Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Do You Support WAR with IRAN?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 15, 2012, 1:53 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It's weird how many people support going to war with Iran even though,

1: THEY ARE NOT BUILDING A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

2: THEY HAVE NO WAY OF ATTACKING THE USA.

Don't fall for the same Bush era propaganda that started the fraud war in Iraq. Say no to dead US soldiers. Say no to dead innocent civilians. Tell Obama you don't want anymore "dumb wars."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Not only is Iran not building a nuclear weapon, but they don't even have one. How fucking stupid is starting a war over this? At least with Iraq they lied and said Iraq already had some. But now the lie is that they're building one? Fuck the national media and fuck Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich in the republican debates for propagandizing people with lies.

This was from a post on here I read earlier. This guy summed up the previous years of war, ‎"We have wounded our soldiers with multiple tours in unnecessary wars. Our mission ended with Bin Laden's death. We could have gotten him years ago, if Bush didn't start the Iraq war." [Even after Bin Laden's death, Obama is continuing the Bush war legacy.] "Without the lies, trillions could have been saved, Thousands of soldiers' lives would not have been lost, 70,000 soldiers wouldn't be maimed, 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians would be alive. Now tens of thousands of damaged veterans must be cared for, for life, which we must do, costing billions." [All due to wars based on lies profiting the Military Industrial Complex and building an oil empire, instead of just cause and self defense.]

Anyone who thinks Obama isn't just going to be 8 years of war like GWB is a dumb ass.

4 more years of Bush's war on terror - Obama 2012

4 more years of Bush's war on terror - Romney 2012

82 Comments

82 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Take all the people who advocate war, gather them in one place, provide them with every weapon, and let them annihilate themselves.

[-] 4 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

No more U.S. blood for Israeli wars!

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Sounds like a plan that I could sign onto.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (18142) 5 months ago

''Military Metaphysics : How Militarism Mangles the Mind'', by Chris Hedges :

Further to the great article by Chris Hedges, see my comments, links & points @ 'PeaceNow' below.

ipsa scientia potestas est ...

[-] 1 points by grapes (2774) 5 months ago

How do you know for sure that tomorrow may not bring the news of an Iranian nuclear weapon test? Iran is located in a very factious region ridden with violence, centuries-old hatred, religious fanaticism, tribal conflicts, and most glaringly obvious of all in a neighborhood that owns the most significant reserve of hydrocarbons in the whole world. It is a powder keg there. I stand totally transfixed by the horrendous mess should a spark come.

The U.S. is damned if it does not try to stabilize the powder keg by sitting our fat ass on it. Rightly, the U.S. is damned for suffocating the gremlins inside the powder keg. The U.S. is damned to leave the keg open to let the gremlins escape to plague the world. The U.S. is damned for not sitting there protecting it against the smokers all around it. Damn, damn, damn, damn - we have a lot of LOSERs!

Even if the U.S. really wants to wash its hands clean and walk away, the global economic linkages will make other countries, if not the U.S., to intervene. Look at the festering mess in Syria for example. There are people who clamored for the U.S. to get involved and others who want the U.S. to stay away observing national sovereignty. It seems to me that the world without the U.S. does not know how or simply does not want to gang up on the offenders of decency. Bosnia was in Europe's backyard but why did the human miseries there have to wait for the U.S. to stop? Where is China's navy defending the open passage of oil at the Strait of Hormuz? How about other countries' navies, too? They use that oil.

[-] 7 points by shadz66 (18142) 5 months ago

Don't let MSM paranoia and propaganda vex you. Iran is a very old country and much more stable than it's neighbours with an ancient civilisation and a 'written culture' going back many thousands of years and consider - that no country in the world is as surrounded by avowed enemies as Iran is right now.

You should really ask yourself from where does the threat really come and try to remember where US meddling has gotten both Iran and The US [Google 'Kermit Rooseveldt' &/or 'Operation Ajax' and take it from there]. Furthermore, don't kid yourself about 'humanitarian interventions' as 'Real Politik' rules the day and finally, please coolly consider and calmly cogitate the following :

You may also consider scrolling down and very briefly perusing my points & links to 'PeaceNow' just a li'l way further down this thread. The real nexus of concern in the region, imo comes from the fact that - Langley, Herzliya and Riyadh are cooking up ONE HUGE SHIT SANDWICH for us all and - there's NO GETTING OUT of .. everyone else taking a bite too !!!

See if you can entertain a perspective that doesn't have the US 1%'s 'National Security' at the centre of the world and realise, that other countries have 'National Security' issues too and US destabilisation for an Imperial, Corporate MIC Hegemony - is pretty damn scary for other people. You never know, such a glance askance could be both liberating and educative and realise that as before, 'WMD' are touted but are really li'l more than 'Words of Mass Deception' !!

e tenebris. lux ...

[-] 4 points by northernlights (14) 5 months ago

Morals should have no boundaries. When you understand and reject the realpolitik of the past, and present which seeks hegemony, and which goes against what we have been taught in school, and is reinforced by our leaders today, you will become a citizen of the World.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (18142) 5 months ago

Yes, ''realpolitik'' is indeed the ogre to be identified and slain. Further to your thoughtful comment, I append and recommend :

fiat pax ...

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

How do you know for sure that tomorrow may not bring the news of an Iranian nuclear weapon test?

who cares

there must be a billion ways to die

no country but the US used nukes

and they used 'em twice

and we still out bomb everybody

we beat the terrorist in pounds of explosive

how do you like them fire works

fear and obey us policy

talk about psycho nation

[-] 2 points by grapes (2774) 5 months ago

The U.S. has the biggest and fattest mother-of-golly ass of all but how can we suck it back without leaving a power vacuum that sucks in fighters for power creating human miseries galore? Look at Iraq's mess. Look at Somalia.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2774) 5 months ago

The nuclear curse will be upon many countries in that region soon should there be an Iranian nuclear test. There is the mathematical formula for the number of bilateral relations among N nations: N×(N-1)/2. It scales quadratically with N.

If each of the N countries possesses nuclear weapons, the probability of a nuclear war scales up as SQUARE of the number of countries, not to mention terrorists getting hold of the nuclear weapons. That means many millions of people will be destined to die in a nuclear war. Even if the non-belligerent countries would be hurt greatly by the sky-high crude oil prices. Economies would be destabilized to create miseries galore. I DON'T want that!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

so 0 since 45

0 X 10^fear monger = 0

[-] 1 points by grapes (2774) 5 months ago

Do you actually know how MANY times we have come to the brink of nuclear war between just two countries, the U.S. and the former Soviet Union? If that were scaled up, at least tens of millions of us would be destined for incineration and hundred of millions or more would suffer from the awful aftermath. It would be unacceptable, to put it mildly.

[-] 5 points by PeaceNow (84) 2 years ago

That's IT? That's all this post gets? 4 comments. This is imminent. Wake up!! You should be screaming from the rooftops with this one.

[-] 3 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yes! The US/ European embargo (and that's what it is) is an act of war against Iran.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I doubt they are very close to a nuclear weapon but I am sure they are trying.

Our nation needs oil to function. Right now and for the foreseeable future we cannot go without it without also greatly scarifying our standard of living, That being said, the rest of the industrialized world needs it too. If Iran does something to severely disrupt the world's supply of oil, I would have no problem with a UN sanctioned campaign against them.

The US would not act unilaterally on Iran like they basically did against Iraq back in 2003. It would be more similar to the first Gulf War in 1991 which was obviously enormously efficient and successful.

[+] -4 points by shadz66 (18142) 2 years ago

Re. Iran : Some hard facts may bring some 'Light' to matters, rather than all the unpleasant 'Heat' being generated by the constant fear and loathing :

a) Iran has The World's 3rd Largest known 'Total' & 2nd Largest 'Liquid' Oil Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iran ,

b) Iran has The Worlds 2nd Largest known Gas Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_reserves_in_Iran

c) Further consider and cogitate upon the fact that in Feb. 2008, Iran opened a Hydro-Carbon Bourse at The Kish Mercantile Exchange (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm and also http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28646.htm ) - trading in a basket of currencies, including Euros, Roubles, Yuan and Iranian Rial BUT NOT in U$ Dollar$ and thereby challenging both Reserve Currency, Dollar "HegeMoney" as well as the Monopoly of the existing Oil and Petroleum Bourses.

d) The Iranian Central Bank is State Controlled & Entirely Government Owned and NOT Privately Owned [ http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2011/12/15/senate-passes-sanctions-on-irans-central-bank/?mod=google_news_blog & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran ] . Thus do 'a-d' here actually constitute the Real "Casus Belli" ?!

e) The same NeoCon, Neo-Colonial, Paleo-Imperial WARMONGERS who loudly beat the drums for The Unconscionable, Illegal & Immoral WAR on Iraq (where The Only "WMD" = Words of Mass Deception !!) are now beating the Drums of War and this time Iran is in the Imperial crosshairs. Pls. Research PNAC (eg http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC etc.)

~*~

Please also see the film, "WHY WE FIGHT ; What are the forces that shape and propel American militarism ?" : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8494.htm .

Further, towards a rational discourse about Iran - please also consider watching the following Videos :

i) "I i N t P" : http://www.iranisnottheproblem.org/ & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XcJZdFsCVM ;

ii) "Inside Iran : Rick Steves' Travel Journal, The Most fascinating and surprising land I've ever visited." ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30062.htm

iii) Finally, for deeper insights re. 'Iran & Jews' please see :

fiat lux et fiat pax ...

[+] -4 points by shadz66 (18142) 2 years ago

Further to the above, please read, calmly consider and cogitate upon the following Articles :

fiat pax ...

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

I'm the guy you're quoting. You're right on all counts but the Israeli lobby is applying heavy pressure for war too. In fact, we probably wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq if the Israeli lobby weren't so powerful.

[-] 3 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

The war againist Iraq was a war crime, General Kietl head the the German army in WW II was executed for waging a war of aggression.

The USA has already declared war on Iran, by destroying its economic base.

It will be a war of aggression against Iran and the victors do not get convicted or charged with war crimes.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

War with Iran is sheer idiocy, but it's as much them as it is us. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is basically a theocratic quasi-dictator surrounded by a mix of mullahs and thugs who's busy rattling his saber at Israel to distract the populace from the manner in which he took power. Even if he isn't pushing for a nuclear weapon, at the very least he's posturing in such a manner as to indicate that he is so that he can be big and bad and try to drown out critics with testosterone-laced patriotism.

Why? Basically, the Arab Spring almost got underway in Iran two years early in 2009, when Ahmedinejad lost the presidential election to a moderate reformer named Mir Hussein Mousavi. Rather than accept the loss, he instead chose to rewrite the election results and declare himself the victor. The Iranian people were not happy with this, and they hit the streets in numbers reminiscent of the protests in Tahrir Square to complain. Unlike Mubarak, Ahmedinejad was able to crack down hard enough to drive Mousavi underground and hold power, but it left an incredibly bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.

At this point, Iran is splitting apart between old guard conservatives, and a younger, more cosmopolitan generation that's more inclined toward moderation and a certain degree of secularism (and that really doesn't bode well for Ahmedinejad). The fastest and easiest way he sees to resolve the split in his favor is to unite the people around a common enemy (that's pretty much universally true; just look how fast we all rallied around Bush II after 9/11) and to that end he's spoiling for a fight with Israel and the Western world in general.

Ahmedinejad wants the current standoff to blow up just as badly as Netanyahu does, and for roughly the same reasons (Netanyahu's not a dictator but he's hard-right and militant enough that even Meir Dagan, who spent nearly a decade running Mossad, considers him a belligerent idiot and wants Israel to stop needlessly antagonizing the rest of the Western world) and I don't see them backing off anytime soon. I also don't necessarily agree with appeasing Iran either, because in a situation like this I can't see Ahmedinejad stopping anytime soon (stopping would mean that he'd have to face Iran's internal issues and I can't see that working out well for him). The way I see it, this is basically the US getting dragged into a regional pissing contest, and at this point, all we can really do is hope that we don't wind up with a second Cuban missile crisis on our hands.

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ARod1993...A war with the US would certanly end in a regime change in Iran, and they know this. hence no insentive to start a war.

A war by the US with Iran, aside from being ilegal, would be disastrous for the world.

Most likely triggering a world wide depression, with the associated wars and riots along with regime changes in some countries.

Something I would hope the US does not want.

Iran poses no national security threat to the US.

It does pose a threat to Israel's domination of the middle east.

Should the US be Israel's lap dog?, it would not suffer as much as the rest of the world in a global depression.

The unconditional support of Israel is a product of the christian right republicans. This needs to be reevaluated, and the rights of the other peoples in the middle east need to be respected.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

This is true only if we believe what the media is saying.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I understand that

despite the embargoes by the US and parts of Europe on Iran

Iran's budget is still in the green

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@MattLHolck....Your looking at old data on Iran.

A new U.S. law signed by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve would freeze out of the U.S. financial system any institution dealing with Iran's central bank - which processes its oil revenues.

If fully applied, the law would make it impossible for most countries to buy Iranian oil.

The Iranian economy is heavily dependent on the lucrative oil and gas sector. But the vagueries of the oil markets and Iran’s reliance on a single resource for most of its income has created disincentives to develop a more diversified and globally integrated economy. Consequently, the sector has been a source of periodic but persistent economic instablity.

[-] 1 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 2 years ago

And everyone who does not have to do this is on wavers until noted otherwise.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@4TheHumanSociety...I'm sure you actually believe that, your a complete idiot.

[-] 1 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 2 years ago

I wish people would give me reasons to why I may be wrong. I really do not learn anything from name calling. I have no interest in your opinion, only facts.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@4TheHumanSociety...Sometimes a statement is so off the wall that facts just won't really answer the post.

Here is the reason I called you an idiot, the sanctions are designed to force Iran to fight for its national survival.

Exceptions are for countries that not importing Iranian crude oil would pose a hardship, you where saying that every county would be exempted, that is a invalid assumption, that I think you stated because you had no reasonable explanation as to why the US would force Iran into a conflict.

[-] 1 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 2 years ago

Well I meant the opposite. I should of cleared my statement. I apologize for not making more sense.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Good to know this has not happened yet.

Didn't happen in '79. Didn't happen in '80. Didn't happen in '81. Didn't happen in '84. Didn't happen in '88. Didn't happen in '92. Didn't happen in '96. Didn't happen in '01. Didn't happen in '02. Didn't happen in '03. Didn't happen in '04. Didn't happen in '05. Didn't happen in '07. Didn't happen in '08. Didn't happen in '09. Didn't happen in '11.

This must be the right moment, right?

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JamesS89118...what are you talking about and to whom.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Hi chuck1al :) ty for the ?

As a mere consumer of politics, and not a player, I been sold, seemingly weekly, that 'sanctions' can cow the worst countries in the world into submission.

Subsequently, each 'Axis-of-Evil du jour' country gets maybe an annual campaign to talk up sanctions against.

My point was; How could there be any sanctions LEFT to impose on Iran? Seriously!?! We imposed sanctions in '79 after the hostage taking, right? But NOT ALL SANCTIONS? How does that work?

Level 1 sanctions; no more comic books? Level 2 sanctions; no more cooking tips? Level 119 sanctions; no more replacement hub caps?

Why is it after '79 there is anything left to sanction?

Sanctions are the political gift that never stops giving?

:) Peace

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JamesS89118...The sanctions against the Central bank of Iran, will provoke a war.

That's the final sanction you where missing and oblivious to.

I'll explain it to you so I won't need to post again.

The US has imposed a sanction against the Central Bank of Iran. This means that any Country doing business with the Iranians will not have access to the US Central bank.

If Countries cannot trade or do business with the US their economy's will collapse.

The Iranians get 85% of their revenues from selling oil, payments are process through the Central Bank of Iran.

This means Iran will not be able to sell oil, which means the economy of Iran will be no more. The Country will cease to exist as no money means no imports etc.

The leaders of Iran will go to war over this, like the Japanese did in 1941.

The war could lead to a clash between NATO, US, India and Israel against Iran, China and Russia.

At best it will mean a world wide depression and the associated wars and regime changes and anarchy through out Europe, the middle east and most likely the US.

So if your still so gung ho to have a war with Iran, who isn't a national security threat to the US but is a threat to Israel's domination of the middle east, go for it.

We will just be Israels lap dog and they won't suffer as much as us.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

not much for free trade is the government

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@MattLHolck...Huh.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

(let me collapse a few statements above me)

not much for free trade is the government

with trade embargoes on Iran

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@MattLHolck...That's not the intent of the embargoes, they are in place to force a sovereign nation to bend to our will.(Iran)

[-] 2 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

No.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I agree with you, our prospects look dim, no matter who is president. That's why we're doing this. Like Vietnam, we have to build the public outcry so loud that these AH's have no choice but to listen to the people not only this issue, but on a host of other ones as well. This will not be easy as it will require a lot of dedication and sacrifice on our part.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

We were railroaded into the Iraq War by the Bushwacker.

War historically has damaged the American Economy. They are to be avoided like the plague. We need to cut the crap and look after Americans instead of invading and occupying foreign lands.

I have news, Bush was a WMD.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Bush was a WMD and so is Obama

16 years of war Bush/Obama 2000 - 2016, if Obama wins again of course. Otherwise Romney will just continue the legacy.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

I see Bush much differently then I see Obama. I don't buy that they are essentially the same. No deal.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

When you consider the wars since Obama has been elected, in that matter they are the same. Other than that, they are different. Halliburton is still loving it. All the oil companies remaining in Iraq are loving it. All that fraudulent shit is still happening. Innocent people are dying all the time. All that shit.

Obama 2012 - Another 4 years of Bush's war legacy.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

How many mercenary soldiers and other private cintractors have been left in Iraq? Does anyone know?

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

IIRC, the number is 16,000, with about 400 troops.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

That might be available. The week we were "pulling out" some talked honestly about the number that would be employed by the State Department alone. Maybe 5,000? I really don't remember but it's in Salon or one of those. It had to have been more though, and that is fully armored Mercs I'm typing about.

[-] 2 points by Thrive (29) 2 years ago

"U.S. General Wesley Clark." This is a post from another thread but fits here as well. This is a respected individual who tells of the fore-planned agenda and for no other reason than nation building. This hasn't seen a single headline in the mainstream media.

U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

All just more proof that Obama is continuing the Bush was legacy. Libya has been taken out. Sanctions have been put on Sudan. Intervention in Syria is being talked about and I'm sure the CIA has something planned or going on already. I was surprised Yemen and Pakistan weren't on the list considering how many times we've drone striked those nations. I don't know much about lebanon though. Anyone got any info to share about Lebanon?

Also the 5 year marker was a little over zealous. It'll be at least 16 years.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Taking out seven countries in five years, with the goal being to maintain our empire well into the 21'st century. Trouble is, we haven't been able to get past Iraq and Afghanistan, showing the world our weakness rather than our strength, and we are bankrupting ourselves in the process. All this mimicing the way other empires fell by overextending themselves.

[-] 2 points by Thrive (29) 2 years ago

Yes, megalomaniacs usually only ever leave their power mongering and nation takeover posts by being carried out kicking and screaming. They won't go down easy.

[-] 1 points by ConstitutionalVoter (8) from Monroe Township, NJ 2 years ago

The same regime that made agreements with Nazi Germany are still in power in iran. They still promise their goal is to destroy American allies. For over 10 yrs they refuse UN inpection of their nuke facilities. msnbc just reported days ago that the fuel rods they are refining are far too pure for nuclear power. Is the world deaf to what they have promised? Or did the media just not get the word out. Oh, wait. They said it was for peaceful purposes. Its okay. We can take them for their honesty.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

The feds are just trying to keep feeding the military industrial complex in some insane attempt to stimulate the economy; has nothing to do with anything Iran is doing.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

No I do not like the dry heat. I do not like a country that you can not find a bar . I do not like a country who's woman are covered from head to toe. And it is impossible to find a good pork BBQ.So no not on my list to invade.

[-] 1 points by energy99 (16) 2 years ago

No country that has nuclear weapons has the right to tell another they can't have one, especially a country that used nuclear weapons against people. Iran having nuclear weapons is necessary to keep Israel in check and stop zionist land grabs in the middle east.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I agree, so what if we could have Israel give up its nuclear weapons so that Iran would not have the need for them either.

[-] 1 points by energy99 (16) 2 years ago

No country that has nuclear weapons has the right to tell another they can't have one, especially a country that used nuclear weapons against people. Iran having nuclear weapons is necessary to keep Israel in check and stop zionist land grabs in the middle east.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Well, they probably are trying to build a weapon, and I'm quite sure Obama would never try something like a land invasion of Iran. That said, NO, in my opinion we only fight as a last option (and it's hard for me to imagine how Iran could ever put us in a "last option" situation).

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

There is ZERO evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Iran is part of the plan. Iran is the final prize for the Military Industrial Complex. I find it odd that so many troops are just waiting in Kuwait if there isn't going to be a war with Iran. I don't think it's an IF situation, just a when. Whether it will be a full out war like Iraq, or just an "operation" like they called the war with Libya is the second question.

[-] 1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Odumba will not support war with Iran. Remember the fraudulent Iranian elections of '09? Obama said every country must determine for themselves what their direction will be, and refused to offer any support for the protesters. Obama loves Ahmadinajab. He also bombed Libya, and murdered ghaddaffy.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Iran is the final part of the plan. The plan that started many years ago back during the Bush administration. I think if a war with Iran starts, it will be several months after the election so Obama doesn't continue to alienate his base before election, or once Romney wins, if he were to win.

[-] 1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Trevor dude, it goes back to Jimmy Carter, and the Islamic revolution. Even before that with us propping up the Shah.

[-] 1 points by nachosrulz (63) from Eureka, CA 2 years ago

what about kim jong song or what evr that f***er displays nukes in parades and publicly shuns the u.s go after this dude!!

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yes that is very true. Kim Jong Un, i believe is his name. But since they don't pose an actual threat, and don't have a way of attacking us, we will not go to war with them. They don't have all that oil like Iran does.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

With respect TrevorMnemonic, only your last sentence carries any weight. The rest spells o.p.p.o.r.t.u.n.i.t.y. :(

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 2 years ago

I raised my child , whereas ; "When the brain stops working , the fists come up" !

CHILDREN BEHAVE !!!

Are we that , NOT SMART ?

[-] 1 points by Riley2011 (110) from New Britain, CT 2 years ago

I believe that it would, once again, take the focus off of what is happening in our country...If we do this....we will be destroyed economically. Togo to war with Iran is economic suicide. Who benefits? A few companies....

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by deng123 (7) 2 years ago

Iran has a reactionary regime, but FUCK NO.

[-] 3 points by PeaceNow (84) 2 years ago

I think they've reacted with incredible patience. Life altering sanctions for over 8 years, constant threats, endless propaganda, yet no retaliation from Iran. That's honorable! I don't think many Americans have a clue about the real Iran, just like we never had a clue about Libya either. It doesn't take very long to look up the info either, yet they'll say, "Ya nuke 'em! Its embarrassing how un-knowledgable North America is about anything across the ocean. Yeah, mainstream media has been collusive in the dumbing down of Americans, but my god....what does it take to search any number of the hundreds of alternate news sites. People are on the net anyway, why not ten minutes a day on a news site to open up the mind a little?

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Yeah, the corporate owned news media is becoming irrelevant with more and more Americans. I still look at it, but I am continually critiqing it at the same time. Even PBS is going down the tubes where I saw them talking about the NDAA law. They talked about everything except people's concern about the chilling effect it had on people's civil liberties. I could not believe that.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

They didn't retaliate our of self preservation. An attack on us or any of our allies would have meant the complete destruction of their country. We have the military might to easily destroy them. Make no mistake they hate us and they hate Jews even more. Don't make them out to be honorable men. When in truth they don't fight because they know they would get beat.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@America921...From your post I couldn't tell if you for or aganist the US going to war with Iran.

You said they where acting in their self interests by not provoking the US, yet the US keeps provoking Iran, looking for an excuse to attack a country that has not declared itself as a threat to US national security.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

I'm against going to war, unless they do something very stupid.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@America921...I agree.

[+] -5 points by shadz66 (18142) 2 years ago

Q : "what does it take to search any number of the hundreds of alternate news sites ?"

A : Curiousity ; Inclination ; Motivation etc. !!

My own personal favourite "alternate news site" = http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ .

pax et lux ...

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I think we should stand by until Iran does something that would cause "an act of war" -

Then Nuke them and turn a large portion of that country into glass.

Once completed, go in and take over their oil supplies and if anyone gets in the way - kill them - just like we did during wwII without any ill thought of shooting people in the back or droping bombs on cities.

We have los the "American spirit to survive" - it's gone and unless thing changes America won't be around for very long.

[-] -3 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Iran has the capabilities to be build nuclear weapons. Luckily most of their Nuclear Scientists have been dying from explosions and other unfortunate events over the past 5 years. But your right Iran has no capabilities to attack us. They probably will go to war with Israel which would not be good, but does not call for our intervention, unless they start losing but highly unlikely that will happen. The only damage Iran could do is cripple our Mediterranean Fleet by taking out our carrier and some escort ships, which is totally possible but it would also mean the destruction of their fleet at the same time.

[-] 2 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Right... "unfortunate events"... but personally as long as our war is limited to these unfortunate events... I think I can live with that... no more boots on the ground...

[+] -4 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

No war, just kill their leadership (the mullajs and Mamoud Imadinnerjacket) then let the Iranians sort out the rest.