War with Iran

PussyWellington

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Posts
541
Media
2
Likes
30
Points
163
Location
Asia/Australia
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Female
Iran has habitually displayed its animus for the U.S. since the Shah of Iran was deposed (and rightly so) when President Jimmy Carter told the man it was time to go. This expression of hate towards the U.S. has been unjustified much like the German hatred of the Jews back in the day; it is an analogous ethno-centric and values hatred those in power have for us.

More examples of Americas' biggest brand -- democracy. The last time Iran had a democratically elected leader - Mohammad Mossadegh, United States and Britain organized a coup.

I can assure you it's not a troll. I posted this presentation because I wanted to start the discussion about Iran and the 'threat" with some humanity.

I may personally not have been in a war but I have lived in two countries that have felt the brunt of the Americans - Vietnam and South Korea. I now live between two countries that have also felt the might Nicaragua and Panama. Are you getting the picture - I am.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
More examples of Americas' biggest brand -- democracy. The last time Iran had a democratically elected leader - Mohammad Mossadegh, United States and Britain organized a coup.

I can assure you it's not a troll. I posted this presentation because I wanted to start the discussion about Iran and the 'threat" with some humanity.

I may personally not have been in a war but I have lived in two countries that have felt the brunt of the Americans - Vietnam and South Korea. I now live between two countries that have also felt the might Nicaragua and Panama. Are you getting the picture - I am.

Sorry you're confused, I was asking if MY post was a troll not yours. Your sentiments are the prevalent ones on LPSG. :)

The reason the man was a threat was because the West was in conflict with Communism and Mossadegh nationalized a resource that was developed with somebody elses money. Get the alarm of the taking of private property for the alleged benefit of the community. There are different ways to nationalize resources. And the fifties were different times with different priorities. It would be naive not to understand that.

Vietnam and Korea were about stifling Communism. If you think Communism is the best system of gorvernance then you obviously would think that America did not belong there. I think S. Korea is better off that America won in that instance and because we lost in Viet-Nam they lost, greatly. Look the difference is plain. Look at Taiwan/Hong Kong and then look at China. Even today China could not 'do it' if it had not been for the West's stupiditiy and greed. We go no political concessions from them.

Panama? We built the canal gave it to them peacefully and got rid of a drug dealing strong man. Nicaragua? We told Samoza to leave. We fucked it up because we assumed that poor people could be anything other than revolutionary Communists. Nothing is all good or all evil but in balance the U.S. IS good and really wants to do good.

Your sentiments are not really effective. If you want to avert war you should be harassing someone to answer the public letter the president of Iran sent Bush. Otherwise, if your sentiments prevail evil will prevail. Walking away from a fight is not always a good thing.
 

kamikazee_club

1st Like
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
You guys are really silly thinkers. DD's vid could have been made using the German population pre- (and during) WWII to the same effect of - 'they are just like us, don't bomb them' whine. It is propoganda peace-nik thinking. Before you go off half cocked calling me a war monger shut up and read first.:)

Of course it could, peace-nik thinking it's not however.

ran has habitually displayed its animus for the U.S. since the Shah of Iran was deposed (and rightly so) when President Jimmy Carter told the man it was time to go. This expression of hate towards the U.S. has been unjustified much like the German hatred of the Jews back in the day; it is an analogous ethno-centric and values hatred those in power have for us.

The Iranian Government has, for sure; that's what they think they need to do to keep their population on side and appeal the the conservative base. Do you think the average man in the street feels the same way, in much the same way the average man in the street is behind the current US administration? Your analogy with Jewish persecution in Germany is nonsensical, the two are in almost no way related.

A significant proportion of Islam actively teaches irrational hate towards the West (Wahhabism), as many Western societies once actively taught anti-semitism (Jewish). The Saudi state taught that Jews kill and eat children in their textbooks among many other bizarre claims through the 90's. The Palestinian state also taught this irrational hate in their classroom textbooks at the height of Arafat's power in the 90's when peace seemed to be the likeliest ever in history. If these children hadn't been brain washed maybe there would be peace today.

No news there, but what has that got to do with justifiying military action (or not). Muslims are often mean to us? Well, boo fuckin hoo??

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the same kind of incompetent that President George Bush is except that there are in fact checks and balances built into our government that simply do not exist in Iran's theocracy. If Iran was a reasonable state (i.e. as secularized at least to the degree that the U.S. government is) then Iran could have its nuclear weapons (maybe).

Ditto. But then of course those checks and balances don't seem to be working too well back home of late now do they? In the final analysis, if Iran wants them, they will get them.

The real question is why does Iran need to import petroleum products and yet needs to have nuclear power. Silly people don't know that Iran should built an oil refinery first. THEY HAVE NOT BUILT REFINERIES TO MEET THEIR OWN FUCKING NEEDS!!! Gas is expensive in Iran!

They're incompetent and unable to prioritise, lets blow 'em up? If economic incompetence was grounds for such action the world would be a smoking ruin. I understand where you're going with this but I just think it's a bit weak.

If Iran is not contested with regards to nuclear power/weapons then Saudi Arabia will need it as will Kuwait, Qatar, and, yes, in time, even Iraq. They have the money to buy them. Something Pakistan and India don't have and yet they have nuclear weapons.

It is being contested - as it should be, the question being asked here is: if words are not enough will the US (for example) be willing or even able to take action? And, if so would the US be justified? As an aside, I'd be surprised if there weren't a few ex Russian nukes quietly squirreled away throughout the region. I mean they have to be somewhere.

....Just because our execution sucks does not mean that our reasoning behind our wanting to reign in Iran doesn't make eminent sense.

Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons makes perfect sense on that I agree completely. As you say it's all in the execution. Let's start at home....haha, right. Maybe Israel then, or India or Pakistan perhaps but they are our allies. Lets start with Iran, after all we can bully them into submission.....but no, wait, they gave us the finger; what's going on, is US supremacy on the wane?

Fuck the neocons and fuck the liberals they have very little to say of real life worth. It's alway pie in the sky, simple simon, dumb fuck ideas because they are uninformed and/or lazy.

That really only leaves the middle ground, so, what is your informed, worthwhile suggestion? I ask cos I can't seem to find one in your ranting and your posts are normally much more coherent.
 

kamikazee_club

1st Like
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
Pretty pictures, but that doesn't take away the fact that Iran is ruled by a crazy person and they (unlike Iraq) actually are working towards getting a bomb. They've said as much themselves. Not that that's necessarily a good reason to invade or bomb them.

Well, given the US is ruled by a crazy person and has hundreds I suppose it's a matter of perspective.:smile:
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Of course it could, peace-nik thinking it's not however.

What kind of thinking is it then?

The Iranian Government has, for sure; that's what they think they need to do to keep their population on side and appeal the the conservative base. Do you think the average man in the street feels the same way, in much the same way the average man in the street is behind the current US administration?
The Iranian populace vacillates in how it feels about America. Before Iraq it was very favorable. When it got to be too favorable the Ayatollahs crunched down on the scantilly dressed women :rolleyes:, the free press, and the democratically elected, reformist politicians.

Your analogy with Jewish persecution in Germany is nonsensical, the two are in almost no way related.
Of course they are related. It was an analogy of how the TOTALITARIAN like state can take some underlying hatreds and inflame them for their purposes, not about persecution (They can only persecute us in their dreams). And it's a hate based on ethnic values. Though we are a conglomeration of ethnicities, we are as a group ethnically American and we stand for everthing the Ayatollahs are against. They can keep that opinion, we should just be aware of it as we deal with them.

No news there, but what has that got to do with justifiying military action (or not). Muslims are often mean to us? Well, boo fuckin hoo??
No, until our President gets his head out of his ass completely and puts $200B into Tokomak reactors and fusion research, we need to have energy resources available. How the hell else are you going to get online and read my riveting posts? :)

Yeah, we could mine coal and Canadian tar sands for our gasoline needs to our hearts content for many, many years but why not try and spread a little love (democracy) while we can. ;-)

Ditto. But then of course those checks and balances don't seem to be working too well back home of late now do they? In the final analysis, if Iran wants them, they will get them.
They are working wonderfully thank you very much. You probably thought when Clinton and Gingrich stopped the government that was a bad thing.:rolleyes:

No, Iran wants moderates and votes for moderates and the Ayatollahs take them away.

They're incompetent and unable to prioritise, lets blow 'em up? If economic incompetence was grounds for such action the world would be a smoking ruin. I understand where you're going with this but I just think it's a bit weak.
Its not weak to recognize that priorities are strong indicators of intention.

It is being contested - as it should be, the question being asked here is: if words are not enough will the US (for example) be willing or even able to take action? And, if so would the US be justified? As an aside, I'd be surprised if there weren't a few ex Russian nukes quietly squirreled away throughout the region. I mean they have to be somewhere.
Of course right now its not justified to use force. Saber rattling is just saber rattling and has its uses too. If Iran keeps screwing with us in Iraq, they definitely should be whacked on the nose for it. Whatever form that whacking takes should be carefully considered.

I've always thought that if I was the Jewish state I would squirrel away nukes in the capitols of my enemies and blow them up when invaded. Thought that would make a good James Bond movie. Started to hash out a script but had to stop in order to learn more about Middle Eastern culture.

Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons makes perfect sense on that I agree completely. As you say it's all in the execution. Let's start at home....haha, right. Maybe Israel then, or India or Pakistan perhaps but they are our allies. Lets start with Iran, after all we can bully them into submission.....but no, wait, they gave us the finger; what's going on, is US supremacy on the wane?
I'm all for taking nuclear weapons from Pakistan and India if we can negotiate that. Israel? Sure. When all its neighbors are functioning democracies.

Pakistan is not an ally. They view us as we view them at the moment: useful.

U.S. supremacy is far from being on the wane.

That really only leaves the middle ground, so, what is your informed, worthwhile suggestion? I ask cos I can't seem to find one in your ranting and your posts are normally much more coherent.
I got comments on this coming.
 

stretcher74

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Posts
240
Media
17
Likes
85
Points
173
Location
Canada
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
No more Nut-Job Islamic Theocracies with nukes please !

The Pakistani case boggles my mind already. Sooner or later the islamists are going to get lucky in their assassination attempts with Gen. Musharaf(sp) and then you're going to have a nation of Islamists with a warehouse full of 40kiltoton truck nukes to hand out/fed-ex.

Ground Invasion of Iran would be insane. You're are talking about 80 million people in a mountian country that makes vietnam look like easy going. Bombing the nuclear facilities is the plan. Possibly shortly after the reactor goes power-up for a test run. Very few people will die. It will get cemented over and maybe a few dozen firefighters/construction workers will get thyroid cancer. Iran will bitch and moan to the UN and maybe turn off their 5% of world oil for 5-6 months but nothing else will happen. No WWIII. China and Russia don't give a shit and neither does anyone else much. Hell Russia gets to sell them a new reactor or at least cleanup services for us to blow up !

The Iranians have made their bed and now they have to lie in it. They've been playing this "Death to the Infidel", "Death to America", "Death to Isreal", "Death to the whole fucking human race" thing hot cold since 1979 and the payback for them is a bitch. They keep picking fights with the biggest guy on the block and then complain about getting a bloody nose like the little man-punks they are.

Now if they keep trying to build nukes then they will get Part B of the f u plan. They may get this anyways since George W is not exactly known for his velvet gloves. This is a total removal of bombing of all power generating facilities in Iran and 5 Billion in small arms and support for each of Irans' 5 major non Persian minorites (about 20B in all). Persians overall are a minority to these groups which they treat the way muslims treat all minorities. Iranians can't build nukes without electricity and they're going to have one nasty ass-civil war. Think Iran/Iraq war but inside Iran. Iran will Implode.

Frankly I don't think it could all happen to a more deserving bunch of arabs. Whoops I mean muslims !(Saudis maybe?) I'll be making popcorn for when CNN plays the tape of the containment building going boom boom.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
To what extent would your hatred of Arabs and Muslims dictate your foreign policy?

A ranting based exasperation does not necessarily express a hate. He wrote some things in that post that could be pointedly challenged.

Does he hate Arabs (, Persians, or Moslems)? You must have gotten that from another thread I haven't read.
 

zgrog2000

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Posts
194
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Gender
Male
That was Hitler's mantra. Originally proposed by Thrasymachus in the Republic. Sadly though Socrates' reason prevailed in argument, it doesn't seem so powerful in the face of a jackboot.

There would be several consequences of war with Iran.

Israel would be sacrificed to utter destruction.

China would destroy the Dollar.

Taiwan would be invaded.

The US would lose any interest in the East Pacific, Asia, the Middle East and probably Europe and cease to be a superpower.

And what is the perceived benefit?

Based on what I've been reading, I would think that most visitors to this site would welcome the US taking action. It would ruin the United States and the tyrant would fall, Israel would be gone, and based on what I think I've understood here, the world would be a better place.
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
136
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
No more Nut-Job Islamic Theocracies with nukes please !

The Pakistani case boggles my mind already. Sooner or later the islamists are going to get lucky in their assassination attempts with Gen. Musharaf(sp) and then you're going to have a nation of Islamists with a warehouse full of 40kiltoton truck nukes to hand out/fed-ex.

Ground Invasion of Iran would be insane. You're are talking about 80 million people in a mountian country that makes vietnam look like easy going. Bombing the nuclear facilities is the plan. Possibly shortly after the reactor goes power-up for a test run. Very few people will die. It will get cemented over and maybe a few dozen firefighters/construction workers will get thyroid cancer. Iran will bitch and moan to the UN and maybe turn off their 5% of world oil for 5-6 months but nothing else will happen. No WWIII. China and Russia don't give a shit and neither does anyone else much. Hell Russia gets to sell them a new reactor or at least cleanup services for us to blow up !

The Iranians have made their bed and now they have to lie in it. They've been playing this "Death to the Infidel", "Death to America", "Death to Isreal", "Death to the whole fucking human race" thing hot cold since 1979 and the payback for them is a bitch. They keep picking fights with the biggest guy on the block and then complain about getting a bloody nose like the little man-punks they are.

Now if they keep trying to build nukes then they will get Part B of the f u plan. They may get this anyways since George W is not exactly known for his velvet gloves. This is a total removal of bombing of all power generating facilities in Iran and 5 Billion in small arms and support for each of Irans' 5 major non Persian minorites (about 20B in all). Persians overall are a minority to these groups which they treat the way muslims treat all minorities. Iranians can't build nukes without electricity and they're going to have one nasty ass-civil war. Think Iran/Iraq war but inside Iran. Iran will Implode.

Frankly I don't think it could all happen to a more deserving bunch of arabs. Whoops I mean muslims !(Saudis maybe?) I'll be making popcorn for when CNN plays the tape of the containment building going boom boom.

You are a sick, vile human being and this post proves it. If Iran is attacked, it will cause a major war simply because Iran will bomb the hell out of its US ally neighbours (Isrreal mainly; Saudia is not safe either). So this will quickly escalate in a major conflict that I am willing to COST A LOT IN TERMS OF HUMAN LIFE ON ALL SIDES. This means Americans, Iranians and Isrealis.
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
136
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Based on what I've been reading, I would think that most visitors to this site would welcome the US taking action. It would ruin the United States and the tyrant would fall, Israel would be gone, and based on what I think I've understood here, the world would be a better place.

The US has been a superpower since atleast the end of the second world war if not before. If you look at history there have been various civilizations at various times that have been the most powerful in the world. The US is the dominant power in the world right now; it is foolish to expect that it will always remain this way. No one can predict when, but a day will come that someone other head of state (wether it be a president, a monarch or a dictator) will be the most powerful person on the planet. As far as the fate of Israel goes; no one can predict what will happen. In my opnion, if it does not enjoy the support of the new "big man" it will quickly get relocated outside of the Middle East.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
The US has been a superpower since atleast the end of the second world war if not before. If you look at history there have been various civilizations at various times that have been the most powerful in the world. The US is the dominant power in the world right now; it is foolish to expect that it will always remain this way. No one can predict when, but a day will come that someone other head of state (wether it be a president, a monarch or a dictator) will be the most powerful person on the planet. As far as the fate of Israel goes; no one can predict what will happen. In my opnion, if it does not enjoy the support of the new "big man" it will quickly get relocated outside of the Middle East.

The problem with your analysis is that it makes no allowances for weapons of mass destruction and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). We have taken the genie out of the bottle. China or India will never invade America or Russia unless it is a very gradual process.

What I mean to say is that fall from dominance doesn't mean what it used to mean.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Based on what I've been reading, I would think that most visitors to this site would welcome the US taking action. It would ruin the United States and the tyrant would fall, Israel would be gone, and based on what I think I've understood here, the world would be a better place.

The world is a very different place post Cold War. I think most reasonable people want a strong prosperous USA and do not wish her citizens any harm. Most reasonable people would also wish this for other countries and their people.
 

kamikazee_club

1st Like
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
Liar! We're never have wars if we all cared for the lives of others.

Heck, I know that there are many, many people who deserve a good carpet-bombing...

Well, LPD did say most reasonable people and I don't think either of those terms apply to people who start wars. Carpet bombing is surely a very wasteful way of taking out a small number of unreasonable people.:cool: