Silk [Judas was Framed]Apr 28, 2006 3:39:17 pm
I remember all the drum beating on here a few years back about kicking saddams ass and whatnot. It was like a new MMORPG was coming out or something.
that actually sounds more like an argument for trying diplomacy, and if it fails, try it again, and never actually doing anything beyond that.
Midas [No, the other one]Apr 28, 2006 3:41:28 pm [NT]
ThorApr 28, 2006 3:42:09 pm [NT]
QarikApr 28, 2006 3:42:13 pm [NT]
Eck (Linkin Park isa Rollah Coasta)Apr 28, 2006 3:46:55 pm
of course I'm talking about your avatar
Llotnarf [bun-length]Apr 28, 2006 3:47:03 pm
like we fucked up iraq, but iran are truly some baddies and if we invade them maybe we can put iraq behind us and feel good about ourselves again
Midas [No, the other one]Apr 28, 2006 3:49:23 pm
;)
where are you guys coming up with this stuff?
where are you guys coming up with this stuff?
Llotnarf [bun-length]Apr 28, 2006 3:53:32 pm
i do see people crying for blood--especially on this board, so dont deny that there are hawks on the iranian issue.
do you have an idea why people might be so eager to turn to a military solution so quickly? i'm just speculating here, i'm not a psychologist or a sociologist. it just seems that it's a legitimate question to ask why a country that is flailing after an unpopular war would feel like invading a neighbor.
do you have an idea why people might be so eager to turn to a military solution so quickly? i'm just speculating here, i'm not a psychologist or a sociologist. it just seems that it's a legitimate question to ask why a country that is flailing after an unpopular war would feel like invading a neighbor.
Midas [No, the other one]Apr 28, 2006 3:55:00 pm
why would so many be willing to continue to push for 'diplomacy' after three years of abject failure? is there some psychological reason behind that perhaps?
perhaps the failure of diplomacy to derive a succesful outcome, oh... *ever*? - might have some pushing for it despite any evidence or hope of success?
perhaps the failure of diplomacy to derive a succesful outcome, oh... *ever*? - might have some pushing for it despite any evidence or hope of success?
Llotnarf [bun-length]Apr 28, 2006 3:57:54 pm
that's why diplomatic solutions should always be sought before an invasion. how many iraqis did we have to kill to change their regime for them? did they have a choice when we came in and bombed them?
if that makes me psychologically sick then i guess i am sick. i just see it as sanity though.
it's easy to call for invasions when we are so far away and when it is the local peeps who are going to bear the brunt of the casualties.
if that makes me psychologically sick then i guess i am sick. i just see it as sanity though.
it's easy to call for invasions when we are so far away and when it is the local peeps who are going to bear the brunt of the casualties.
Eck (Linkin Park isa Rollah Coasta)Apr 28, 2006 4:02:01 pm [NT]
Midas [No, the other one]Apr 28, 2006 4:02:39 pm
which is a valid position to take, i just disagree greatly.
the prospect of a nuclear armed iran and what will likely result is a far more horrific and sickening thought than the likely casualties that would occur from military action.
imo.
the prospect of a nuclear armed iran and what will likely result is a far more horrific and sickening thought than the likely casualties that would occur from military action.
imo.
Llotnarf [bun-length]Apr 28, 2006 4:07:05 pm
look at what happened in iraq.
people on this very board were saying we can't wait any longer for the UN or runarounds with inspections and we should invade.
and in retrospect, it turned out to be the wrong thing to do. the reason it was taking so damn long to find WOMDs was that there werent' any to find. but we believed there were and that was that. we said we've had it with diplomacy, enough is enough, and now look where it got us. another month or two and we might have come up with a better solution. who knows? we didnt choose that path.
i agree that a nuclear armed iran is a bad thing. but i honestly believe that realistically we already lost that battle. there is no practical way that we can prevent them and simultaneously serve our greater national interests (in other words, the fallout/blow back of invading iran would be worse than learning to live with an iranian nuclear power). just my opinion.
people on this very board were saying we can't wait any longer for the UN or runarounds with inspections and we should invade.
and in retrospect, it turned out to be the wrong thing to do. the reason it was taking so damn long to find WOMDs was that there werent' any to find. but we believed there were and that was that. we said we've had it with diplomacy, enough is enough, and now look where it got us. another month or two and we might have come up with a better solution. who knows? we didnt choose that path.
i agree that a nuclear armed iran is a bad thing. but i honestly believe that realistically we already lost that battle. there is no practical way that we can prevent them and simultaneously serve our greater national interests (in other words, the fallout/blow back of invading iran would be worse than learning to live with an iranian nuclear power). just my opinion.
Midas [No, the other one]Apr 28, 2006 4:15:50 pm
even if someone were to stipulate that iraq was a complete mistake - why and how does that factor into the right decision about what to do with Iran?
the right thing to do is the right thing to do, without consideration of mistakes that might have been made in the past, no?
the right thing to do is the right thing to do, without consideration of mistakes that might have been made in the past, no?
Llotnarf [bun-length]Apr 28, 2006 4:22:46 pm
if we are overextended and by all serious estimates an iranian invasion would require even more of an investment than we had in iraq, you cannot ignore the fact that we are mired in iraq.
sure, ideally, it would be nice if we didnt have to consider these things when we started considering a completely separate war. but we do have to consider these things. we have to look at the question of how effective we could hope to be in a war like this (the UK has already backed out so it's not even like we could count on them).
i believe that we simply do not have the proper capacity to carry out a successful invasion and regime change in Iran (and anything short of a regime change would not solve the "nuclear problem"--it would only mean a delay and then a more secretive program that would be harder for us to deal with)
sure, ideally, it would be nice if we didnt have to consider these things when we started considering a completely separate war. but we do have to consider these things. we have to look at the question of how effective we could hope to be in a war like this (the UK has already backed out so it's not even like we could count on them).
i believe that we simply do not have the proper capacity to carry out a successful invasion and regime change in Iran (and anything short of a regime change would not solve the "nuclear problem"--it would only mean a delay and then a more secretive program that would be harder for us to deal with)
Midas [No, the other one]Apr 28, 2006 4:29:48 pm [NT]
Llotnarf [bun-length]Apr 28, 2006 4:55:10 pm
i do believe "the lesson of iraq" should be considered especially when we are considering the "how much diplomacy" question (because i feel we rushed in last time and i dont want to see that happen again).
you're right, though. this is a different situation, not totally parallel.
my last paragraph in that post was meant to convey that as a result of these earlier mistakes, we find ourselves in an unwinnable situation where i dont think, realistically, military intervention is no longer a plausible option.
you're right, though. this is a different situation, not totally parallel.
my last paragraph in that post was meant to convey that as a result of these earlier mistakes, we find ourselves in an unwinnable situation where i dont think, realistically, military intervention is no longer a plausible option.
ThorApr 28, 2006 3:50:39 pm [NT]
Trinidad TobagoApr 28, 2006 3:54:50 pm
[oops i said surrender. wonder how long before the france joke shows up.]
Teh USApr 28, 2006 3:55:32 pm [NT]
DubyaApr 28, 2006 3:56:44 pm [NT]
Editorial NoteApr 28, 2006 3:58:24 pm [NT]
Post Reply