Iran about to get wiped from the pages of history

[CurtSibling]

No need for personal attacks

Yawn. Heard that one already.

I have nothing at all against Iranian civilians, their lives, as all lives, are valuable, but it is the extremist Iranian government that is a threat, and could potentially kill millions across the globe if they aren't soon taken care off.

What a load of baloney rhetoric.

Wait a minute, are actually GW Bush posting on CFC again?

 

[VX250]

Wait a minute, are actually GW Bush posting on CFC again?

That doesn't make sense.

 

[REDY]

6. Give to all other states 100 gold to be friendly

 

[Xenocrates]

I'm inclined to agree with REDY when he said that this part of the original plan. America is a great whale of a state; it's was never bothered about a minnow like Iraq. This whole adventure has smelled of fish since day 1. Remember the fantasy WMD's, the blitz strategy employed in Iraq, the 'accidental' civil war or the hunt for bin Laden? What a crock.

I don't know about you but I'm really gritting my teeth here. I object to being lied to by people that are supposed to represent me almost as much I resent the deaths of innocent civilians

 

[Gogf]

I'm inclined to agree with REDY when he said that this part of the original plan. America is a great whale of a state; it's was never bothered about a minnow like Iraq. This whole adventure has smelled of fish since day 1. Remember the fantasy WMD's, the blitz strategy employed in Iraq, the 'accidental' civil war or the hunt for bin Laden? What a crock.

I don't know about you but I'm really gritting my teeth here. I object to being lied to by people that are supposed to represent me almost as much I resent the deaths of innocent civilians

You think that America intentionally triggered a civil war in Iraq in order to achieve some sort of other goal?

 

[CurtSibling]

The political liars and crooks that started the Iraq war are now watching their little plan fall to bits now.

And that has a sense of poetic justice to it. A tragedy for all those brave troops who have died though...!

 

[VX250]

Please, there's no need for personal attacks against President Bush though.

And how is the Iraq plan falling to bits 'justice' to those who died in the conflict, both US troops and Iraqi civilians, all it is, is meaning that they all died in vain for nothing

 

[Sidhe]

Please, there's no need for personal attacks against President Bush though.

And how is the Iraq plan falling to bits 'justice' to those who died in the conflict, both US troops and Iraqi civilians, all it is, is meaning that they all died in vain for nothing

If you can't mock politicians what else are they good for?

What Bush should do -

1. Drop Universal Suffrage and adopt Police State: +25% Military Unit production , -50% War Weariness! Plus, he already had the Mount Rushmore national wonder! WW won't be a problem even if he goes for Syria and Saudi-Arabia as well!

2. Screw Bureaucracy, get Nationhood; +2 happiness in all cities with barracks (which must be just about every important US city), plus he can draft a Mech Infantry division each turn!

3. Labour civics - now this is obvious. The South was great for a reason. Adopt Slavery and rush-build courthouses in Teheran!

4. Once mushroom clouds rise, nobody will want to trade with the US , so he might as well go for Mercantilism. One extra great specialist easily makes up for the lack of foreign trade routes!

5. Finally, stop that Free Religion nonsense - adopt Christianity as State Religion, and select Theocracy. Cities with churches get +1 happiness, it will stop the spreading of the most wicked of all faiths, Islam, and last but not least, it will give new US troops an extra +2XP, ie, a free promotion!

He's already done it

You just haven't seen a period of Anarchy because your a religious civ

 

[CurtSibling]

Please, there's no need for personal attacks against President Bush though.

Show where I mentioned Bush? I am British, why would I care about him?

I don't have to bow and scrape to men who are meant to serve us, the people.

And how is the Iraq plan falling to bits 'justice' to those who died in the conflict, both US troops and Iraqi civilians, all it is, is meaning that they all died in vain for nothing

Poetic justice is not the same as lawful justice...It is a figure of speech.
What I am saying is that the crooks have had their hands burned.

And sadly all the pain and suffering will ultimately for nothing, the
whole Iraq adventure is massive waste of time...We did nothing to
stop terrorism or make our nations more secure...It is kaput, done.

...

 

[Xenocrates]

You think that America intentionally triggered a civil war in Iraq in order to achieve some sort of other goal?

Not America.

It was the British that started the Iranian agents nonsense

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1796566,00.html

to distract attention from the SAS planting bombs in the South.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20050925&articleId=994

They sent someone to investigate and

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=3307

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/basr-o21.shtml

These emoticons don't do it justice.

How else to explain this except by trying to stir up ethnic troubles?

No America is getting the shaft almost as much as the Iranians will be and the Afghans and Iraqis are now. This is a war against America as much as a war against Iran.

 

[potatokiosk]

Getting permission to declare war and invade Iran from congress and the international community should be possible, if not easy. Nobody likes Iran anyway.

Reaching Tehran and any other objective should be easy.

The occupation, though, would/will be a slow and painful bloodbath.

 

[VX250]

ignore this post.

 

[Gogf]

How else to explain this except by trying to stir up ethnic troubles?

Well, to begin with, the last three articles don't come from remotely reputable sources. I hate to be a jerk who just dismisses your sources, but I haven't seen anything remotely resembling these articles in reputable media. Feel free to link to a news story from a reputable source confirming this, though .

No America is getting the shaft almost as much as the Iranians will be and the Afghans and Iraqis are now. This is a war against America as much as a war against Iran.

I certainly hope not. But, just out of interest, why would Britain want to do this?

 

[ShannonCT]

Anyone who thinks this Iran posturing is anything more than posturing is off his rocker. No one in the United States supports the invasion of Iran (contrast that with about half the country supporting the invasion of Iraq) and the Democrats in Congress would never fund a new war when they just took office by being anti-Iraq-War. Every one of them would be voted out of office when they came up for re-election, as would the Republicans. Individual congressmen and congreswomen care a lot more about staying in power themselves than getting revenge for something that happened to Democrats in 1979!

Why do we have to have so many counterpunch.com inspired crackpot threads Xeno?

 

[AceChilla]

Bush will attack with what army? The US army is bogged down in Iraq, and is already lacking the capacity to quel the resistance there.

Furthermore, Iran has the capacity to destroy large chunks of the middle east oil supply in a few hours. Saudi Oil wells are in Iran's missile range, they have the capacity to destroy it and there is little the US could do about that. That would be desastrous for the whole world economy, I doubt Bush would risk such a gamble.

 

[Xenocrates]

It's sad to say that the definition of 'reputable media' is media that doesn't tell us what's going on.

But the story was run worldwide (although without any depth); the Master's 'suicide' was also run in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/17/wirq317.xml

I don't think that the terms "America' and "Britain" mean anything. We are all individuals and people's reasons for acting in a particular way do not depend upon Nationalism. I.e. there must have been something in it for them personally.

 

[sysyphus]

Personally, I think it's all a bunch of chest beating and little mroe than a stale mate. The American public is very war weary at this time, an attempt to go to war with Iran would be political suicide for any President who decided to go for it. Drumming up justification will be nigh impossible since they were caught in such a massive lie re Iraq.

Same goes for Iran. Amehnhaddawhassisfacejad may have a few toys, but knows full well he can only achieve next to nothing in a head on with the US or Israel. Despite the pains the US and their allies are having in Iraq, he knows full well he could face the same fate as Saddam.

 

[Xenocrates]

Shannon: I think the real question is why so few of you post from Counterpunch!

The assumption the Bush wouldn't attack Iran because it's not in the US interest is false. If you can explain the points listed by me and by the ex-Reagan government guy writing in Counterpunch in terms other than attacking Iran then feel free.

 

[silver 2039]

Same goes for Iran. Amehnhaddawhassisfacejad may have a few toys, but knows full well he can only achieve next to nothing in a head on with the US or Israel. Despite the pains the US and their allies are having in Iraq, he knows full well he could face the same fate as Saddam.

Why does everyone think Ahmadinejad has power in Iran? He's just a figurehead, the people with the real power are the clerics like Aythollah Khamaeni.

 

[ShannonCT]

1) US appointed the wrong man as general. William J. Fallon is navy and therefore quite unsuitable for Iraq. His skills are said to be combined force blitzkreig attacks. Bush is obviously thinking ahead to the next war against Iran.

Bush has picked the wrong man for a lot of jobs. Anyway, Fallon was nominated for commander of CENTCOM, not for commander of operations in Iraq, and certainly not Iran.

2) Bush's surge plan is demonstrably ludicrous. This means that it can only be meant as a distraction.

Please demonstrate how ludicrous it is. 2 is a really brainless point.

3) Two carrier groups off Iran's coast. Patriot missile systems shipped in.

It's called the Persian Gulf, and it's where most naval-based forces for the Iraq war are located.

4) Bush no longer talks of Al Qaeda, but instead of Iran.

Al Qaeda is a burning hulk, with its leadership wiped out and its impotent figurehead dead or dying in some Pakistani cave. Terrorist-sponsoring states are just as important to confront as the clandestine organizations themselves. Confrontation =/= Invasion. (see North Korea.)

5) Israel's war in Lebanon to attempt to prevent retaliation after US strike on Iran.

Crackpot conspiracy theories are not evidence.

6) Operation desert strake.

What is this? I find nothing about this in the article or anywhere on the Web.

7) The refusal to accept the Baker commission's report.

The Baker Commission's report about IRAQ?

8) Massive propaganda against Iran. All devoid of evidence. It was the same with the Afghan and Iraq campaigns.

Except there were mounds of evidence against Iraq and Afghanistan. Does shining the light on Iran's terrorism-sponsorship or nuclear ambitions = invasion? We're doing the same thing to North Korea. Do you think we're going to invade North Korea as well?