Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I think we will see reductions in the number of personell stationed in Iraq, and rather soon.

We're gonna need 'em in Iran.

Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
We're not going to Iran.
Look at just a few things that occured prior to going into Iraq in 2003.
17 U.N. resolutisons passed.
A 15-0 Security Council vote
U.N. inspectors being harrassed , kicked out of country.
A U.N. Food for Oil scam which completely undermined the entire U.N. process to reel in Iraq..
Iraqi military targeting US/British war plans patroling the no fly zone. A clear violation of the cease fire agreement.
Attempted assasination of a United States President ( George 41 ) in Kuwait by Saddam back agents.

To date, nothing Iran has done comes anywhere remotely near what lead up to the war in Iraq. Even if its found that Iran is sending arms/supplies to the terrorist in Iraq ( like we don't know that ) that still does not constitute going to war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
This has been the plan from day 1 really. Regime change, organise a new friendly government, train them up and then get out of there (maybe barring the occasional military base, if possible).

They just didn't have any details for that plan though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
To date, nothing Iran has done comes anywhere remotely near what led up to the war in Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
To date, nothing Iran has done comes anywhere remotely near what led up to the war in Iraq.

---

Please don't make me come up with a LIST of places that have done nothing near to what Iraq did prior to the invasion that we went into (and ed up) anyway.

Incredulous Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

We're not going to Iran.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

We're not going to Iran.

---

Never say never. While I doubt the ability of the US to invade Iran in a similar fashion to our actions in Iraq, I doubt we would hesitate to make every effort to take the fight to them if the situation warranted it.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
To date, nothing Iran has done comes anywhere remotely near what led up to the war in Iraq.

---

Please don't make me come up with a LIST of places that have done nothing near to what Iraq did prior to the invasion that we went into (and ed up) anyway.

Incredulous Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

2. the original quote from Gen. Casey also says,
" AFTER the elections"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
As long as sanity remains, NOONE will ever use a nuke again.

---

Quote:

---

All I see nukes as, are tools for keeping your hineys safe from other folks with nukes. Nothing but deterrents.

---

Quote:

---

Also I would bet my life on the fact that Iran would NEVER sell nukes to an extremist group.

---

Quote:

---

The days of non-proliferation are over.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

2. the original quote from Gen. Casey also says,
" AFTER the elections"

---

Point being?

Sounds like a campaign promise to me. Ya know-- Re-elect one ot us-- a good neo-con Republican, maybe another Bush-- and we'll wrap up the war real quick. But then we'll be in the White House for 4 more years.

right up there with we know where those WMDs are, Iraqis will throw flowers at the troops, Mission Accomplished, gotta fight those terrorists there or we'll have to fight 'em here

" This is why we lost, you know... Superior numbers."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

2. the original quote from Gen. Casey also says,
" AFTER the elections"

---

Point being?

And to be honest and nitpick myself, the original quote sez " after the election". Not sure if that changes the meaning of what he said, but if I'm gonna quote him, I gotta get it right.

NewOld
"this is why we lost, you know... Superior numbers."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

I thought you liberals disliked the whole Mutual Assurred Destruction idea. I agree in prinicipal, especially in the political dynamic practiced between East and West, but the Iranians have spent a generation practicing their own dynamic, one that breeds a different set of foundational assumptions. While the Iranian people would likely agree with our traditional view of MAD, the people aren't the ones in charge. The Mullahs proceed from a foundational value of destroying Isreal, gathering power, and seizing control of the worlds oil and muslim Holy places. Iranian nukes would serve those ends rather then the more sensible ones you describe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Wow..so I'm a "Liberal" now because I stated an opinion that differs from the norm on this board. LOL OKies. Whatever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
I'm sure Signym and a few others would disagree of your assessment of me LOL.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Wow..so I'm a "Liberal" now because I stated an opinion that differs from the norm on this board. LOL OKies. Whatever.

---

It's called guilt by association. By disagreeing with Hero, he sees you as part of the "them" that opposes his "us."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
I'm sure Signym and a few others would disagree of your assessment of me LOL.

---

Most of us have differing views, yet orbit a central idea.
Hero is out there, like a comet.

---