I'm curious how many people are for a 3rd war.

Should the United States start bombing or sending ground forces into Iran at the present time? As far as i know we dont have any reason (not even bad ones) to do so, but a lot of people appear to be for the idea.

I am very worried about the United States and the world. I can't even compare the situation to the ancient Roman Empire. It can only be compared to Nazi Germany (when it comes to foreign politics)

Yes, I agree. Bush America is starting to Resemble Nazi Germany on foreign politics.

I'd like to ask that those who vote actually say something. Otherwise what good is it? ;-p

Someone obviously thinks it's a good idea to bomb other countries for no reason. I want to know their reasoning.

err.... i think noone wants a 3rd war here

Enough people are against the war in Iraq, there would be major riots if Bush gave the order to invade Iran.

Dang gw, you don't have any reasoning. Look at the two sentences you wrote: Someone has no reason for wanting something, and you want to know the reason. Try not to let your opinions and bias seep into to your questions cause they cease to be questions and become your answers in question form.

Let me clarify for you.

As far as I know, there is no reason for bombing Iran and invading that country. However, since someone voted yes, they must have a reasoning.

i checked last night, and we have spent around 418 BILLION dollars on the current war. if we attack anyone else, we will be totally in debt. we also might destroy our connections to the rest of the world, and kill many more helplesss civilians. i am for U.S. intervention in darfur though

Does Darfur have any petrol or is it in an important strategic position?

Nay. It's been hard enough with Iraq. If it were to start all over again with Iran I don't think it would go down too well with a lot of people.

See, heres the scary thing though, there wouldn't be...people would whine more and then go along with it.

no...
people are dying left and right there. if we are in iraq just for the oil, that's just "sleezy".

give isolationism a chance.

I'm not sure why but I know your right! The few that will protest will be made to look like nut cases by the media .I guess it's because it seems the goverment will do as it pleases no matter what. So it seems to be a waste of time?

Agree. But I am afraid that is the way things are with Mr Bush...

for or against attacking Iran everyone here has to realize that attacking Iraq was not for oil, or even some bush family revenge. the invasion of Iraq is part of a pincer movement on Iran. we have afganistan pretty clear and we are waiting for the storm in iraq to settle and what is inbetween iraq and afganistan - IRAN. also, for years america has had people in Iran begining a counter-movent to the one that began last generation with the capture of the american embassy. the youth of iran is rebellious to the current ideals of Iran and are more western in thought than there parents are. America has been turning up the heat - when iraq settles down the americans in iraq and afganistan will attack iran and the movement will boil over - overwhelming the Irani goverment almost instantly


there my friends is the goverment plan

That is why I also mentioned the important strategic position...
But once again, the Bush administration is delusional.

The logic of the westernized iranians rising up to defeat the clerics is the same as what was said about Iraq.

Also, bear in mind that the president of Iran was democratically elected. Which makes it unreasonable to assume that the vast majority of people are ideologically opposed to him and the Supreme Leader.

Exactly. I am pretty sure that if they attack Iran it will turn into the worst catastrophe in US History.
Vietnam will look like a walk in the park by comparison.

Also please notice that if the Bush administration keeps pushing like that, eventually they might have a coalition of countries against them, possibly including Russia.

I think Iran will do something politically stupid. Whether it's to the US, Britain, (Canada... NOT! lol), Israel, or anyone... Someone will something too stupid, and another just as stupid will react. Thus, I believe such war is likely to be inevitable especially with Iran's internationally most valued commodity: fossil fuel deposits.

But on US history here:

1. War of 1812 - We were shipping crap to the French, who are at war with Britian. Britain takes our ships and it's sailors(impressment). We decide we're justified to wage war with the British because what they did is just WRONG...

2. Mexican American War (1845) - Polk deliberately ordered troops past the Nueces River toward the Rio Grande (No Man's Land) which Mexico percieved as a threat and fired. Polk goes to congress, "OH HELL, AMERICANS HAVE BEEN SHOT. WE MUST GO TO WAR!"

3. War of 1898 - we don't even wait for something "bad" to happen to the American people

4. WWI - we're shipping crap to the Allies, the Central Powers sinks our ships (Lusitania sp?)- we think that's just wrong...

5. WWII - eh, well... ^1898, we took the Philipines, Japan needed access... too complicated

6. North Korea - we must stop the communist, the ideas in the brains is infectous and will cause the collapse of humanity.

7. Vietnam - "Commies" crap too, but where was the U.S.S. Maddox and U.S.S Turner Joy when they were "allegedly" attacked via torpedo?

8. Our role the formation of Panama and it's Canal

9. Participation in the Iran-Iraq War

10. Desert Storm

11. Iraq

That said, the US isn't exactly some international hero - hell we've NEVER been one. Imperialistic, oppressionist, and aggressive... We have no right to coin even Osama Bin Laden with a denounciation such as "terrorist." Who's the "terrorist?" I'm not sure, but I do know one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Who am I to say who's who? All I know is, I'm glad we're willing to spend 500 billion dollars on military expenses yearly. <- for those of you who don't know, that's more than the rest of G8 combined.

*** Briefly consider what recently happened with Iran and the British sailors... the question was the all-to-familiar "Where were they?" I believe it was intentional and both the US administration and the Brits were praying Iran would attack in order to internationally justify a war with Iran. Fortunately, I think Iran's a little more intelligent than the American media gives them credit for. Folks in the desert doesn't mean folks without a brain.***

My answer to the overall question; War is never just, but it only takes one idiot who thinks it is to ruin the whole thing.

(Criticism is welcome, just email me if you really want me to reply)

yeah, that won't be good, i will move to africa.

I voted Nay, but with qualifications.

If Iran becomes a clear threat to our security, of course we might be faced with no other choice.

The question is predicated apon the notion that Iran will do nothing. Iran has done nothing, yet bombing Iran seems to excite a lot of people.

Agreed ,and good post BTW.

Scruffy votes his 40,000 shares for jgrimes80 on this topic as well.
Scruffy will die the way he lived. (Flips page of porno mag)



The plan is money, power, and natural resources. Or have you not studied the last.... 10,000 years of history?
Or do you love your government that much?

Attack anybody?
YAY....
NAY....X

Defend yourself?
YAY....X
NAY....

Heck No!!! Heck NO!!! HECK NO!!!!!!!!!

This is why i'm glad i live in massachusetts

And percentage wise, how much of the North American population has contributed to organizations that do help in Darfur? Pretty small really.
So like our governments, although the we think we are generous, we often ignore issues that's don't directly affect us or are the "media" highlight issue of the day. (oil or otherwise)

Yeah. People were dying in Iraq also, yeah.
There is only one problem, during Saddam times there were killed much less, that were killed during last few years after invasion.
Isn't it really interesting? Probably Saddam was just a person who has been able to keep order in this country?
So far I see that he did this job much better than all US and non-US forces right now. With much lower price.

This falsehood is known as the "Gulf of Tokin Incident": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

It lead to the "Gulf of Tokin Resolution" which enabled Pres. Johnson to wage war in Vietnam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution




This is the Spanish-American war it was started by another 9/11-like lie, the sinking of USS Maine in Havana harbor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(AC..._of_the_sinking



Don't forget the attempted sinking of the USS Liberity by Israel, which we were suppose to blame on Egypt to enter the 7 days war in 1967: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

For a history on these types of false flag operations, of which Iran is ripe for, watch Alex Jones' "Terrorstrom" on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

Learn the truth about 9/11: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=60266

why to attack iran? to get more oil and gold ?
why to attack anyone ?

americans like to attack small countries : like serbia,irak,vietnam(and after all we are terrorists and cavemen ) ... why they don`t attack rusia,korea or china ?
but when someone attack americans,on their own land,that is no good? o rly ?

make love no war


~R

"I think Iran will do something politically stupid."

****************************************

Why? To match the profound stupidity of George W. Bush and his Good Ole Boy USA?

Well, I'm glad 95% clicked nay - at least some of us have some sense

The United States entered WWI after the British forwarded The United States government a Telegram that they "intercepted" (made up). this telegram was the zimmerman (sp?) telegram "sent" to the German officials in mexico telling them to talk to the mexican government about them invading the United States. This brought the US to war with germany.

and on WWII - America didnt take the Philippines - The Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba were given to the United Sates by Spain after the 3 month long Spanish -American war. and the US immediately declared Cuba independent but retained the Philippines and Puerto Rico and for the first time, America was an empire.
---Also the European side of WWII was caused completely by the French and British. If you ever wonder why there is no American signature on the treaty of versailles (end of WWI) it is because the terms of the treaty were completely unfair to Germany (forcing them to pay for the all the damage of the war etc.). In fact a high commander for the allies (a frenchman) stated "if the treaty goes as it is going now, Germany will return stronger than ever in 20 years". 1919 - the treaty is signed 1939 - germany invades Poland

On the Korean war - North Korea invades south korea and a US and British led UN effort stops the invasion

On vietnam - Again an invasion this time by the north Vietnamese - the Vietcong. Also that war would have been completely won by the US if Jimmy Carter (clearly the worst president in history) had not been president. American began a large air campaign, when the North Vietnamese came to the negotiating table he stopped the air attack, and they promptly stopped negotiating. The attacks began again, the Vietnamese came to the negotiating table. Again jimmy carter stopped the bombing, again the Vietnamese left. By the time the air attacks were set to begin again, public opinion was so low for this war that America pulled out.

On desert storm - Iraq invades Kuwait - granted America placed Sadam Hussein in power.... America never thinks long term. none the less would you want some1 like sadam controlling 1/3 of the worlds oil.


by the way - America was Isolationist until the spanish-American war
and with the current definition of terrorist everyone in the world is a terrorist

and who said that Iran was dumb - these people are well educated albeit crazy

That is exactly what has always been in my mind. Moreover, every idiot could foresee that. Thus: either the Bush administration is made up of asinine idiots, or they wanted the present situation (it makes the military happy, you know...)

Not exactly true. The US did back the Ba'ath party at that time as the US was more concerned with communist leaders of the time. (in Iraq)

There was constant turmoil within the party and the various branches of it throughout Iraq and Syria.
"Wranglings within the party continued, and the government periodically purged its dissident members.
Emerging as a party strongman, Saddam Hussein eventually used his growing power to push al-Bakr aside in 1979"

Although quoted often, the US didn't directly back Saddam.

ok fine... that proves my point further

Wasn't trying to suggest your point was wrong.
(just the fact was in error. Its amazing how the associative rule is used and things become fact to the less informed general public.)

Example: I voted for candidate A, candidate A assigns person B to a specific role, I wanted person B in that role.
Although I might be responsible since I voted for candidate A, doesn't mean I wanted person B.

(Pretty much how out stupid voting process works in Canada. We don't even vote for our Prime Minister!)

Not only happy. Generally, after Iraq-Itan war ended, this region finally became more or less stable (except usual Israel-rest of region confrontation, of course, but it is different story). If someone wanted to destabilize it, this invasion was a best approach.

Politically stupid and stupid are two different things. A specific example; challenging both the US and the UN in regards to it's nuclear development is politically unwise. It comes down to giving someone "justification" to retaliate. Given its domestic commodities, Iran is an area of interest on a multi-national game field.

Bush mispronouncing words all the time = stupid.

As an historical note to bxsci(macuser)... Jimmy Carter became president in 1977... The Vietnam War was over by 1975. The Vietnam War could never have been won under the circumstances and at the time. The american people overwhelmingly did not support it, 75ish thousand americans had died for it. Much of the nation had been pulverized and defoliated by conventional and chemical weapons... And the south vietnamese hated their own government.

The Japanese attacked the United States to cripple the pacific fleet with the express intention of constructing a peace settlement that would keep the US out of their mainland asian interests.

Just FYI.

HA. {censored} the UN. The UN doesn't uphold the US constitution. I see NO reason go attack a country that has done nothing.

The UN has gotten the US involved in 146 wars, and still counting....

With the amount of debt we are in currently, our childrens children will be paying it off when they are adults. But yeah, intervention in darfur sounds good to me, but idk how we can afford it with the current financial state the US is in.

It's not up to the US to fix everything they see fit, remember.

That's what the UN is for.
I'm sure that some troops from various countries will be sent eventually

This is kind of funny...

"Bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-iran" set to the Beach Boy's song "Barbara Ann".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6634672797836665464

yeah i saw that a few days ago, kinda funny..

Bomb Iran. Hmmmmm


The Real Bomb Iran Music Video

Well..
As much as the general voice on this little poll says no, it looks like its going to happen anyways.

stupid, stupid, stupid.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/1/183018/1527

What has iran done thats so terrible anyways..

?
I know some guys from tehran and they're the nicest people in the world, apologetic to the point of annoyance maybe.. but really nice, salt of the earth, help ya move and lift furniture types anytime you ask.

You know, its funny you say that. I was just thinking that. A neighbor down the street from me moved in from someplace near tehran a few months ago and they just seemed like really nice, as you say, salt of the earth people. Its pretty rare to come accross people like that today.