War with Iran

[MARIS61]

It appears likely we will have a naval battle with Iran soon.

Any guesses/thoughts as to if it will stop there, or will we use it as a reason to go after their nuclear capabilities in a big way?

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama 2012, just to be sure we have a war with Iran.

 

[huevonkiller]

Obama 2012, just to be sure we have a war with Iran.

I am also confident that neocon wants war.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't care if we just bitch slap them a bit, but I don't want to occupy another country.

 

[BrianFromWA]

A "naval battle" wouldn't take very long. They have only three kilo-class diesel subs, 4 Yono midget subs and one new destroyer-esque corvette. Their strategy relies on asymmetric warfare (swarming small boats, mines and surf-to-surf missiles) and sinking something to block the straits. Asalyuheh and Jask couldn't logistically support a ramp-up of more forces even if they had them.

If they wanted to get tricky and just sink the next two tankers that come through the Strait, that could get messy (in more ways than one).

 

[BrianFromWA]

Here's some open-source stuff on Iran's Order of Battle.

 

[Natebishop3]

Weren't they saying they wanted to park a sub off our coast?

 

[Natebishop3]

[video=youtube;5gps0q-Muhg]

 

[BrianFromWA]

That would be extremely difficult with the subs they have. The Kilos don't have the endurance to make it to the western Atlantic, so they'd have to refuel somewhere. And then snorkel across the ocean. Kinda tough to stay quiet when you're running a diesel and blowing smoke.

They basically have one ship (the new Jamaran) that could even make the trip. It's not a sub, nor stealthy, nor particularly powerful. There's no type of "presence" operation it could do.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I don't care if we just bitch slap them a bit, but I don't want to occupy another country.

 

[huevonkiller]

Nah fuck that, pointless military interventionism won't make the terrorists go away. And it will cause blowback.

 

[BrianFromWA]

"Pointless military interventionism." They're threatening to block the straight of Hormuz to trade ships. There's a point to not letting them get away with it.

"won't make the terrorists go away." Since we're talking about a uniformed admiral in the service of his country's navy, and not some rag-head in a cave somewhere, I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

"and it will cause blowback." What the hell are they going to do? Fabricate nuclear weapons to make it easier to meet their stated intention of "wiping Israel off the face of the earth?"

 

[huevonkiller]

Nah dude this isn't Fox News, that's not gonna slide.

"Pointless military interventionism." They're threatening to block the straight of Hormuz to trade ships. There's a point to not letting them get away with it.

And why are they threatening to do that?

Nice try but you're not slick enough.

"won't make the terrorists go away." Since we're talking about a uniformed admiral in the service of his country's navy, and not some rag-head in a cave somewhere, I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Well first, Bullshit you think they're all terrorists. All you neocons are the same.

And lastly this is good news. Don't fucking intervene in their country and stop surrounding them with your military bases.

"and it will cause blowback." What the hell are they going to do? Fabricate nuclear weapons to make it easier to meet their stated intention of "wiping Israel off the face of the earth?"

I'm not even sure that's the correct translation. Also They're not going to do jack shit, hysterical people like you should never be in charge of our military.

 

[huevonkiller]

Substitute "Iran" for "Iraq", and "nuke" for "WMD".

Fuck the neocons.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Nah dude this isn't Fox News, that's not gonna slide.

um, ABC, BBC, CNBC, Al-Jazeera...you don't have to believe me, but it's a bit foolish to not believe the transcript from the guy's mouth.

And why are they threatening to do that?

Because those "neocons" in the EU are threatening sanctions if they don't stop their nuclear weapons program? [/quote]

Nice try but you're not slick enough.

You don't have to be slick to read english.

Well first, Bullshit you think they're all terrorists. All you neocons are the same.

Your ass is showing pretty badly here.

And lastly this is good news. Don't fucking intervene in their country and stop surrounding them with your military bases.

Why does one need to develop nuclear weapons (illegal in accordance with the anti-proliferation treaty they signed) to protest military bases? And even if that's the case, who the fuck is Iran to tell Saudi Arabia, bahrain, etc. who they can allow to build in their country? Do you think the US has built bases and said "Fuck you, we're staying here?" How has the US (or anyone else) "intervened" in Tehran?

Pathetic, that's not even the correct translation. Also They're not going to do jack shit, hysterical people like you should never be in charge of our military.

I'm amused that your definitions are as illogical as your positions. And the only people who believe your translation conspiracy theory are Iranian apologists, so you're kind of treading on that "poor credibility" territory there, as well.

Read a book or magazine sometime...it's ok to not have all the answers. But you're opening yourself up to that idiom "open your mouth and remove all doubt" thing here.

 

[huevonkiller]

Edit: Just to clarify, Israel is allowed to defend itself dude.......

I am ok with that....

You don't know what a transitive verb is and you don't know Persian. Also it doesn't even matter if he said he wants to nuke the Portland Trailblazers off the map.

You are a hysterical neocon that needs to read a little more history. You have failed almost every single time you have intervened in the middle east.

um, ABC, BBC, CNBC, Al-Jazeera...you don't have to believe me, but it's a bit foolish to not believe the transcript from the guy's mouth.

"The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]

Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[15][16][17]

Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[18]

Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation – "wipe Israel off the map" – suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[19][20][21]

The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.[22]

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times editor Ethan Bronner stated:

[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

Bronner continued: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[13] This elicited a further response from Jonathan Steele, who noted that Bronner agreed that "map" or any other place noun had not been used and criticized this Wikipedia entry (as it was on June 14, 2006) for "claiming falsely" that Ethan Bronner had "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map".[23]

At a gathering of foreign guests marking the 19th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 2008, Ahmadinejad said:

"You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene."[24]

The Iranian presidential website states: that "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map," and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."[25]"

Because those "neocons" in the EU are threatening sanctions if they don't stop their nuclear weapons program?

Because those neocons have fucked up the middle east plenty, and so have you.

Why the fuck would Iran not want to have nuclear weapons?

You don't have to be slick to read english.

Good, take your own advice.

Your ass is showing pretty badly here.

You are a failure. Your sanctions have never worked.

Why does one need to develop nuclear weapons (illegal in accordance with the anti-proliferation treaty they signed) to protest military bases? And even if that's the case, who the fuck is Iran to tell Saudi Arabia, bahrain, etc. who they can allow to build in their country? Do you think the US has built bases and said "Fuck you, we're staying here?" How has the US (or anyone else) "intervened" in Tehran?

Yep the US has intervened in Iran, I guess that's too hard for you to understand.

Why should Iran trust us when we screwed their democratically elected president in the 1950's? Fake-Liberals/Neocons have a disgusting ideology that has dragged us into the Korean and Vietnam war. Not to mention Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.

Fuck them and fuck your war mongering.

I'm amused that your definitions are as illogical as your positions. And the only people who believe your translation conspiracy theory are Iranian apologists, so you're kind of treading on that "poor credibility" territory there, as well.

"Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[15][16][17]"

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\02\22\story_22-2-2006_pg4_15

Read a book or magazine sometime...it's ok to not have all the answers. But you're opening yourself up to that idiom "open your mouth and remove all doubt" thing here.

Yeah read a fucking book, sanctions don't work dude.

Sorry buddy you had your chance.

 

[huevonkiller]

Like I said, substitute "Iraq" for "Iran", and "Bush" with "Obama".

Your justification for the Iraq/Iran war was insane.

 

[BrianFromWA]

First, I'm relatively well-educated, I will put my history-reading experience up with just about anyone, and I laugh that you think I'm a charlatan for the facts I've posted here. The "transcript from the guy's mouth" was from this guy saying this:

No oil will be allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz if the West applies sanctions on Iran's oil exports, Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi has warned.
The threat was reported on Tuesday by the state news agency IRNA as Iran conducted its fourth day of naval drills near the Strait of Hormuz, at the entrance to the oil-rich Gulf.
"If sanctions are adopted against Iranian oil, not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz," Rahimi was quoted as saying.
"We have no desire for hostilities or violence ... but the West doesn't want to go back on its plan" to impose sanctions, he said. "The enemies will only drop their plots when we put them back in their place."
The threat underlined Iran's readiness to target the narrow stretch of water along its Gulf coast if it is attacked or economically strangled by Western sanctions.

It's been reported by Reuters, ABC, BBC, Al-Jazeera and CNBC. Not just Fox. Maybe you can use transitive Persian to show that he really meant that they're not planning on spilling oil in the strait.

I don't know how you get that a) I'm hysterical, b) that I'm a neocon, c) that these sanctions are mine, or that . I've already said that it wouldn't be a long naval battle, that they couldn't do much to us except asymmetrically with missiles and mines, that they could do what they're talking about by sinking a couple of oil tankers in the strait. The EU (the "West" to the Iranian VP)

Yep the US has intervened in Iran, I guess that's too hard for you to understand

I am literally begging you to show me one shred of evidence that the US has done one single solitary action to intervene in Iran's sovereignty since they gave our hostages back. What's hard to understand is that you think making shit up to meet your incompatible-with-reality worldview makes you right. I don't get that.

And b/c I'm apparently not high enough to be on your exalted plane, what do you keep calling me a neocon for? What's your definition of that? Or should I just wikipedia it and lol? I'll requote a good part of your conspiracy "proof" you just posted...it had to be an accident:

[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

Bronner continued: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat.

Because those neocons have fucked up the middle east plenty, and so have you.
Why the fuck would Iran not want to have nuclear weapons?

It doesn't matter what you think they WANT, it's the treaty that they signed (with about every single other country in the world). I'm sure that people WANT to park an oil rig in Iranian waters and start drilling for oil, but we've all signed treaties saying we won't do that in other countries' territorial waters.

But instead of learning...go ahead and keep saying "Fuck" and "neocons". That'll show 'em!

 

[huevonkiller]

Obama is also "well educated" by your low standards. Having a college degree is not sufficient.

First, I'm relatively well-educated,

Yet you're unable to follow what we're talking about. The Iran Foreign Minister is not a conspiracy theorist is he?

"Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."

Lol dude. At least read next time.

I will put my history-reading experience up with just about anyone, and I laugh that you think I'm a charlatan for the facts I've posted here. The "transcript from the guy's mouth" was from this guy saying this:
It's been reported by Reuters, ABC, BBC, Al-Jazeera and CNBC. Not just Fox. Maybe you can use transitive Persian to show that he really meant that they're not planning on spilling oil in the strait.

Man you have reading comprehension problems. I'm talking about wiping Israel off the map and you're talking about this other stuff. Take your time and take it all in before you reply.

I honestly don't care what Iran does with their strait, and I hope they shut it down just to fuck you.
;P LOL. That would be hilarious, your sanctions fucked up again.

I don't know how you get that a) I'm hysterical, b) that I'm a neocon, c) that these sanctions are mine, or that .

I'll ask you again, why are they threatening to shut off their strait?

I've already said that it wouldn't be a long naval battle, that they couldn't do much to us except asymmetrically with missiles and mines, that they could do what they're talking about by sinking a couple of oil tankers in the strait. The EU (the "West" to the Iranian VP)

Oh it sure wouldn't be a long battle. Not until the blowback occurs at least.

You're not going to be able to stop nuclear proliferation, and you'll end up killing millions of people in a preemptive war.

I am literally begging you to show me one shred of evidence that the US has done one single solitary action to intervene in Iran's sovereignty since they gave our hostages back. What's hard to understand is that you think making shit up to meet your incompatible-with-reality worldview makes you right. I don't get that.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/13/us-iran-computer-duqu-idUSTRE7AC0YP20111113

Woops bruh.

Stop with the Captain America, we're perfect all the time BS.

And b/c I'm apparently not high enough to be on your exalted plane, what do you keep calling me a neocon for? What's your definition of that? Or should I just wikipedia it and lol? I'll requote a good part of your conspiracy "proof" you just posted...it had to be an accident:

You represent neocons perfectly, watch some of the debates in case you're that unaware.

It doesn't matter what you think they WANT, it's the treaty that they signed (with about every single other country in the world). I'm sure that people WANT to park an oil rig in Iranian waters and start drilling for oil, but we've all signed treaties saying we won't do that in other countries' territorial waters.

But instead of learning...go ahead and keep saying "Fuck" and "neocons". That'll show 'em!

The UN is worthless and so is the NPT.

It was foolish to sign that treaty, and it ended up pushing the Moderate Khatami out in favor of Ahmadinejad.

Unintended consequences bruh.

 

[Denny Crane]

Iran seems infatuated with nuking Israel. But as long as we have troops within their reach, they are able to cause a lot of mischief without nukes.

I'm good with letting Israel defend themselves. They are pretty good at it.

Japan declared war on us over sanctions. Something to keep in mind.

Iran's leadership may be of the suicide bomber mentality, but the people aren't.

 

[huevonkiller]

Iran seems infatuated with nuking Israel. But as long as we have troops within their reach, they are able to cause a lot of mischief without nukes.

I'm good with letting Israel defend themselves. They are pretty good at it.

Japan declared war on us over sanctions. Something to keep in mind.

Iran's leadership may be of the suicide bomber mentality, but the people aren't.

I'm also fine with Israel defending themselves.

I just don't want us involved at all, I'm not anti-Israel.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Obama is also "well educated" by your low standards. Having a college degree is not sufficient.

I wasn't talking about that.

Yet you're unable to follow what we're talking about. Lol dude. At least read next time.

Granted, I'm not high right now, but the thread's about "war with Iran." The reason we're talking about it is b/c Iran threatened military action to stop international trade. That's what the threads about. Keep saying lol bruh and fuck neocons, but you're the one who's way off base here.

Man you have reading comprehension problems. I'm talking about wiping Israel off the map and you're talking about this other stuff. Take your time and take it all in before you reply.

Pot, this is kettle...over...

I honestly don't care what Iran does with their strait, and I hope they shut it down just to fuck you.

It's not theirs, your ignorance and lack of care go hand in hand and I wouldn't that much more "fucked" than anyone else. I'm going to be in Afghanistan in a few months, and unable to keep teaching you these little lessons in realpolitik.

LOL. That would be hilarious, your sanctions fucked up again.

Unless you can prove otherwise, I'm not the EU. I don't represent 200 nations of the UN.

I'll ask you again, why are they threatening to shut off their strait?

I'll reply again. A) It's not theirs. B) They don't want the consequences (sanctions from the EU) of actions they're taking (developing nuclear weapons illegally).

Oh it sure wouldn't be a long battle. Not until the blowback occurs at least.

Now it's my turn to LOL. What the fuck is "blowback?"

You're not going to be able to stop nuclear proliferation, and you'll end up killing millions of people in a preemptive war.

Your logic here is unassailable. By that I mean, there isn't any here to assail.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/13/us-iran-computer-duqu-idUSTRE7AC0YP20111113

Woops bruh.

Hm. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. "The International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report last week that contained what it called credible evidence pointing to military dimensions to Iran's atomic activities, fueling demands in Washington and Europe for further sanctions." (Hint: The bolded is against international law. Just like, say, killing millions in genocide or drilling in Iran's territorial waters) Oh yeah, and that they don't have the foggiest fucking clue who's dropping viruses on their illegal nuclear stuff, but they blame Israel and the US. Stellar reporting by you, bruh.

Stop with the Captain America, we're perfect all the time BS.

Who says we need to be perfect?

You represent neocons perfectly, watch some of the debates in case you're that unaware.

Are you going to define neocon at some point? Which "debates" do you speak of? Is newt a neocon? Ron Paul? Romney? Obama? Help me out here...I'm not on anything illegal right now so it's tough to follow you.

The UN is worthless and so is the NPT.

That's the spirit! Let's go back to forgetting "diplomacy" and "sanctions" and just using brute force to solve problems!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

if we left them alone over there and didnt keep sticking our pig fucking noses into their shit, the war on terror would end overnight

thats the tiny hidden fact that all the war mongers try to hide

or..... we can continue to kill their women and children and we can continue to support the regions totalitarian regimes and we can continue to prop up puppet governments for the benefit of a few billionaires...and they will continue to wish death upon us all

the war machine needs fuel, and it runs on the pain, suffering and death of the human race

 

[huevonkiller]

I wasn't talking about that.

"I'm relatively well-educated" means what exactly?

Sounds like you were talking about it, brah.

Granted, I'm not high right now, but the thread's about "war with Iran." The reason we're talking about it is b/c Iran threatened military action to stop international trade. That's what the threads about. Keep saying lol bruh and fuck neocons, but you're the one who's way off base here.

We're talking about various stuff and you need to read my fucking posts if you're going to respond. If not have a conversation by yourself. Let me refresh your memory since you're incapable of understanding why I am fucking with you.

1. I made a post against military intervention. I really didn't want to communicate with you at all.
2. And then you decided to respond with neocon and factually incorrect Bullshit:
"They're threatening to block the straight of Hormuz to trade ships. There's a point to not letting them get away with it."
"What the hell are they going to do? Fabricate nuclear weapons to make it easier to meet their stated intention of "wiping Israel off the face of the earth?" "
3. The implication being that Iran is SUDDENLY, causing problems that the US needs to solve. Well sorry I don't give a fuck what they do with the strait, stop your sanctions already.
4. And they are your sanctions because you responded like a mindless republican zombie.

Pot, this is kettle...over...

Sorry but read next time, it is easy.

It's not theirs, your ignorance and lack of care go hand in hand and I wouldn't that much more "fucked" than anyone else. I'm going to be in Afghanistan in a few months, and unable to keep teaching you these little lessons in realpolitik.

Hmm it is now buddy, maybe if you didn't vex them this wouldn't be a problem.

LOL.

I'll reply again. A) It's not theirs. B) They don't want the consequences (sanctions from the EU) of actions they're taking (developing nuclear weapons illegally).

I'll reply again, your bullshit attitude got Khatami fired. Congrats, but Iran doesn't give a fuck about the NPT.

The NPT is a failure just like all your past excursions in Iran.

Now it's my turn to LOL. What the fuck is "blowback?"

1979. 1980-1988.

Very simple.

Your logic here is unassailable. By that I mean, there isn't any here to assail.

This idea that you're going to use hard power every time someone has a nuke, is psycho.

Your logic is phony because economic embargos are the only way to stop the spread of nukes and technology, and they still fail in the long-run.

Hm. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. "The International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report last week that contained what it called credible evidence pointing to military dimensions to Iran's atomic activities, fueling demands in Washington and Europe for further sanctions." (Hint: The bolded is against international law. Just like, say, killing millions in genocide or drilling in Iran's territorial waters) Oh yeah, and that they don't have the foggiest fucking clue who's dropping viruses on their illegal nuclear stuff, but they blame Israel and the US. Stellar reporting by you, bruh.
Who says we need to be perfect?

Dude sorry, suck me off now.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007278474

We are fucking with them and the IAEA means jack shit, it is naive. Preventing Genocide also got us involved in Libya and Vietnam, the government is incompetent.

Are you going to define neocon at some point? Which "debates" do you speak of? Is newt a neocon? Ron Paul? Romney? Obama? Help me out here...I'm not on anything illegal right now so it's tough to follow you.

Yeah military freaks are neocons.

That's the spirit! Let's go back to forgetting "diplomacy" and "sanctions" and just using brute force to solve problems!

What a hypocrite, Sanctions kill millions of people. What a cowardly comment.

Also you can have diplomacy without the UN, LOL. They don't have a monopoly on it.

 

[BrianFromWA]

It needs but one foe to breed a war, and those who have not swords can still die upon them. - Tolkien

I'm interested in your view of how many women and children we have killed in Iran, and how sanctions over their illegal nuclear weapons development is our fault or has any religious overtones whatsoever. Which totalitarian regimes are we propping up right now? Which billionaires are profiting?

The war on terror started after 9/11. AFAIK, we didn't have a single troop in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Somalia or Iran at that time. Then, the warmongers in Congress voted almost unanimously for the following:

...SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons...

 

[huevonkiller]

It needs but one foe to breed a war, and those who have not swords can still die upon them. - Tolkien

I'm interested in your view of how many women and children we have killed in Iran, and how sanctions over their illegal nuclear weapons development is our fault or has any religious overtones whatsoever. Which totalitarian regimes are we propping up right now? Which billionaires are profiting?

The war on terror started after 9/11. AFAIK, we didn't have a single troop in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Somalia or Iran at that time. Then, the warmongers in Congress voted almost unanimously for the following:

...SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons...

Man you are such a xenophobe.

Yes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan qualify as propping up. We also had sanctions in Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, etc.

What a paranoid guy you are, no one is using a nuke.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You obviously have no clue who I am, so let's stop with the childish name calling. So far you've exhausted charlatan, xenophone and neocon--those words obviously don't mean what you think they mean if you're applying them to me.

I get the benefit of knowing a bit about the world that you don't get to read, so I'm not offended...but you have literally zero idea what you're talking about. Let's just leave it at that, huh bruh?

Getting back to the thread that you've been all over the map on...Iran's VP and senior navy leadership have declared that if "the West" imposes sanctions b/c they're illegally building a nuclear weapons program, they will commit international terrorism and/or piracy by not allowing the free flow of trade through the straight of Hormuz (which isn't theirs anyway). That's indisputable. What do you have to add to the dialogue, bruh, besides "fuck neocon sanctions?"

 

[3RA1N1AC]

AFAIK, we didn't have a single troop in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Somalia or Iran at that time.

did we have a single troop in saudi arabia? you know, where all the hijackers were from? im sure they didnt mind though, must be some other reason.

the us built up saddam, the us built up the taliban, and the us has supplied weapons to whomever suited their needs at that moment. and why? tell my brian why did we support iraq in the iran/iraq war? why did we supprt afgahn rebels/al qaeda against the russians? if you dont say oil, im not even sure we can continue. and guess what, corporations are making billions off that oil.

also i really doubt you need a history lesson about our history of propping up west friendly oppressive governments throughout the region, im sure you are well versed. if you want to claim ignorance, id be happy to enlighten you, but i doubt that needs to be done

so

i ask you this one simple question. if we took our greedy little pig noses out of their business, what reason would they have to hate us?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

why should the US be willing to kill and send soldiers to their death, as well as continue to make our civilians targets, for the right of fair trade through the straight of hormuz?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

i ask you this one simple question. if we took our greedy little pig noses out of their business, what reason would they have to hate us?


The same reason they will inflict their own people with terror and death for one, sectarian zealotry. Seconed, they view anyone who would support the Jewish state as an enemy. Third, if they can hold grudges that last thousands of years, why do you believe that all will be well if we were to do as you believe we should?