“Not bluffing” about using military force against Iran

[ima]

Iran already kicked our ass TWICE!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mess with Iran, they are bad people.

Don't know what drugs you are on but Iran has never "kicked our ass" lol

1) The hostages which brought down a president, and 2) the rescue mission that was shot down.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Iran already kicked our ass TWICE!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mess with Iran, they are bad people.

Don't know what drugs you are on but Iran has never "kicked our ass" lol

1) The hostages which brought down a president, and 2) the rescue mission that was shot down.

Was Iran able to influence an American Presidential election by holding our citizens as hostages: yes. I hardly see how that is "kicking our ass."

Did the Iranian military, or civilians "shoot down our rescue operation:" NO.
You have no legitimacy when saying that. Our helicopters never even made it to Tehran because the weather effected our choppers ability to fly and numerous technical failures.

So I am still confused how Iran kicked our ass twice. That statement would imply that the U.S. and Iran went toe-to-toe twice and the U.S. got their ass kicked both times lol. There is just no truth in that statement.

 

[varelse]

Try and nullify the Constitution, or even a part of it, and see what happens lol!

Have you recently tried making and selling firearms within state?

Look I am a huge gun supporter. I grew up hunting, and shooting guns. And still, I agree with most of the laws they are trying to pass. I'm sorry but civilians should not be able to buy AR-15's with 50 round mags. I would propose to the feds that licensed gun ranges could carry the "assault weapons" and high round mags so if you wanted to shoot one, you could still do so. Also, the feds are proposing stricter background checks. What a violation of our 2nd Amendment (sarcasm). I am surprised they didn't have more thorough background checks already. Where in the new laws or restrictions (whatever you want to call it), is the government saying citizens cannot buy or own firearms? When our country has some of the highest gun-related crimes in the world, I would say we need to do something. Not every citizen in our country is fit to own a firearm, and I am not sad to say that.

But in my opinion, the government is using the band-aid approach where they try and do a a "quick fix" and think that is going to solve the problem. You can ban certain guns and mags, but you can't ban crazy. Even if we ban all firearms in the country, people are still going to find other means for killing people. Ban guns, people will start using bombs or other tools. So obviously banning the instrument used to commit murder will not get rid of why people want to kill. We need to address why there are people, especially kids out there, that are willing to kill as many people as they can before they themselves get killed.

And in answer to your question, yes, I just recently bought a new Remington 12-guage shotgun. Wasn't that hard. I had to wait longer than 15 minutes, but luckily I don't get mad at that.

Try reading that again, slowly and for comprehension.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Have you recently tried making and selling firearms within state?

Look I am a huge gun supporter. I grew up hunting, and shooting guns. And still, I agree with most of the laws they are trying to pass. I'm sorry but civilians should not be able to buy AR-15's with 50 round mags. I would propose to the feds that licensed gun ranges could carry the "assault weapons" and high round mags so if you wanted to shoot one, you could still do so. Also, the feds are proposing stricter background checks. What a violation of our 2nd Amendment (sarcasm). I am surprised they didn't have more thorough background checks already. Where in the new laws or restrictions (whatever you want to call it), is the government saying citizens cannot buy or own firearms? When our country has some of the highest gun-related crimes in the world, I would say we need to do something. Not every citizen in our country is fit to own a firearm, and I am not sad to say that.

But in my opinion, the government is using the band-aid approach where they try and do a a "quick fix" and think that is going to solve the problem. You can ban certain guns and mags, but you can't ban crazy. Even if we ban all firearms in the country, people are still going to find other means for killing people. Ban guns, people will start using bombs or other tools. So obviously banning the instrument used to commit murder will not get rid of why people want to kill. We need to address why there are people, especially kids out there, that are willing to kill as many people as they can before they themselves get killed.

And in answer to your question, yes, I just recently bought a new Remington 12-guage shotgun. Wasn't that hard. I had to wait longer than 15 minutes, but luckily I don't get mad at that.

Try reading that again, slowly and for comprehension.

Ohhhh excuse me. No I haven't made a gun in about 40 years, and I don't sell guns, I buy them.

 

[Billo_Really]

Was Iran able to influence an American Presidential election by holding our citizens as hostages: yes. I hardly see how that is "kicking our ass."

Did the Iranian military, or civilians "shoot down our rescue operation:" NO.
You have no legitimacy when saying that. Our helicopters never even made it to Tehran because the weather effected our choppers ability to fly and numerous technical failures.

So I am still confused how Iran kicked our ass twice. That statement would imply that the U.S. and Iran went toe-to-toe twice and the U.S. got their ass kicked both times lol. There is just no truth in that statement.

Didn't the choppers run into each other?

 

[Billo_Really]

Ohhhh excuse me. No I haven't made a gun in about 40 years, and I don't sell guns, I buy them.

You seem to be pretty rational for a gun guy?

I'm not sure I can handle a gun guy who's..................normal!

 

[ima]

I say: who cares if Iran nukes Israel? Not me.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Was Iran able to influence an American Presidential election by holding our citizens as hostages: yes. I hardly see how that is "kicking our ass."

Did the Iranian military, or civilians "shoot down our rescue operation:" NO.
You have no legitimacy when saying that. Our helicopters never even made it to Tehran because the weather effected our choppers ability to fly and numerous technical failures.

So I am still confused how Iran kicked our ass twice. That statement would imply that the U.S. and Iran went toe-to-toe twice and the U.S. got their ass kicked both times lol. There is just no truth in that statement.

Didn't the choppers run into each other?

Something like that. There was a bad sand storm on the night they decided to go with the operation. This caused extremely low visibility, and the choppers could not handle the sand that they had to navigate through. One of the choppers did run into another chopper, and crashed, and after numerous other technical difficulties, the mission was aborted.

 

[Nosmo King]

A few important things to think about:

Should the U.S. attack Iran, will we be ready willing and able to finish the job? Would that include boots on the ground and full on regime change? And if that's the case, would Conservatives consent to a tax increase to pay for it, or would they insist on the Bush model and run up the debt unnecessarily?

And do you consider Iran a bigger genuine threat than the former U.S.S.R.? Surely the Soviets had a larger, more deadly arsenal at their disposal. We contained the Soviets for forty years after they developed the hydrogen bomb. Could we contain Iran the same way?

War ain't a game and it ain't a salon discussion of political consequences. It's all too terrible to enter into naively.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Ohhhh excuse me. No I haven't made a gun in about 40 years, and I don't sell guns, I buy them.

You seem to be pretty rational for a gun guy?

I'm sure I can handle a gun guy who's..................normal!

haha say what you want. I got my first gun when I was 8 years old. I was raised to respect them, and not use them for anything but the protection of your home, and for hunting. I have never been arrested, especially for a gun-related crime. I am 26 years old and own 7 guns: 2 pistols, 3 shotguns, and 2 rifles. I respect guns and know the dangers than can cause. So you know what, your right, I'm not "normal." The majority, or normal people, are going crazy over the government tampering with their 2nd amendment (even though they really aren't), and are making statements like, "you can have my guns over my dead body." They are throwing a fit. States are threatening to not uphold federal law, which is treason, because of them thinking they are gonna have their guns taken away. That seems to be the norm these days lol. Wheeww. I'm glad I'm not normal.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

A few important things to think about:

Should the U.S. attack Iran, will we be ready willing and able to finish the job? Would that include boots on the ground and full on regime change? And if that's the case, would Conservatives consent to a tax increase to pay for it, or would they insist on the Bush model and run up the debt unnecessarily?

And do you consider Iran a bigger genuine threat than the former U.S.S.R.? Surely the Soviets had a larger, more deadly arsenal at their disposal. We contained the Soviets for forty years after they developed the hydrogen bomb. Could we contain Iran the same way?

War ain't a game and it ain't a salon discussion of political consequences. It's all too terrible to enter into naively.

Thank you for that post. It was very insightful. I would like to build on your statements if I could. I think the big difference between the situation we were facing during the Cold War, and the situation we are facing today with Iran is the value of life. I think the Soviet regime actually valued life. They did not want to die, not really, otherwise we (U.S. and Soviet Union) would have wiped each other out during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I mean that was a situation where both countries had their finger on the trigger, and after a long day of deliberation, Kennedy decided to listen to one of his advisers that was telling him not to go that far. I think with Iran, and many other places in the Middle-East, is the fact that they do not value human life. We can see it in the way they treat the people in their country, especially women. Women are seen as less than human. As objects of reproduction and slavery to the men of the house. They definitely have no value for those who are non-Muslims. Iran has supplied numerous rockets and missiles to Hezbollah so that they could turn around and attack Israel. Who knows if Iran develops a nuke, and supplies it to their surrogate terrorist group (s), what will come of it. We all know the rhetoric of the Iranian regime, is to wipe Israel and the U.S. off the map. I am not so worried about us, as I am Israel. I have no personal ties to Israel. I have no relatives there, and I am not Jewish. The reason I am standing up for Israel, is the fact that I value life. I would not want to see hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people get slaughtered, if we (the U.S.) could have done something to stop it. I do not know how I would live with myself if Iran were able to pull off an attack sometime down the road, where thousands of people died, and I chose to do nothing to prevent it, when I had the chance. I would not want that blood on my hands. If we are in a position to head atrocities from happening, I think that we should. Not only as Americans, but as human beings. We are all the same when it comes down to it, just different ideas, and that what makes humans so unique. I will continue to stand up for humanity, and stand against all those who seek to destroy it. I think it comes down to doing the right thing. And the protection of an entire country is the right thing in my opinion.

Further, I am not so sure we would have to put ground troops in Iran. From what I have heard (which I know is minimal) the Department of Defense has stated that precision bombing of their nuclear sites is what is going to happen. The DoD has stated that it does not intend to involve the Iranian population, nor have I heard of a regime change. The bombing I think is more or less a message to the Iranian government that we will not allow them to possess a nuclear bomb of any sort. And if we only bombed the nuclear sites, what is Iran going to do? Invade America (lmao) or Israel (lol). I hardly think so because they are dealing with so many internal issues, such as rising inflation and a deteriorating economy due to the toughest round of sanctions ever imposed on a country.
I know this all could change the instant we drop bombs in Iran, but for right now, that is the information at hand. And we also have to think about the fact that Iran, since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, has pushed our buttons and threatened us. We have never pushed back, which I think makes Iran perceive us as a paper tiger. All bark and no bite. So we have gotten to the point now in 2013 where we have a country that thinks it can do whatever it wants, despite a majority of the international community condemn their actions. I think that maybe once we show them that we are serious about this, and are not playing games where we shout back and forth at each other, they will fall into line. Lets look at it from the Iranian stand point: if we show we are willing to use force to stop them from obtaining a nuke, how much do they really want to risk to develop one. If they are sitting there thinking all the U.S. does is yell, and never follows it up (well at least with Iran), what is their incentive for stopping the program. Even with the economic sanctions, I can bet the government isn't feeling them. It is the citizens that are feeling them. But if we show the Iranians that were are not playing a game, and we mean business about this, even to go as far as bombing their nuclear sites, then maybe they will reconsider their position.

Who knows lol it is such a tricky situation. But anyway you look at it, a nuclear armed Iran is a bad situation for the entire world, not just the U.S., and we should not allow that to happen. We are not alone in this endevour either. There are numerous countries that do not want to see a nuclear armed Iran.

 

[ima]

We have even less reason to attack Iran than we did to attack Iraq.

 

[Too Tall]

Ever since the resurgence of Ayatollah Khomeini, the US has apparently deliberately blinded itself on events in Iran. We didn't run intel nets in Iran under the Shah - he didn't want us to. Our nets under Prexy Truman ran better, & Truman refused to join with UK in deposing PM Mossadegh over the oil concession. The Brit PM approached Prexy-elect Eisenhower in terms of warding off Soviet interest in Iran, & he bit (he also had the Dulles bros. @ Dept. State & CIA, champing @ the bit to do something or other about the Cold War).

Iran was actually cooperating with us after 09/11, helping us connect with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan & sundry other items of interest. Right up until Prexy W declared them to be part of the Axis of Evil. Everything slid off the rails right there, as you can imagine. So - we know v. little about the inner workings of the Iranian gov. because we don't want to know. We don't have humint running there - TMK, & I really wouldn't expect to know about those nets unless things went seriously wrong.

I'm sure we do sigint, for all the good it does us. But we don't have intel officers nor assets who speak Persian, Farsi, Pushtu, Kurdish - or not nearly enough.

The farm saying was: "You don't give farm animals names, they're not pets, they're meat." That's the only real explanation I can devise for our curious ignorance of the facts on the ground in Iran (& Iraq, & Afghanistan, & Pakistan ...)

I guess it was Bush's fault that the Shah was deposed, the Ayatollah installed and our Embassy was invaded and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

 

[Nosmo King]

A few important things to think about:

Should the U.S. attack Iran, will we be ready willing and able to finish the job? Would that include boots on the ground and full on regime change? And if that's the case, would Conservatives consent to a tax increase to pay for it, or would they insist on the Bush model and run up the debt unnecessarily?

And do you consider Iran a bigger genuine threat than the former U.S.S.R.? Surely the Soviets had a larger, more deadly arsenal at their disposal. We contained the Soviets for forty years after they developed the hydrogen bomb. Could we contain Iran the same way?

War ain't a game and it ain't a salon discussion of political consequences. It's all too terrible to enter into naively.

Thank you for that post. It was very insightful. I would like to build on your statements if I could. I think the big difference between the situation we were facing during the Cold War, and the situation we are facing today with Iran is the value of life. I think the Soviet regime actually valued life. They did not want to die, not really, otherwise we (U.S. and Soviet Union) would have wiped each other out during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I mean that was a situation where both countries had their finger on the trigger, and after a long day of deliberation, Kennedy decided to listen to one of his advisers that was telling him not to go that far. I think with Iran, and many other places in the Middle-East, is the fact that they do not value human life. We can see it in the way they treat the people in their country, especially women. Women are seen as less than human. As objects of reproduction and slavery to the men of the house. They definitely have no value for those who are non-Muslims. Iran has supplied numerous rockets and missiles to Hezbollah so that they could turn around and attack Israel. Who knows if Iran develops a nuke, and supplies it to their surrogate terrorist group (s), what will come of it. We all know the rhetoric of the Iranian regime, is to wipe Israel and the U.S. off the map. I am not so worried about us, as I am Israel. I have no personal ties to Israel. I have no relatives there, and I am not Jewish. The reason I am standing up for Israel, is the fact that I value life. I would not want to see hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people get slaughtered, if we (the U.S.) could have done something to stop it. I do not know how I would live with myself if Iran were able to pull off an attack sometime down the road, where thousands of people died, and I chose to do nothing to prevent it, when I had the chance. I would not want that blood on my hands. If we are in a position to head atrocities from happening, I think that we should. Not only as Americans, but as human beings. We are all the same when it comes down to it, just different ideas, and that what makes humans so unique. I will continue to stand up for humanity, and stand against all those who seek to destroy it. I think it comes down to doing the right thing. And the protection of an entire country is the right thing in my opinion.

Further, I am not so sure we would have to put ground troops in Iran. From what I have heard (which I know is minimal) the Department of Defense has stated that precision bombing of their nuclear sites is what is going to happen. The DoD has stated that it does not intend to involve the Iranian population, nor have I heard of a regime change. The bombing I think is more or less a message to the Iranian government that we will not allow them to possess a nuclear bomb of any sort. And if we only bombed the nuclear sites, what is Iran going to do? Invade America (lmao) or Israel (lol). I hardly think so because they are dealing with so many internal issues, such as rising inflation and a deteriorating economy due to the toughest round of sanctions ever imposed on a country.
I know this all could change the instant we drop bombs in Iran, but for right now, that is the information at hand. And we also have to think about the fact that Iran, since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, has pushed our buttons and threatened us. We have never pushed back, which I think makes Iran perceive us as a paper tiger. All bark and no bite. So we have gotten to the point now in 2013 where we have a country that thinks it can do whatever it wants, despite a majority of the international community condemn their actions. I think that maybe once we show them that we are serious about this, and are not playing games where we shout back and forth at each other, they will fall into line. Lets look at it from the Iranian stand point: if we show we are willing to use force to stop them from obtaining a nuke, how much do they really want to risk to develop one. If they are sitting there thinking all the U.S. does is yell, and never follows it up (well at least with Iran), what is their incentive for stopping the program. Even with the economic sanctions, I can bet the government isn't feeling them. It is the citizens that are feeling them. But if we show the Iranians that were are not playing a game, and we mean business about this, even to go as far as bombing their nuclear sites, then maybe they will reconsider their position.

Who knows lol it is such a tricky situation. But anyway you look at it, a nuclear armed Iran is a bad situation for the entire world, not just the U.S., and we should not allow that to happen. We are not alone in this endevour either. There are numerous countries that do not want to see a nuclear armed Iran.

Your argument hinges on a supposition that the Iranians do not value human life. You cite the plight of women as your paradigm. Could our enemies during the Cold War make the same claim? Certainly the United States did not value the lives of its Black citizens. And the Soviets did not have a sterling record on human rights.

If that's the justification for attacking Iran, it really needs to be flushed out more thoroughly. We cannot simply place a negative attribute on a nation like a bumper sticker on a pick up truck and call it true.

And surely attacking Iranian nuclear facilities would justify an Iranian response. Even if there is no civilian co-lateral damage, any nation so provoked will surely try everything within their means to respond in kind.

I admire your zeal to protect life. But remember, our track record as a nation does not live up to your ideal. We have already used nuclear weapons against civilians. We have dumped tons of napalm on civilians. We launch drone strikes that kill civilians. Defending life with such a porous record will not seem hypocritical, it will be hypocritical.

We have been provoked by other rogue nations before. Libya, North Korea just to name two. Yet we never blatantly attacked any nation until we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan ten years ago. Are our options so few, our recourse so restricted, our foreign policy capitol so depleted that we would have to resort to attack? Or is the imagination of Hawks and Neo-Cons so stoked that we will continue to lurch toward war if only to feel good about ourselves in some perverse way?

 

[hoosier88]

Ever since the resurgence of Ayatollah Khomeini, the US has apparently deliberately blinded itself on events in Iran. We didn't run intel nets in Iran under the Shah - he didn't want us to. Our nets under Prexy Truman ran better, & Truman refused to join with UK in deposing PM Mossadegh over the oil concession. The Brit PM approached Prexy-elect Eisenhower in terms of warding off Soviet interest in Iran, & he bit (he also had the Dulles bros. @ Dept. State & CIA, champing @ the bit to do something or other about the Cold War).

...
The farm saying was: "You don't give farm animals names, they're not pets, they're meat." That's the only real explanation I can devise for our curious ignorance of the facts on the ground in Iran (& Iraq, & Afghanistan, & Pakistan ...)

I guess it was Bush's fault that the Shah was deposed, the Ayatollah installed and our Embassy was invaded and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

(My bold)

The Shah was deposed because he was unfit to rule his country. He was uninformed about his countrymen's thoughts & feelings because he did not want to know them.

We were blindsided because we installed the Shah - knowing that he was weak. We listened to what he wanted in-country - he was selling oil & buying US weapons systems with the proceeds. We hoped the ride would never end. The Ayatollah Khomeini captured the government because the Shah & Savak made political disagreement a crime. There was no other option for political resistance to take.

The hostages were held as long as they were partially because Candidate Reagan's campaign cut a deal with Iran - hold on to the hostages, it's helping my candidacy. Later, in Iran/Contra, we saw how that played out.

 

[Billo_Really]

Ohhhh excuse me. No I haven't made a gun in about 40 years, and I don't sell guns, I buy them.

You seem to be pretty rational for a gun guy?

I'm [not] sure I can handle a gun guy who's..................normal!

haha say what you want. I got my first gun when I was 8 years old. I was raised to respect them, and not use them for anything but the protection of your home, and for hunting. I have never been arrested, especially for a gun-related crime. I am 26 years old and own 7 guns: 2 pistols, 3 shotguns, and 2 rifles. I respect guns and know the dangers than can cause. So you know what, your right, I'm not "normal." The majority, or normal people, are going crazy over the government tampering with their 2nd amendment (even though they really aren't), and are making statements like, "you can have my guns over my dead body." They are throwing a fit. States are threatening to not uphold federal law, which is treason, because of them thinking they are gonna have their guns taken away. That seems to be the norm these days lol. Wheeww. I'm glad I'm not normal.

I just realized a mistake I made in my post which changed the whole meaning of what I was intending to say.

Sorry, my bad!

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Since when has the Iranian issue became our issue? Israel should deal with its own concerns. Once again these moronic lowlife's fell for the media trick yet again. You guys are brainwashed so easily.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Well, instead of rounding up Iranians and putting them in OVENS, we should boil them in oil pumped right off there own land, we can fire up that boiling oil with the reactor they built. I know this sounds fucked up the Iranians are a threat to the earths jean-pull.
We might as well say that Iran is going to get fucked up for GP, it doesn't matter what the fuck they do, there finished.

Oh yea the UN, who gives a fuck about laws they create and are unable to enforce upon a nation with insurmountable strength.

 

[Grandma]

There's no more a nuclear threat from Iran than there was from Iraq.

Iran has MASSIVE oil deposits, in fact they're supplying much of Europe at $8/gallon.

Oil is what the warmongering is all about, kiddies.

Oil.

 

[Connery]

Since when has the Iranian issue became our issue? Israel should deal with its own concerns. Once again these moronic lowlife's fell for the media trick yet again. You guys are brainwashed so easily.

Brig. Gen. Hajizadeh made this an issue with the following as other Iranian officials have.

"Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, told reporters the U.S. has 35 bases around Iran and all are "within the reach of our missiles" and could be hit "in the early minutes after an attack," according to an English-language report from Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency. The bases were no threat but instead an "opportunity" for the Iranian military, Hajizadeh said last month, according to Fars."

Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News