posted
Judging by recent events, it seems that Bush & co. might be planning an overthrow of Iran's government next, perhaps fairly soon. I have heard other reports saying there could be a limited airstrike on their suspected nuclear plant, or other sites in Iran. Whatever the case, it seems Iran is the next country that our illustrious president is planning on attacking.
If we're going to start taking out up-and-coming democracies, what's next? And, if not up-and-coming democracies, will North Korea soon be on the president's sights? And doesn't Iran hate al-Qaeda? Don't they preach different branches of Islam? And didn't Iran condemn the September 11 attacks? And what about Iraq? Where are those weapons of mass destruction? Shouldn't we finish there before going next door?
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Iran will never be hit. Why? For 2 reasons:
1) We tried in 1979. Carter authorized it. Carter was a Democrat, & it failed horribly & miserably. Therefore, the Chosen of God (e.g., the Republican war machine) won't try to go where the opposition has fucked up before.
2) Iranians are not Arabs. Iranians are Persians. It's an entirely different mindset. They don't even speak Arabic; they speak Farsi, & there's only one Catherine Bell to go around. Sadly.
(NOTE: by "Republican war machine," I don't mean Republicans are warmongers. I mean the machine of the party itself, like the Democratic war machine.)
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Not "hit," in the sense of Iraq. I'm talking about "hit" in the sense of Clinton's 1998 cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan. And, eventually, the toppling of their government, Chile style. Though a ruthless dictator would probably not be put in place...
posted
First off, I'm completely against any hostile action against Iran under the current circumstances.
quote:Originally posted by Shik: 1) We tried in 1979. Carter authorized it. Carter was a Democrat, & it failed horribly & miserably. Therefore, the Chosen of God (e.g., the Republican war machine) won't try to go where the opposition has fucked up before.
As you yourself said, that '79 thing was only for a hostage rescue, not a full-out anti-government operation. Unfortunately, people like Rumsfeld are probably thinking that their Mighty Republican Power is unstoppable. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought that it was a good idea to try the direct and undiplomatic route again...
quote:2) Iranians are not Arabs. Iranians are Persians. It's an entirely different mindset. They don't even speak Arabic; they speak Farsi, & there's only one Catherine Bell to go around. Sadly.
Yes, great shame. Despite my lack of confidence in the current administration, I assume that they're smart enough to realize the differences between Arabs and Iranians....
However, I'm pretty sure that Rumsfeld and the rest don't care at all. After the "wonderful" results from Iraq, they're probably getting awfully cocky, ready to conquer the rest of the world...
The sad thing is, I don't think there's any need to make changes in the current policy towards Iran at all... granted, reforms have been going forward slowly, but they *are* going forward. After seeing not one but TWO nations on their borders getting the full brunt of American firepower, I find it very hard to believe that they're still harboring al Qaeda. After all, we've figured that bin Laden himself is probably hiding out somewhere in western Pakistan... and Pakistan's hardly been the paragon of democracy in recent years. Hell, it's a goddamn military dictatorship right now! I haven't heard anyone seriously discussing any invasion of Pakistan. Have you?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I once heard of three good rules to live by.
1: If your girlfriend/wife asks you if this dress makes her look fat, pretend you didn't hear it. If she asks again, swiftly answer no, without looking.
2: Never enter into a fight to the death against a sicilian (I'll just accept that at face value).
3: Never fight a land war in Asia.
This would be especially true of North Korea, it's mountainous ridges and forests making Afghanistan look like Kansas. Its army seems to be tailor-made for the country as well, not to mention more indoctrinated and definitely more disciplined than the Iraqis. I also heard somewhere that the Koreans are the original experts on guerilla-style tunnel-digging. They were the ones sent to Vietnam to help out the VC get their shit together.
And hey, if James Bond couldn't pull it off...
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Middle East is some sort of aberration Asia. Screw desert.
There were also two Korean battalions fighting with the Yanks in Vietnam War, having the highest death to kill ratio in entire war.
I don't see why hit Iran now? The fundy cleric nutters still have much power yes, but looks like gradually reforms are coming through, unless this is some big Iranian sham.
-------------------- Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence -Motto of Imperial Space Marines
Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by EvilTree: Middle East is some sort of aberration Asia. Screw desert.
There were also two Korean battalions fighting with the Yanks in Vietnam War, having the highest death to kill ratio in entire war.
Not to forget that the South Koreans who assisted the U.S. troops were deployed as tunnel rat's, as well as jungle fighters. I heard stories of those guys going into the jungle for a week w/very little in the way of food, but as much ammunition as they could carry. They kill off any VC they ran across and take their food - something the U.S. troops would never do. A lot of times, they'd come back w/excess food to share w/their buds back at the firebase. This, and I recall reading that this is how the "necklace of ears" stories started, as a lot of the ROK Marines (South Korean Marines) were highly disciplined, but also very Hard Core.
quote:I don't see why hit Iran now? The fundy cleric nutters still have much power yes, but looks like gradually reforms are coming through, unless this is some big Iranian sham.
Politically and militarily, it wouldn't be at all smart. For starters, we've got fewer troops in the Middle East than we did prior to the start of the Iraq campaign. Also, what has Iran actually done that we could use as a "logical" reason for starting to bomb or invade them?
Nothing.
Iran has been a bunch of Good Boys who, for the most part, are playing by the rules as the U.S. has stated them for the region. To act in any fashion towards Iran would be considered going over the line and we'd then have made France's case that we're too aggressive and only seeking to further U.S. World Supremacy. You know, that New World Order thing.
No, I don't see us "hitting" Iran in any fashion in the immediate future (1 - 2 years), if ever. As has already been mentioned, they're making slow progression in the areas of "Westernization" with their society. They're still pretty fundamentalist, but things are at least changing in the direction that the U.S. would like to see. And while it's conceivable that they're hiding Al Qaeda or Hussein Regime members, they're doing so Very Covertly and are keeping a tight reign on them. If they were to knowingly hide those individuals, they'd give the U.S. a very good reason to turn it's Giant Flaming Eye on them.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
Putting aside any other questions of justification or wisdom, the best time to invade Iran would be before they finish building their alleged nuclear weapons.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
The deadline for North Korea has passed, then.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Absolutely. Though, that probably has more to do with the hundreds of artillery pieces aimed at downtown Seoul.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
A good reason not to invade NK, but what about all those missiles allegedly aimed at Kuwait and Israel with chemical/biological weapons? Oh, that's right, the threat from those was non-existent. Silly me!
We'll have to wait and see what comes out of tomorrow's meeting with agency leaders at the White House, if they release any information about what took place.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
