If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Fark SearchWeb Fark

         more options... Create account

(Reuters) Scary Bush considers stepping up troop withdrawal from Iraq. Soldiers breathe a sigh of rel...wait.. we're going to Iran, aren't we? shiat   (reuters.com) divider line 65
More: Scary  
•       •       •

1511 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jul 2008 at 5:00 AM   |  Make this a Fark FavoriteFavorite    |   share: Share on OMGTWITTER WEB2.0share on StumbleUponshare on Facebook  more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!

65 Comments   (+0 »)


Fark.com's  Political Inclination Thermometric Analyzer:
Neutral 3.06% Fascist
Archived thread
First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
shanrick [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 12:04:02 AM  
nashBridges:Actually looks like they'll be doing it to move further into Afghanistan, if you RTFA, subby.

And that's better how?

 
GAT_00 [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 12:08:33 AM  
shanrick:nashBridges:Actually looks like they'll be doing it to move further into Afghanistan, if you RTFA, subby.

And that's better how?


Afghanistan is a just war at least. Very few people ever objected to that war, unlike Iraq. So I would have no problems with increased troop numbers in Afghanistan. I'd rather not, but that mess really is our fault there.

Unfortunately, it is all together likely that he is trying to reduce Iraqi troop levels for an Iranian war.

 
abb3w [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 01:24:48 AM  
FTA: stemmed partly from the need for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan

I repeat: they should have spent more effort thoroughly making an example (and civilized country) out of Afghanistan instead of heading for Iraq.

 
Pocket Ninja [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 01:43:00 AM  
So the worthless asshat is acknowledging that his own incompetent policy and "getting revenge for daddy" war plan is a complete and utter failure and that he needs more warm bodies to resurrect the just war that he allowed to sink into a cataclysmic failure by shifting attention away from it. Go, Bush.

 
doyner [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 03:19:58 AM  
shanrick:And that's better how?

Was Afghanistan not a just war to you? It is to me.

 
Persepolis 2008-07-13 03:20:46 AM  
So, is there anyone who thinks a pre-emptive strike on Iran is a good idea at the current place we are now?

Anyone?

If so check my profile and let me know what part you disagree with.

img515.imageshack.us


/hot persian chick posted so when this thread gets more posts, this post gets read.
//also, another reason not to start a war with Iran. We need to get the situation better so they can come here and we can go there easier.

 
GAT_00 [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 03:30:46 AM  
Persepolis:So, is there anyone who thinks a pre-emptive strike on Iran is a good idea at the current place we are now?

The Neocons do, but they won't give you valid or coherent reasons.

 
Persepolis 2008-07-13 03:57:36 AM  
GAT_00:The Neocons do, but they won't give you valid or coherent reasons.

I got some great responses in other threads about this.

Not from Neocons. (I would like to) And not from people who thought strikes are a great idea hands down, but people who didn't see things exactly like I laid it out, and that's exactly what I wanted.

Hopefully this thread (and that other one about a possible Israeli strike) is more of the same.

I predict that other thread would spiral into a "debate" about Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli aggression.

 
musmatta 2008-07-13 05:06:08 AM  
Persepolis:So, is there anyone who thinks a pre-emptive strike on Iran is a good idea at the current place we are now?

Anyone?

If so check my profile and let me know what part you disagree with.

/hot persian chick posted so when this thread gets more posts, this post gets read.
//also, another reason not to start a war with Iran. We need to get the situation better so they can come here and we can go there easier.


She looks like a real-doll, man..

 
Occam's Chainsaw [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 05:08:12 AM  
abb3w:I repeat: they should have spent more effort thoroughly making an example (and civilized country) out of Afghanistan instead of heading for Iraq.

Imagine if we'd really worked our asses off so that by 2004, 2005ish Afghanistan was a model of a theocracy turned into a peaceful democratic state. We wouldn't need force or bluster, we could just point to Afghanistan and say, "See, [Iraq, Iran, whoever]? Behave or it could be you.

I'm so glad that Bush's alternate plan worked out so much better. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go weep and drink.

 
Gyrfalcon [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 05:15:37 AM  
shanrick:nashBridges:Actually looks like they'll be doing it to move further into Afghanistan, if you RTFA, subby.

And that's better how?


Well, we have a good excuse/reason for being in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda (remember them?) were based, trained, formed and sponsored out of Afghanistan, even though the terrorists themselves and bin Laden were/are Saudis. And also, the Taliban has been resurging lately and need to get stomped back down really really hard.

This demonstrates the principle of finishing one war before you start a second; it's very hard to fight multiple wars in various locations without spreading your forces too thinly.

 
Wayfarer's Freedom 2008-07-13 05:18:34 AM  
Blaming Bush? Bush has nothing to do with all this! He's just a figureman!

All this conflict in the Middle East is part of a broader agenda known as the PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY.

WAR CORPORATISM (new window)

 
Persepolis 2008-07-13 05:23:36 AM  
musmatta:She looks like a real-doll, man..

I specifically picked that model and that picture because it's the most striking (in my opinion) when you're scrolling through a thread really quick just looking for pictures.

Which is what I assume a good percentage of farkers do.

 
Crude 2008-07-13 05:28:38 AM  
Yeah, too bad all those soldiers were drafted and don't have the choice of re-enlisting.

That's really just so awful.

 
3_Butt_Cheeks 2008-07-13 05:30:13 AM  
hometown.aol.com

Never start a land war in Asia......

 
starsrift 2008-07-13 05:44:02 AM  
Persepolis:musmatta:She looks like a real-doll, man..

I specifically picked that model and that picture because it's the most striking (in my opinion) when you're scrolling through a thread really quick just looking for pictures.

Which is what I assume a good percentage of farkers do.


Didn't you used to have those gorgeous pics of Iran in your profile?
/ Or was that someone else?

 
Persepolis 2008-07-13 05:58:24 AM  
starsrift:Didn't you used to have those gorgeous pics of Iran in your profile?

It was me, I got pissed off and took everyone off.

Then I realized the reason I got pissed off was that I was unable to explain my opinions fully when I was at work, and threads got overrun with things I wanted to respond to but couldn't.

Then I realized I say practically the same things over and over in threads anyways, So now I'm making my profile a depository of all those points, but in better, more professional (read: not quick fark-postish) form.

I'll put new pics up, but after I get some core concepts in.

 
FarkingSean 2008-07-13 06:16:35 AM  
For those of you who think we are going to invade Iran:

We have zero purpose in invading Iran. We would, at most, bomb their nuclear facilities, and maybe strafe a few barracks for show, so they decide to STFU and play nice for a few more years.

Iran with a nuke is like a child with a loaded firearm. Period. If we all have to bite the bullet for a few months and pay higher gas prices, so be it. Maybe THEN we will push towards a smarter energy policy so we are no longer at the mercy of nations like Iran.

 
starsrift 2008-07-13 06:17:40 AM  
Persepolis:It was me, I got pissed off and took everyone off.

I'm an atypical liter, but FWIW, I liked those pics much better than Ms. ClaudiaLynx.

 
The Why Not Guy [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 06:31:07 AM  
I don't know how those who supported the war in Iraq can look themselves in the mirror. It took me exactly 8 seconds of critical thinking to realize the facts didn't line up with the claims the Bush administration was making. Now, hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, we're no better off in Iraq with no end in sight, and meanwhile over in Afghanistan...

 
Persepolis 2008-07-13 06:34:43 AM  
starsrift:I'm an atypical liter, but FWIW, I liked those pics much better than Ms. ClaudiaLynx.

Personally me too.

 
3_Butt_Cheeks 2008-07-13 06:37:24 AM  
The Why Not Guy:I don't know how those who supported the war in Iraq can look themselves in the mirror. It took me exactly 8 seconds of critical thinking to realize the facts didn't line up with the claims the Bush administration was making. Now, hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, we're no better off in Iraq with no end in sight, and meanwhile over in Afghanistan...

So you knew what the CIA, British Intelligence, French and German Intel, and Israeli intel DIDN'T know.

From the Council on Foreign Relations:

"At the same time, an acrimonious and highly partisan debate broke out over whether the Bush administration manipulated and misused intelligence in making its case for war. The administration defended itself by pointing out that it was not alone in its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and active weapons programs, however mistaken that view may have been.

In this regard, the Bush administration perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western governments and intelligence services."

 
OneBrightMonkey 2008-07-13 06:49:05 AM  
Don't be silly. Clearly we are going to hell in a hand basket.

We're just stopping in Iran first because they have a Bob's Big Boy.

 
onyxia 2008-07-13 07:20:57 AM  
Pocket Ninja:So the worthless asshat is acknowledging that his own incompetent policy and "getting revenge for daddy" war plan is a complete and utter failure and that he needs more warm bodies to resurrect the just war that he allowed to sink into a cataclysmic failure by shifting attention away from it. Go, Bush.

You really should read the news more.

 
Hobodeluxe [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 08:04:37 AM  

 
fapologist 2008-07-13 08:15:08 AM  
The Why Not Guy:I don't know how those who supported the war in Iraq can look themselves in the mirror. It took me exactly 8 seconds of critical thinking to realize the facts didn't line up with the claims the Bush administration was making. Now, hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, we're no better off in Iraq with no end in sight, and meanwhile over in Afghanistan...

maybe just a little bit of Monday morning quarter-backing!

try 8 years and 8 seconds.

 
bwesb 2008-07-13 08:37:12 AM  
Hobodeluxe 2008-07-13 08:04:37 AM
Frank Rich has a good column in today's NYT.


That is a very good column. I found this part to be the most telling.

The biggest torture-fueled wild-goose chase, of course, is the war in Iraq. Exhibit A, revisited in "The Dark Side," is Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an accused Qaeda commander whose torture was outsourced by the C.I.A. to Egypt. His fabricated tales of Saddam's biological and chemical W.M.D. - and of nonexistent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda - were cited by President Bush in his fateful Oct. 7, 2002, Cincinnati speech ginning up the war and by Mr. Powell in his subsequent United Nations presentation on Iraqi weaponry. Two F.B.I. officials told Ms. Mayer that Mr. al-Libi later explained his lies by saying: "They were killing me. I had to tell them something."

 
Hobodeluxe [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 08:38:55 AM  
Looks like Bush is taking Obama's advice.

 
BigBooper 2008-07-13 08:39:39 AM  
Persepolis:

I predict that other thread would spiral into a "debate" about Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli aggression.


I'm hoping that it spirals into a fark photo posting war over who is hotter, Persian chicks, or Israeli chicks, and further degrades to mass postings of hot chicks without any purpose.

/she does look like a real doll

 
noazark 2008-07-13 09:10:07 AM  
GAT_00:Unfortunately, it is all together likely that he is trying to reduce Iraqi troop levels for an Iranian war.

*large crowd, in unison*: "likely that he is trying to reduce Iraqi troop levels for an Iranian war."

 
HighOnCraic 2008-07-13 09:10:31 AM  
Are they bringing lots of cigarettes?

Link (new window)

 
Alphax 2008-07-13 09:11:44 AM  
Note to self: come back after work so I can see Persepolis's pics..

 
abb3w [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 09:23:36 AM  
3_Butt_Cheeks: Never start a land war in Asia....

Have you ever looked at a map, and counted the number of borders with other countries for Iraq and Afghanistan?

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve!" - Ambassador Londo Mollari from Babylon 5

 
3_Butt_Cheeks 2008-07-13 09:25:03 AM  
Have you ever looked at a map, and counted the number of borders with other countries for Iraq and Afghanistan?

I was too busy taking large doses of Iocane powder.

 
Nemo's Brother 2008-07-13 09:48:41 AM  
nashBridges:Actually looks like they'll be doing it to move further into Afghanistan, if you RTFA, subby.

Don't let little things like the truth get in the way of his fearmongering.

 
Persepolis 2008-07-13 09:50:32 AM  
Alphax:Note to self: come back after work so I can see Persepolis's pics..

It's probably going to be weeks until I set that up.

Plus, it'll be more buildings and areas than anything. I want people to get a feel of what Iran is like to Iranians, and not the popular, incorrect, desert village version.

 
nekulor [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 09:53:42 AM  
nashBridges:Actually looks like they'll be doing it to move further into Afghanistan, if you RTFA, subby.

That's fine with me. We just need to GTFO of Iraq. Afghanistan was a just war. Their government trained, backed and funded 9/11. At least we had a reason to invade them. Iraq was a convenient "while we're in the neighborhood" war.

 
Sir Roderick Glossop 2008-07-13 10:01:52 AM  
Persepolis:

I posted this in the other Iran thread, but that thread is being killed by two guys trading insults:.

Hey Persep. I really like the stuff in your profile, and it is a tightly reasoned analysis. It deals nicely with the issue of Iran's nuclear program, Ahmadinejad's idiocy, and how these two things, in and of themselves, don't lead to a imminent existential threat to Israel.

I'd like to get your thoughts on what I think is the sub-rosa agenda here. Your analysis is great, and was accomplished by reviewing public documents. Now unless there are classified materials that strongly contradict this (possible, but unlikely) this analysis has likely been arrived at by Israeli analysts, yet they are persisting in preparing for an attack. This tells me that either a) the bellicosity is not about the nuclear program, and is, in fact, using the nuclear program as a false justification for hitting them for some other reason or, b) the NIE etc. are wrong and there is an immediate threat (unlikely).

I would posit that the real reason for hitting Iran has more to do with Iran's growing influence in the region now that Saddam isn't holding them in equilibrium any more. I don't think the Sunni states or Israel is happy to see the potential for Shia influence extending from Iran into Iraq and then into Syria and Lebanaon.

Israel is working on splitting Syria away from Iran. Israel got surprised (and humiliated) by Hezbollah. No one wants Lebanon to deteriorate further due to Syrian/ Iranian interference.

My point is that this is not about a nuclear program or one particular puppet leader. This is about knocking them down a few pegs and preventing them from establishing themselves as The Power in the region.

P.S. I think a military action like this isn't a good idea, and that if Iran is hit, Hell will slowly, but surely break loose.

 
uptonogood 2008-07-13 10:54:38 AM  
3_Butt_Cheeks:Never start a land war in Asia......

i've said that at work before but the people here just of look at me confused.

/get me out of baghdad

 
CanisNoir [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 11:06:06 AM  
Persepolis:So, is there anyone who thinks a pre-emptive strike on Iran is a good idea at the current place we are now?

Anyone?

If so check my profile and let me know what part you disagree with.

/hot persian chick posted so when this thread gets more posts, this post gets read.
//also, another reason not to start a war with Iran. We need to get the situation better so they can come here and we can go there easier.


I knew I had you on favorites for a reason..
Not only are you dead on with regards to Iran, but I get to wake up to a picture like that... Thank you!!

/thinking of doing something similar with my profile and my thoughts on Iraq.

 
saintstryfe 2008-07-13 11:06:20 AM  
nashBridges:Actually looks like they'll be doing it to move further into Afghanistan, if you RTFA, subby.

yeah, because if Bush is anything, it's truthworthy

 
wolvernova 2008-07-13 11:06:22 AM  
shanrick:nashBridges:Actually looks like they'll be doing it to move further into Afghanistan, if you RTFA, subby.

And that's better how?


Finish the job we started six years ago and walked away from, for one. Ya know, where the people planned the whole 9/11 thing.

 
CanisNoir [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 11:08:33 AM  
Occam's Chainsaw:abb3w:I repeat: they should have spent more effort thoroughly making an example (and civilized country) out of Afghanistan instead of heading for Iraq.

Imagine if we'd really worked our asses off so that by 2004, 2005ish Afghanistan was a model of a theocracy turned into a peaceful democratic state. We wouldn't need force or bluster, we could just point to Afghanistan and say, "See, [Iraq, Iran, whoever]? Behave or it could be you.

I'm so glad that Bush's alternate plan worked out so much better. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go weep and drink.


Someone once pointed out to the difficulties in Afghanistan of accomplishing that; I'm guessing that's part of went into the decision to head into Iraq. (It's much easier than Afghanistan and stops Iran cold without military action against them).

 
The Why Not Guy [TotalFark] 2008-07-13 12:08:20 PM  
3_Butt_Cheeks:So you knew what the CIA, British Intelligence, French and German Intel, and Israeli intel DIDN'T know.

Apparently so, since I was right and they were wrong - or lying.

 
FeedTheCollapse 2008-07-13 12:35:18 PM  
CanisNoir:I'm guessing that's part of went into the decision to head into Iraq. (It's much easier than Afghanistan and stops Iran cold without military action against them).

discount the whole "war for Oil" "revenge for daddy", etc. angles of it, and I do believe this was the war in Iraq's desired effect. One could make a stronger case for war against Iran (Pre-Iraq, mind you), but it would've been much harder to accomplish and Saddam certainly would've not sat idly by knowing he was next.


But nevermind all that as Afghanistan should've been worked through thoroughly and it really could've stood as, as lame as it sounds now, "A beacon for Democracy" in the region. god we farked up...

 
McWattisdead 2008-07-13 12:49:37 PM  
Persepolis:So, is there anyone who thinks a pre-emptive strike on Iran is a good idea at the current place we are now?

Anyone?

If so check my profile and let me know what part you disagree with.

/hot persian chick posted so when this thread gets more posts, this post gets read.
//also, another reason not to start a war with Iran. We need to get the situation better so they can come here and we can go there easier.


I agree for the most part. You don't really mention how much more the economy will go into the shiatter, besides its effect on oil. The Iranians would be able to recruit from Iraq by propagating a sense of American abandonment. Thereby destroying any positive gains in Iraq. Oh, and it doesn't mention that if Iran has or gets nukes, Israel is gone.

Also, the word "Positive" is spelled wrong.

/The Persian chick is hot in a Megan Fox-like can't resist, but you know with those eyes she'll just kill you in your sleep sort of way.

 
EsteeFlwrPot 2008-07-13 01:29:06 PM  
Persepolis:/hot persian chick posted so when this thread gets more posts, this post gets read.
//also, another reason not to start a war with Iran. We need to get the situation better so they can come here and we can go there easier.


Are you gonna put her picture up in every thread? Her eyes dont look natural to me. I dont know, they look freakishly huge. Anyway, if shes real shes gorgeous. I'd hit it if I were a guy.

Also, I agree with your points on Iran but they're only planning on attacking the nuclear facilities, not going on an all out war.

 
wolvernova 2008-07-13 01:32:01 PM  
McWattisdead:if Iran has or gets nukes, Israel is gone.

Iran's intentions are for regional influence/dominance, and acceptance/respect in the global world. This will not be achieved through nuking Israel, and they will be the absolute scorn of the Islamic world for nuking Palestinians. That is, until they are second-strike nuked back by either the U.S. or Israel. Point is, they're not a suicidal nation.

And think for a second why they would nuke Israel. What could they possibly gain? What is their beef with Israel? They were friends in the past, and they have no territorial disputes. Israel didn't overthrow Iran's elected leader in 1953. The answer: us, the United States. The only reason Iran harrasses Israel is to spite us. This whole nuke mess is nothing more than a pissing match. Iran will never, never, never nuke Israel, nor allow it to be nuked.

 
EsteeFlwrPot 2008-07-13 01:36:29 PM  
wolvernova:And think for a second why they would nuke Israel. What could they possibly gain? What is their beef with Israel? They were friends in the past, and they have no territorial disputes. Israel didn't overthrow Iran's elected leader in 1953. The answer: us, the United States. The only reason Iran harrasses Israel is to spite us. This whole nuke mess is nothing more than a pissing match. Iran will never, never, never nuke Israel, nor allow it to be nuked.

This.

 
McWattisdead 2008-07-13 01:59:46 PM  
wolvernova:McWattisdead:if Iran has or gets nukes, Israel is gone.

Iran's intentions are for regional influence/dominance, and acceptance/respect in the global world. This will not be achieved through nuking Israel, and they will be the absolute scorn of the Islamic world for nuking Palestinians. That is, until they are second-strike nuked back by either the U.S. or Israel. Point is, they're not a suicidal nation.

And think for a second why they would nuke Israel. What could they possibly gain? What is their beef with Israel? They were friends in the past, and they have no territorial disputes. Israel didn't overthrow Iran's elected leader in 1953. The answer: us, the United States. The only reason Iran harrasses Israel is to spite us. This whole nuke mess is nothing more than a pissing match. Iran will never, never, never nuke Israel, nor allow it to be nuked.


You're right. I definitely overstated that. But I do think Israel would be in danger even if they could hold their own militarily. As for other Islamic countries looking down on Iran for an attack on Israel, I think there are enough extremists in control of communication/propaganda that it could be spun as both an attack on the Jewish world AND the U.S. Also, I think it is important how the fight begins. If Israel attacks "preemptively", then I don't see them garnering much sympathy from the Islamic world.

 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all


[Continue Farking]