nashBridges:Actually looks like they'll be doing it to move further into Afghanistan, if you RTFA, subby.

And that's better how?

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.

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.

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.

shanrick:And that's better how?

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

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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)

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.

Yeah, too bad all those soldiers were drafted and don't have the choice of re-enlisting.

That's really just so awful.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

Personally me too.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

Looks like Bush is taking Obama's advice.

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

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."

Are they bringing lots of cigarettes?

Link (new window)

Note to self: come back after work so I can see Persepolis's pics..

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.