons.
> 
> Is staying within your borders a license to do anything you want?  Should the genocide in Rwanda have been immune to foreign intervention because it did not cross any borders?  Would the gassing of the Jews have been ok if only German Jews had been gassed and only within Germany's borders?  Certainly there will be a political purge in Iran in which many people will go to prison to prevent further dissent in the future and some in the government are talking about executing the protest leaders: is there a point beyond which foreign intervention is justified?



Iran tried to destabilise Iraq? Can you blame them. A western-friendly Sadman had an eight year war with them for no other reason than it suited US's purposes after Khomenhi embarrassed you on the international stage with the hostages. BTW, I am for regime change in Iran, but on their terms and with their people. It doesn't help your cause when you use extreme examples to try and illustrate a point.

I don't have a problem with Iran having nuclear power. I think all countries should use it. I have a huge problem with them having nuclear arms, but then I do with Pakistan, India and the US having them, too.




toomuchtime_ said:


> After the national armies were defeated, determined opposition to German oppression was rare, small in scale and not often supported by the surrounding populations, despite Hollywood's misrepresentations.  Why should Americans have fought and died to liberate France when it is reported the French resistance at its peak never counted more than 200 fighters?



Because it was the right thing to do. Something your forebears who fought in that war understood, and why some call them the "greatest generation"...


----------



## Dr Grump

rhodescholar said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Comparing Germany and Japan to the ME is wrong. Two different kettle of fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, iran's governing structure is nearly identical to Nazi Germany's, and retains the same firecely religious, mystical belief as in Japan of an unchallengeable leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Japan and Germany were expansionist in nature, Iran has kept within its own borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This line borders on trolling...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) The Europeans were willing to fight during WWII, but with the exception of Britain, they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does this mean?
Click to expand...


1) Read my last post for an explanation re Germany/Japan vs the ME. I stand by my statement. Two different kettle of fish
2) Great, just what this board needs - anther arrogant know-it-all who 'decides' what is trolling and what is a point, and points out when Gunny 'should close a thread' . If you would like to explain why I'm trolling please do so. Iran tries to have influences over its sphere in the world for sure, but it has never shown any intention to expand its territory. Influence yes (who doesn't?), territory no. It may be a threat to Israel, but it certainly is of no threat to the US. Only sabre rattling right-wingers who love war seem to think so.
3) If you can't follow the thread of a conversation, don't ask a question. It was a very simple, easy to understand statement..


----------



## mightypeon

Well, given that:

1: The majority of rural iran propably supports Ahmedinajad
2: iran is quite big
3: Iran could, in the case of a war, cause a lot of asymetric damage to US interests
and 4: the military of the US is fairly overstretched

I regard military interventions in the Iran as a really bad idea.

Oh, and comparing Iran to Germany is total bullocks. Precisly what is Iran going to do? Even an acclaimed madman like Hitler did not use Gas warfare in WW2 since he feared retribution (he happily used Gas against those that could not retailiate),  claiming that Iran will nuke Israel (and get nuked in return) seems hypocritical to the extreme.

Regarding the Lustania, she was listed as an armed auxillary cruiser in the british fleet register, she was under the command of the British admirality and an inquiry before a US court proved that she was carrying 1271 crates of various ammunition.
According to eye witnesses, the Lusitania was flying without a flag and with her name blackened.

According to sea law, the German U-Boat should have dive up and warn them before opening fire, they did not do so since the by far faster Lusitania would have gotten away in this case.

I regard the entire affair as a highly efficient use of human shield tactics.


----------



## Sunni Man

Dr Grump said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Comparing Germany and Japan to the ME is wrong. Two different kettle of fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, iran's governing structure is nearly identical to Nazi Germany's, and retains the same firecely religious, mystical belief as in Japan of an unchallengeable leader.
> 
> 
> 
> This line borders on trolling...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) The Europeans were willing to fight during WWII, but with the exception of Britain, they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does this mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Read my last post for an explanation re Germany/Japan vs the ME. I stand by my statement. Two different kettle of fish
> 2) Great, just what this board needs - anther arrogant know-it-all who 'decides' what is trolling and what is a point, and points out when Gunny 'should close a thread' . If you would like to explain why I'm trolling please do so. Iran tries to have influences over its sphere in the world for sure, but it has never shown any intention to expand its territory. Influence yes (who doesn't?), territory no. It may be a threat to Israel, but it certainly is of no threat to the US. Only sabre rattling right-wingers who love war seem to think so.
> 3) If you can't follow the thread of a conversation, don't ask a question. It was a very simple, easy to understand statement..
Click to expand...

RhodesStupid fails to acknowledge the fact that Iran hasn't attacked another nation for over 300 years.


----------



## eots

sunni man said:


> dr grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> incorrect, iran's governing structure is nearly identical to nazi germany's, and retains the same firecely religious, mystical belief as in japan of an unchallengeable leader.
> 
> 
> 
> This line borders on trolling...
> 
> 
> 
> What does this mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) read my last post for an explanation re germany/japan vs the me. I stand by my statement. Two different kettle of fish
> 2) great, just what this board needs - anther arrogant know-it-all who 'decides' what is trolling and what is a point, and points out when gunny 'should close a thread' . If you would like to explain why i'm trolling please do so. Iran tries to have influences over its sphere in the world for sure, but it has never shown any intention to expand its territory. Influence yes (who doesn't?), territory no. It may be a threat to israel, but it certainly is of no threat to the us. Only sabre rattling right-wingers who love war seem to think so.
> 3) if you can't follow the thread of a conversation, don't ask a question. It was a very simple, easy to understand statement..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rhodesstupid fails to acknowledge the fact that iran hasn't attacked another nation for over 300 years.
Click to expand...


well it is like when bush failed to find wmds and said..._well...we know he was a really bad man_...i mean how much more justification do you need to invade another nation and kill their woman and children ?


----------



## rhodescholar

Dr Grump said:


> 1) Comparing Germany and Japan to the ME is wrong. Two different kettle of fish.



Not at all, the government infrastructure is nearly identical.  In fact, iran used the Nazi model to design their current structure, albeit with different names.



> 1) Read my last post for an explanation re Germany/Japan vs the ME. I stand by my statement. Two different kettle of fish



Perhaps for the middle east as a whole, but iran is not only NOT part of the middle east, they themselves don't consider themselves part of it - and want to be as separate from the arabs as humanly possible.



> 2) Great, just what this board needs - anther arrogant know-it-all who 'decides' what is trolling and what is a point,



My comment referred to "iran has kept within its own borders."  This statement is patently false, as all know, and is a re-phrase of the usual lie/nonsense: "iran hasn't attacked anyone in 3 billion years," or some similiar crap.

Applying military force and terrorism through proxies is offensive warfare; to claim otherwise exhibits an agenda that has no place here.



> It may be a threat to Israel, but it certainly is of no threat to the US. Only sabre rattling right-wingers who love war seem to think so.



You must have a short memory, since it murdered 241 american GIs in LEBANON in 1983, plus 85 US staff members in LEBANON in 1983, and hundreds, if not thousands of American GIs in IRAQ over the past 6 years.

Neither of those nations is inside sovereign iran, so therefore, they ARE a threat to the interests of the US.  There have been multiple incidents of iranian "diplomats" being expelled from the US for taking pictures of landmarks and other questionable behavior.



> If you can't follow the thread of a conversation, don't ask a question. It was a very simple, easy to understand statement..



The statement made no sense, and was inapplicable to the thread.


----------



## Dr Grump

rhodescholar said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Comparing Germany and Japan to the ME is wrong. Two different kettle of fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, the government infrastructure is nearly identical.  In fact, iran used the Nazi model to design their current structure, albeit with different names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Read my last post for an explanation re Germany/Japan vs the ME. I stand by my statement. Two different kettle of fish
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps for the middle east as a whole, but iran is not only NOT part of the middle east, they themselves don't consider themselves part of it - and want to be as separate from the arabs as humanly possible.
> 
> 
> 
> My comment referred to "iran has kept within its own borders."  This statement is patently false, as all know, and is a re-phrase of the usual lie/nonsense: "iran hasn't attacked anyone in 3 billion years," or some similiar crap.
> 
> Applying military force and terrorism through proxies is offensive warfare; to claim otherwise exhibits an agenda that has no place here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be a threat to Israel, but it certainly is of no threat to the US. Only sabre rattling right-wingers who love war seem to think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have a short memory, since it murdered 241 american GIs in LEBANON in 1983, plus 85 US staff members in LEBANON in 1983, and hundreds, if not thousands of American GIs in IRAQ over the past 6 years.
> 
> Neither of those nations is inside sovereign iran, so therefore, they ARE a threat to the interests of the US.  There have been multiple incidents of iranian "diplomats" being expelled from the US for taking pictures of landmarks and other questionable behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't follow the thread of a conversation, don't ask a question. It was a very simple, easy to understand statement..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statement made no sense, and was inapplicable to the thread.
Click to expand...


I'm not getting into semantics over something where your knowledge seems limited.
As for the last statement, if you read the thread it made absolute sense. You seem to be the only one not making sense of it..shrug...


----------



## rhodescholar

Dr Grump said:


> I'm not getting into semantics over something where your knowledge seems limited.  As for the last statement, if you read the thread it made absolute sense. You seem to be the only one not making sense of it..shrug...



Freaking hilarious.  Allow me to translate your last response into Modern Standard English for the rest of us:

"Clearly you are more informed on this topic than me, mentioned historical events I wasn't even aware of, and I cannot improve my standing in this thread, so I will just slither away, and hope you and the rest of the thread posters don't take too strong a notice."

Thanks for trying.


----------



## elvis

rhodescholar said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not getting into semantics over something where your knowledge seems limited.  As for the last statement, if you read the thread it made absolute sense. You seem to be the only one not making sense of it..shrug...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freaking hilarious.  Allow me to translate your last response into Modern Standard English for the rest of us:
> 
> "Clearly you are more informed on this topic than me, mentioned historical events I wasn't even aware of, and I cannot improve my standing in this thread, so I will just slither away, and hope you and the rest of the thread posters don't take too strong a notice."
> 
> Thanks for trying.
Click to expand...


Can you explain to us, rhode, how iran is similar to Japan and Germany, when Japan had already attacked China and french indochina and Germany had expanded its territory through manipulating Chamberlain?


----------



## sealybobo

rhodescholar said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/79542-how-should-the-us-approach-iran.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, I was the one vote at the bottom pressing for military support...
Click to expand...


Not worth it.

They'll do it on their own if they have what it takes.

You got $30K to pay for it?  That is what it would cost in the end.


----------



## rhodescholar

elvis3577 said:


> Can you explain to us, rhode, how iran is similar to Japan and Germany, when Japan had already attacked China and french indochina and Germany had expanded its territory through manipulating Chamberlain?



I started to make a list of similar components, such as the hegemonistic/imperialistic goals, government design and structure, repressive leadership, etc., but thought a better response might be, what do you think is different about them?


----------



## elvis

rhodescholar said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain to us, rhode, how iran is similar to Japan and Germany, when Japan had already attacked China and french indochina and Germany had expanded its territory through manipulating Chamberlain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I started to make a list of similar components, such as the hegemonistic/imperialistic goals, government design and structure, repressive leadership, etc., but thought a better response might be, what do you think is different about them?
Click to expand...


expansionism for one.


----------



## Dr Grump

rhodescholar said:


> Freaking hilarious.  Allow me to translate your last response into Modern Standard English for the rest of us:
> 
> "Clearly you are more informed on this topic than me, mentioned historical events I wasn't even aware of, and I cannot improve my standing in this thread, so I will just slither away, and hope you and the rest of the thread posters don't take too strong a notice."
> 
> Thanks for trying.



No, the translation would be better said: "I have been on political messageboards for 8 years and have had this argument a dozen or so times and can't be bothered going through the whole rigmarole again".

Suffice to say, anybody who even remotely compares Japan/Germany with Iran vis-a-vis the US acting as a nation builder hasn't a clue about the history of either situations.

Carry on....


----------



## rhodescholar

elvis3577 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain to us, rhode, how iran is similar to Japan and Germany, when Japan had already attacked China and french indochina and Germany had expanded its territory through manipulating Chamberlain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I started to make a list of similar components, such as the hegemonistic/imperialistic goals, government design and structure, repressive leadership, etc., but thought a better response might be, what do you think is different about them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> expansionism for one.
Click to expand...


The USSR had satellites all over the Eastern Europe, and was a sworn enemy of the US.  Iran has satellites all over the middle east, and is attempting to establish stronger terror cells in south america and europe as i write this.  Through these proxies, it will be able to flex its weight - behind the presence of a formidable nuclear umbrella - an intolerable situation.

With the rise of China, Iran, and other non-free powers, the world could be entering a dark age for quite some time.


----------



## rhodescholar

Dr Grump said:


> No, the translation would be better said: "I have been on political messageboards for 8 years and have had this argument a dozen or so times and can't be bothered going through the whole rigmarole again".
> 
> Suffice to say, anybody who even remotely compares Japan/Germany with Iran vis-a-vis the US acting as a nation builder hasn't a clue about the history of either situations.
> 
> Carry on....



I posted a detailed attack plan, go through my posts and find it.

I did not intend for the US to "nation-build", merely remove the cancer that is running iran currently.  Iran has an educated, quite functional middle class, and could step in to institute a  native, sovereign government in short order.  I do not want a US beach head/dhimmi in iran, only a democratic nation that respects international law - and does not apply terrorism as a political method.


----------

