Go ahead, tell me again how we're NOT going to war with Iran

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=xtisme]
We are not going to war with Iran. We might do a Clinton and toss some tomahawks…be we are not going to war. Period. Ramping up sanctions against Iran at this time is probably a SMART thing for Bush et al too be doing. Though its moot…because it’s the only thing besides tossing those tomahawks we CAN do at this time. The cupboard is bare otherwise.

And I want some of the bet action…what odds are you giving here?
[/QUOTE]

Un-fuckin’ real. So you “do a Clinton” and “toss some tomahawks” and that is NOT going war? Can you send me some of your stash? Point being that if you DO that, there’s NO control as to how the IRANIANS will react – and believe you me, they’ve been preparing for such an scenario for many a year. Never mind Russia and China, which, even if they choose not to get involved in open warfare, have made it VERY clear that the US will NOT wrestle away total control of all of the ME’s oil reserves. IOW, Vietnam all over again to the cube, with no-telling what kind of aid, weapons-wise those two will deliver Iran. “Nucular” is certainly a factor in said equation.

Want to find out how to start WW-III? Can’t think of a “better” way than your current A-holes-in-charge ‘tossing a few tomahawks’ Iran’s way.

As far bets, not much of gambler to begin with, but the last thing I’d bet on is whether millions of innocent people are going to die or not. AFAIC, waaay too many have done so already under your Royal Bushit Presidency.

Simply too sick for even an old perv like me.

22

[QUOTE=RedFury]
Simply too sick for even an old perv like me.
[/QUOTE]
Well, as one old perv to another, how ya doin’, Red? :slight_smile:

23

The Iranians have the measure of Bush - they’ve called his bluff over their nuclear programme already. And they’re backing insurgents in Iraq and we’re not responding in kind. The only way America and Iran are going to go to war while Bush is President will be if the Iranians do something incredibly stupid. The Iranians should be scared of an Allied withdrawal: shortly afterwards the Israelis will hit the Iranian nuclear sites.

24

[QUOTE=RedFury]
Un-fuckin’ real. So you “do a Clinton” and “toss some tomahawks” and that is NOT going war?
[/QUOTE]

How frequently was Operation Desert Fox referred to as a war? For that matter, who calls the current war in Iraq: Gulf War III?

25

If Bush thinks that Congress will go along with expanding the Gulf War into Iran, he’s crazier than I thought. Therefore, it’s just saber-rattling, and I think Iran knows it.

26

[QUOTE=RedFury]
Un-fuckin’ real. So you “do a Clinton” and “toss some tomahawks” and that is NOT going war?
[/QUOTE]

Well then Red, are you saying the US went to war in the 90’s with Iraq?

[QUOTE=RedFury]
Point being that if you DO that, there’s NO control as to how the IRANIANS will react – and believe you me, they’ve been preparing for such an scenario for many a year
[/QUOTE]

Did I deny this? Did I say that a surgical strike on Iran is a good idea?

[QUOTE=RedFury]
Want to find out how to start WW-III? Can’t think of a “better” way than your current A-holes-in-charge ‘tossing a few tomahawks’ Iran’s way.
[/QUOTE]

Cry me a river Red. I know you are just bummed that the Euro’s won’t be the ones to start the next big war, so you need to create this fantasy that if the US strikes Iranian nuclear program that it’s going to start a world war.

And then try and shoe-horn me into a strawman position you made up that I think this is a great idea. Going for a two-fer, ehe Red?

[QUOTE=RedFury]
As far bets, not much of gambler to begin with, but the last thing I’d bet on is whether millions of innocent people are going to die or not. AFAIC, waaay too many have done so already under your Royal Bushit Presidency.
[/QUOTE]

No, you just want to rant and complain. I know. And you aren’t alone. We’ve been hearing this wolf cry about the US invading Iran for…well, quite some time. It’s pretty much why folks started putting the bet out there…it gets a bit wearing after the 50th frantic thread on it (sort of like the Taiwan vs China threads that periodically spring up).

-XT

27

[QUOTE=John Mace]
How frequently was Operation Desert Fox referred to as a war? For that matter, who calls the current war in Iraq: Gulf War III?
[/QUOTE]

Pardon me, John, but methinks you’re having a Bush-like mental lapse, what with comparing Iraq (a broken-down, devoid of a real Armed Forces) with Iran…along with the already announced backing of such powers as Russia and China.

Whole 'nother matter. As in the letter “N” between the two.

As for the current invasion, AFAIK, is just that, an illegal invasion. What YOU call it, matters little to me. And, moreover, in case you haven’t noticed, you’re losing that one too. Again, against a broken down nation, long ago devoid of a united military.

Go on, tackle Iran and see how that goes.

Not what I want in any shape or form…but hey! You’re the US of A and therefore, invincible.

Right?

28

[QUOTE=xtisme]
:dubious: What’s the point of that? You say Congress and the Dems are already rolling over for the 'Pubs and our great leader, right? So…why fuck around? Not a lot of time left in case you haven’t noticed. Unless you figure Bush is going to toss out the elections and declare himself king or something (which, I wouldn’t put it past you to claim).
[/quote]
They are politicians; they like to have excuses, no matter how easily people see through them.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
If Congress’s opinion doesn’t matter, if they are ready to roll over and show their bellies for anything Bush et al does, what’s the point of all this fucking around with sanctions and such? You are inconsistent (big surprise). If Bush can do what he wants why aren’t the troops rolling into the staging points NOW (or, better yet, months ago)? You realize how long it takes to stage up our army to do anything major? Were you paying attention when we got ready to invade Iraq or when we got ready to kick Iraq out of Kuwait? It takes months and months of preparation…and Iran is a lot bigger than Iraq was.
[/quote]
Once again, you assume that a major ground invasion is intended, or that they intend it right now. If they intend only an air or nuclear attack, there’s no need for all that. And again, they may intend to attack just before Bush leaves, to make sure the next President will be stuck.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
:Sure…Bush might use nukes. He MIGHT use a 1920’s style death ray, or he MIGHT parachute himself into downtown Tehran wearing his tight flight suit, armed only with a bible and his Rambo knife to take out the Iranian’s in a clever but bold one president attack that will leave them reeling. He MIGHT drop a very large wooden rabbit outside of the gates of Tehran hoping that the French manning said gates would be fooled and bring the giant wooden rabbit inside…

But, probably not.
[/quote]
Ah, yes, silly mockery without any actual argument as to why he wouldn’t use nukes. Typical empty apologist nonsense. Bush has shown over and over that there isn’t anything he won’t do; the Bush Administration has pointedly refused to “take nukes off the table”, and has pushed for such things as “nuclear bunker busters”; why wouldn’t he use nukes ? Morality ? Right. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Quartz]
The Iranians should be scared of an Allied withdrawal: shortly afterwards the Israelis will hit the Iranian nuclear sites.
[/QUOTE]
Why would they be scared of that ? It would greatly reduce the likelihood of an American invasion, and let them rally the Iranian people against the Israeli threat, and probably not even do to much harm to whatever nuclear ambitions they have.

29

[QUOTE=Quartz]
The Iranians should be scared of an Allied withdrawal: shortly afterwards the Israelis will hit the Iranian nuclear sites.
[/QUOTE]

They would if they could, but they can’t so they won’t.

Iran’s sites are a lot farther from Israel than Osirak was. And the Iranians took a lesson from Osirak and built them underground and bomb-hardened. And Iran has a good air force.

30

[QUOTE=xtisme]
No, you just want to rant and complain. I know. And you aren’t alone. We’ve been hearing this wolf cry about the US invading Iran for…well, quite some time. It’s pretty much why folks started putting the bet out there…it gets a bit wearing after the 50th frantic thread on it (sort of like the Taiwan vs China threads that periodically spring up).
[/QUOTE]

Know what? Against every thing I stand for, name your bet*, I’ll call it and raise it.

Sick of your über American posts.

*As per BG’s suggestions and/or any further quibble we might have. Again, need not be an INVASION (in fact, I agree that’s nuts what with the current depleted state of your Armed Forces fighting a Third World nation) but simply an AGGRESSION.

31

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
They are politicians; they like to have excuses, no matter how easily people see through them.
[/QUOTE]

Occam’s razor Trihs. BTW, serious question…have you looked at a calendar lately?

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Once again, you assume that a major ground invasion is intended, or that they intend it right now. If they intend only an air or nuclear attack, there’s no need for all that. And again, they may intend to attack just before Bush leaves, to make sure the next President will be stuck.
[/QUOTE]

Well, let’s forget you said nuclear. I know you are over the top, but this is about as likely as an alien invasion by green, three breasted Martian love muffins looking for mates.

So…define an air attack? If you mean surgical type air strikes…well, there is no need for Bush to do anything at all. He has the authority to strike Iranian targets anytime he wants…in fact, he could have done so anytime in the last 7 years if he had a mind too. If you mean a heavy duty air campaign a la the NATO war in Serbia, or the run up to GW I or GW II, again, we’d be seeing the logistics get in place (carriers and fleet oilers would be staging to the ME, the Air Force would be moving men and heavy equipment to support sustained operations, etc etc). Thus far I’ve seen none of that evidence stuff showing that any of this is happening.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Ah, yes, silly mockery without any actual argument as to why he wouldn’t use nukes. Typical empty apologist nonsense. Bush has shown over and over that there isn’t anything he won’t do; the Bush Administration has pointedly refused to “take nukes off the table”, and has pushed for such things as “nuclear bunker busters”; why wouldn’t he use nukes ? Morality ? Right.
[/QUOTE]

Silly mockery for a silly argument. What did you expect? Why wouldn’t he use nukes on Iran? Oh, I don’t know…maybe because that WOULD cause a major war and not just with Iran? Maybe because of all that oil stuff I’ve heard is in the area? Maybe because there is no need to use nukes when we could use conventional stuff just as effectively and with a lot less world wide condemnation? Maybe about a hundred other reasons?

I would rate the chances of a US air strike (‘surgical’) on Iranian nuclear facilities (the most likely warlike act) at poor but possible. I would rate the chances a sustained US air campaign against Iran as very poor and unlikely. I would rate the chances of a full scale invasion of Iran somewhere around extremely unlikely bordering on ‘snowballs chance in hell’. And I would rate the chances of the US nuking Iran at something like ‘Der Trihs is going to suddenly become a super Bush fan and a loving citizen of the US’. I can’t think of anything off the top of my head more unlikely.

-XT

32

PS-
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well then Red, are you saying the US went to war in the 90’s with Iraq?
[/QUOTE]

Fuck yeah they did. Just so ‘happened’ that they very well knew Iraq had NOTHING to respond with.

Rah rah, USA! Go bullies!

33

[QUOTE=xtisme]
…And I would rate the chances of the US nuking Iran at something like ‘Der Trihs is going to suddenly become a super Bush fan and a loving citizen of the US’. I can’t think of anything off the top of my head more unlikely.
[/QUOTE]

“Loving citizen of the US”? Carries a rather nasty implication. Unintentional, I am sure, and you will hasten to disavow such an innuendo.

34

[QUOTE=elucidator]
“Loving citizen of the US”? Carries a rather nasty implication. Unintentional, I am sure, and you will hasten to disavow such an innuendo.
[/QUOTE]

Not sure what your problem with this is, but I’ll change it. How about ‘Der will become a wide eyed and fervent patriot of the US, thinking the US never does anything wrong and is always in the right’. That work?

[QUOTE=RedFury]
Know what? Against every thing I stand for, name your bet*, I’ll call it and raise it.
[/QUOTE]

Well, my own normal bet would be the winner starts a pit thread and the loser has to show up and eat crow. How about that Red? That do ya?

As for the terms…sure, we can do it on your terms. As I’ve said, I think it unlikely but possible that the US will launch even surgical air strikes into Iran at this late stage. I wouldn’t put much past Bush et al, but I doubt they are going to do much at this stage of the game. I think Bush is trying to polish his legacy and such at this point. But sure, if we do surgical strikes into Iran you can feel free to torture me in the pit all you like and I will show up to eat all the crow you shovel up.

-XT

35

As for the contention that the Democratic congress is so spineless they’ll just roll over and accept anything Bush does, well, that just doesn’t make sense.

OK, they didn’t impeach Bush. OK, they aren’t trying to withdraw troops now. OK, they aren’t rescinding the AUMF. And so? For now anyway, things aren’t going as horribly in Iraq as they have been going. So they’ve backed off. And when Phase II of the insurgency hits, and things return back to even more horrible, what then?

Bush CAN order the bombing of Iran in secret, and Congress will find out about it in on CNN. And how will Congress react? With shrugs? I know, Harry Reid is a spineless lapdog. But, I don’t think the American people are salivating to go toe-to-toe with the Iranians.

I remember back in 2003. We WERE salivating to go toe-to-toe with Saddam. We wanted to kick some ass, Bush presented us with an excuse to kick Saddam’s ass and we screamed “YEEEE-HAAAAW”. And Congress scrambled all over itself to vote for the war, because they didn’t want to have a vote against the short, popular Saddam-ass-kicking on their record. They remembered how votes against Gulf War I came back to haunt them. Well, even if Gulf War II was gonna be a dumb war, at least it was gonna be short, victorious, and popular, right? You don’t want to explain to the voters in 2004 why you voted against kicking Saddam’s ass, do you?

Well, shucks, it turns out the war ended up long, protracted, and unpopular, and now all those votes for the war turn out to be inconvenient instead.

Now, what are the odds of that happening again? You think Congress is gonna stick their fingers in the wind, gauge public opinion, and scream “YEEEEE-HAAAAW” as we attack Iran? You think the American public is sold on attacking Iran? I suppose Bush and Cheney might wish the public were sold on it, they might wish that attacking Iran would shut up the nay-sayers, but you know and I know and Karl Rove knows that isn’t true.

It isn’t 2003 any more. We’ve had a shot at kicking the ass of a couple Muslim countries, and we’re getting tired of it, and it wasn’t near as easy as we thought. You think the American public is gonna cheer as we invade Iran? Honestly?

The scenario that I suppose you’re imagining is Bush lobs some missiles at Iran, Iran retaliates, and we’re in a war with Iran willy-nilly, and the American people rally round the flag?

Or is that when impeachment hearings finally start?

36

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, let’s forget you said nuclear. I know you are over the top, but this is about as likely as an alien invasion by green, three breasted Martian love muffins looking for mates.
[/quote]
That’s just ridiculous. There are nukes; there are no Martians. Again, more empty mockery to defend a position you no doubt know is wrong.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
If you mean a heavy duty air campaign a la the NATO war in Serbia, or the run up to GW I or GW II, again, we’d be seeing the logistics get in place (carriers and fleet oilers would be staging to the ME, the Air Force would be moving men and heavy equipment to support sustained operations, etc etc). Thus far I’ve seen none of that evidence stuff showing that any of this is happening.
[/quote]
And Bush still has quite a bit of time until his term runs out.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Silly mockery for a silly argument. What did you expect? Why wouldn’t he use nukes on Iran? Oh, I don’t know…maybe because that WOULD cause a major war and not just with Iran? Maybe because of all that oil stuff I’ve heard is in the area? Maybe because there is no need to use nukes when we could use conventional stuff just as effectively and with a lot less world wide condemnation? Maybe about a hundred other reasons?
[/quote]
And your evidence that he cares about or believes in any of those reasons ? And why does the oil matter ? It’s underground.

As for international reaction, it will create a lot of fear, which is what the neocons and Bush like. That’s a reason to use nukes, not a reason to refrain from using them.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I would rate the chances of a US air strike (‘surgical’) on Iranian nuclear facilities (the most likely warlike act) at poor but possible. I would rate the chances a sustained US air campaign against Iran as very poor and unlikely. I would rate the chances of a full scale invasion of Iran somewhere around extremely unlikely bordering on ‘snowballs chance in hell’. And I would rate the chances of the US nuking Iran at something like ‘Der Trihs is going to suddenly become a super Bush fan and a loving citizen of the US’. I can’t think of anything off the top of my head more unlikely.
[/QUOTE]
And I regard a major attack as near-certainty, and a nuclear attack as likely. We’d already be in Iran and Syria if the Iraqis had reacted like the neocon lunatics expected.

37

[QUOTE=elucidator]
“Loving citizen of the US”? Carries a rather nasty implication. Unintentional, I am sure, and you will hasten to disavow such an innuendo.
[/QUOTE]

Please, 'luc. I usually listen to you and your advices, especially when you tell me I’m getting out of line. But seriously, I no longer get your “hopes” about xt “coming around” when it comes to the USA (no matter who’s in charge or doing what) and doing wrong. I mean, if nothing else, his arguments mirror those of a professional apologist – no matter if they are insulting to his own countrymen/women.

Seriously, bud, let’s cut through the crap and see it (him) for what it/he is.

Trust this post won’t damage our own usual accord, just honestly sick and tired of all the apologies/apologists.

38

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
OK, they didn’t impeach Bush. OK, they aren’t trying to withdraw troops now. OK, they aren’t rescinding the AUMF. And so? For now anyway, things aren’t going as horribly in Iraq as they have been going. So they’ve backed off. And when Phase II of the insurgency hits, and things return back to even more horrible, what then?
[/quote]
Nothing. Congress has about as much effect on what happens as the same number of corpses. Bush is in charge.

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Bush CAN order the bombing of Iran in secret, and Congress will find out about it in on CNN. And how will Congress react? With shrugs? I know, Harry Reid is a spineless lapdog. But, I don’t think the American people are salivating to go toe-to-toe with the Iranians.
[/quote]
And what are the American people going to do about it ? We tried voting in the Democrats - who have done nothing to stand in Bush’s way.

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Now, what are the odds of that happening again? You think Congress is gonna stick their fingers in the wind, gauge public opinion, and scream “YEEEEE-HAAAAW” as we attack Iran?
[/quote]
No; I think they’ll whine and complain and then go along with Bush.

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
You think the American public is gonna cheer as we invade Iran? Honestly?
[/QUOTE]
Probably. Americans love killing and destroying. The cheers will stop once we start taking casualties, of course.

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Or is that when impeachment hearings finally start?
[/QUOTE]
Short of Bush walking into a session of Congress and shooting some Congressmen, I don’t think there’s a chance of that happening.

39

Gee, the war with Iraq turned out so well…I can’t belive anybody is serious about attacking Iran. It would make Iraq look GOOD by comparison! What couls we possibly achieve ? Nothing except losing all of our remaining allies, pissing off Russia, and driving oil up to $200/barrel. nope, even BUSH isn’t that stupid! :smack:

40

Oh, he probably IS that stupid. But I think his plate is a bit full atm. And I don’t think Congress is as spineless as some are saying. I also don’t think that anyone, stupid or not, thinks the American people would line up for another war at this point.

-XT