Are we attacking Iran on 4/6? - Page 4

Flatbutt1 · 03-29-2007, 04:34 PM

So what are the Iranians hoping to achieve with all of this? Taking prisoners is more than sabre rattling. Is this some kind of bait for the US?

"...Larijani said Tehran would like to resolve the issue through bilateral discussions and an investigation of legal and technical issues, and again asserted that the British patrol boats entered Iranian waters illegally..."

Rearden · 03-29-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Flatbutt1
So what are the Iranians hoping to achieve with all of this? Taking prisoners is more than sabre rattling. Is this some kind of bait for the US?

At best, hope the world doesn't notice the difference between these detained Brits and the hundreds of detained Iranians caught doing nasty deeds inside Iraq. At worse, it takes the world's eye off the UN sanctions announced that day and keeps the focus on the bad Americans and their illegal war in Iraq.

MRM · 03-29-2007, 05:18 PM

They're not hoping anything. They accidently snatched the Brits with the missunderstanding that they were in Iranian waters and now they've painted themselves into a corner they don't know how to get out of. Excuse the preposition. They're kind of like the dog who finally caught the car and aren't sure what to do with it.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Flatbutt1
So what are the Iranians hoping to achieve with all of this? Taking prisoners is more than sabre rattling. Is this some kind of bait for the US?

"...Larijani said Tehran would like to resolve the issue through bilateral discussions and an investigation of legal and technical issues, and again asserted that the British patrol boats entered Iranian waters illegally..."

Don't forget that the US is holding Iranian nationals, and has been for about 3 months. At least two of them were in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi government.

Iran is understandably upset about that.

Turbo_pro · 03-29-2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Don't forget that the US is holding Iranian nationals, and has been for about 3 months........edit................

Plot attacks against the US military and you're likely to be detained. Possible?

The rest
Identify the axis of evil. Take out one and take aim on another. The plan was to put 140,000 troops with logistical support on the boarder of Iran. Just like Reagan did with the USSR. There are some who see the future threats to America and American interests and react rather than the liberal idealism of negotiate after we're attacked.
Try to remember how well our army works. When our marines are moving forward they are the best in the world. Leave them standing around and they don't know how to act. If Iran provokes the powers that be, Iran will be over. Will it happen on 4-6 ? pleeeeeeeze

Don't mistake this statement as an endorsement of anything but our troops.

BTW:GWB, the worst president ever? Anyone remember Carter? 19% interest, $1900/gold, pyramid schemes because realtors had nothing better to do, a sand spot hold's US hostage, and today's Islamic threat directly attributable to the Ayatollahs high jacking the religion of peace

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Are we attacking Iran on 4/6?

At least this time I'll be watching from Mexico...

tabs · 03-30-2007, 03:00 AM

The US Govt has a way of negating the Good Intentions of our elected politicians whether they are Repblican or Democrat. The meaning here to make it clearly understood is that no matter what hairbrained scheme the elected leadership comes up with the Govt DOES what it has to do to survive. Even if power is transfered from the elected to the non elected.

Joeaksa · 03-30-2007, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by on-ramp
I'm quite certain we can make a case for WMDs in Mexico..
the drugs they produce and smuggle into this country kill thousands Americans each year.

I think those Mexicans need some "liberating"

So its ok with our being in Afganistan? They grow the opium poppies that make all the heroin that are killing thousands of Americans. You consider this WMD?

Thanks! We needed that!

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Noah
Bill, what do you think those Iranians were up to in Iraq? Setting up a Shia-Sunni intermural soccer league?

Noah, you know we've made troop incursions into Iran. We've occupied the countries on either side (imagine your hated Muslims occupying Mexico and Canada), we've made continuous veiled and not-so-veled threats of bombing or invading Iran. You want to see everything in the M.E. as black and white, but it's many shades of gray.

Rearden · 03-30-2007, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
You want to see everything in the M.E. as black and white, but it's many shades of gray.

It is black and white. Iran is an enemy of this country, an enemy of stability in Iraq (assuming you don't want a stable Iranian client state), and an enemy of freedom and human rights.
The only gray is what do we do about it, if anything.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Two words: Sovereign State. Ain't our business.

Turbo_pro · 03-30-2007, 10:30 AM

Four words: Identify, Aggravate, Adapt or Mitigate.
When these words are attached to the phrase "terrorist threat", we begin to see the options.

Some people refuse to accept the identity.
Some actions tend to aggravate the situation.
Some people want to adapt to the threat.
Smart people mitigate the possible damage.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

"Butting the f*ck out" (refer to 'sovereign state' comment above) would qualify as "mitigating possible damage", IMO.

If Israel feels threatened by Iranian action(s), then let Israel deal with it.

Rearden · 03-30-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
If Israel feels threatened by Iranian action(s), then let Israel deal with it.

And you appeasers will whine about that all year too.

Interesting article:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,474636,00.html

Flatbutt1 · 03-30-2007, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Don't forget that the US is holding Iranian nationals, and has been for about 3 months. At least two of them were in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi government.

Iran is understandably upset about that.

and that has what to do with the Brits?

as I asked...baitingthe US with British hostages?

cairns · 03-30-2007, 11:58 AM

Hopefully the Brits will respond the same way they did when the Falklands were invaded.

Of course Thatcher was PM then.

Turbo_pro · 03-30-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
"Butting the f*ck out" (refer to 'sovereign state' comment above) would qualify as "mitigating possible damage", IMO..........................

Suppressing the threat qualifies as Mitigating.

Butting the f*ck out, is adapting to the threat via the ostrich method.

Superman · 03-30-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by on-ramp

I think those Mexicans need some "liberating"

I do too. Their President might be the only disappointed Mexican.

And as I've said before, Mexico's got a lot of stuff we'd enjoy. Lots of oil under the ground. THOUSANDS of miles of undeveloped beaches. Really hard-working citizens. Senoritas. Tequila. Vanilla. And senoritas.

I say we leave the Iraqis with a big pile of guns to overcome their deep disappointment at our immediate withdrawl, and have the returning military guys move the fence down to where the Panama Canal is. I would be happy to oversee operations in Cancun.