US Gov't claims to have proof if Iranian atacks against US - Page 2

Pro Street · 02-12-2007, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah but we've been pussyfooting around over there for too long. We didn't do it correctly, and we still don't do it correctly, due to the politics that get in the way. We won't make the same mistake with Iran.

There was nothing to stop Bush from ordering another 350,000 troops in the surge. If you want a short escalation that pushes forcefully through Iraq that's what you'd need.

But 21,500 is a drop in the bucket, and since then there has been more violence, and already the Iraq Government is bitching that it's failing because we're going too slow.

but that's another topic for another time..

motivez · 02-12-2007, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Do you really think it's some Joe Schmohammed who's supplying the Iraqi insurgents with sophisticated bombs and weapons?

Iran's government has already been shown to support Hezbollah, and you disagree they're involved in Iraq. Come on man...

And when has Hezbollah attacked the United States? Just because we view them as a terrorist group doesn't mean they're involved in Iraq..

There's some sort of disconnect I think, this idea that all terrorists are the same with the same motivations, etc... and it's simply wrong to lump all of these extremist organizations in the same boat.

I think that there are far less restrictions and control over the ammunition that Iran has than the ammunition we have. I think that there's a difference as well between someone acting on their own accord and the Iranian government sponsoring it.

That's what we have to find out. I'm sorry, but I have no desire to jump on board a "lets go to war before we really have time to stop and think about it" like happened in Iraq.

nbiggershaft · 02-12-2007, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Are you suggesting that Iran is no threat whatsoever?

I seem to recall all the anti-Iraq war people screaming "Iran is the one we should have invaded!! NK and Iran are the true threats!!!" when we went into Iraq.

It's not surprising those same people will now take Iran's side if any action were taken against them.

This is kind of a twist of logic on the original message. Many were saying Iran and NK were the threats that the admin claimed Iraq to be. Therefor if our efforts were focused anywhere, they should be there. Thats hardly to say these people were independently begging for an invasion of Iran or NK. That comparison is only reached after the insistence on military invasion of Iraq. Hawkish members of the admin and country on Iraq decided for war, there were merely dissenters who said the war would be better placed elsewhere, on that, I agree. Focusing on Afghanistan and perhaps Iran would have served our interests best.

As to re-evaluating our current situation, of course you have to take into account the situation our military is in, our foreign capital is in, and our countries moral. You think our leader do, or even should just evaluate every military decision based on whether the enemy deserves to be attacked? Our pre-Iraq invasion capabilities are not the same as our post Iraq invasion capabilities. To ignore that would be very irresponsible.

Pro Street · 02-12-2007, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Do you really think it's some Joe Schmohammed who's supplying the Iraqi insurgents with sophisticated bombs and weapons?

Iran's government has already been shown to support Hezbollah, and you disagree they're involved in Iraq. Come on man...

we don't know who is supplying them. It would be independent smugglers. It could be Hezbollah. It could be parts of the Iranian military doing it on their own.

It's hard to draw a "direct" link as stated by the US when there is not deirect link, there are only the munitions that are Iranian.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

And when has Hezbollah attacked the United States? Just because we view them as a terrorist group doesn't mean they're involved in Iraq..

There is no disconnect. What it means is that Iran has interests beyond its borders, and they are not afraid to influence/aid certain situations in those areas? Do you believe that Iran has an interest in the outcome of the Iraq war? If you say anything else besides 'yes' you're a fool. Do you believe Iran is willing to influence that outcome? Well that's the question now isn't it?

They've already shown their capacity and willingness to help 'insurgencies' like Hezbollah. Imagining that they would help the insurgency in Iraq is not hard. That's the connection.

Again, do you believe some of those weapons are coming from Iran? Do you really believe the government is not supplying them?

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

That's what we have to find out. I'm sorry, but I have no desire to jump on board a "lets go to war before we really have time to stop and think about it" like happened in Iraq.

We 'thought' about war with Iraq for over a decade. We've been 'thinking' about war with Iran for a good three years now.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

we don't know who is supplying them. It would be independent smugglers. It could be Hezbollah. It could be parts of the Iranian military doing it on their own.

It's hard to draw a "direct" link as stated by the US when there is not deirect link, there are only the munitions that are Iranian.

Yeah I guess it could be anybody, but what's the likelihood?

Pro Street · 02-12-2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

There is no disconnect. What it means is that Iran has interests beyond its borders, and they are not afraid to influence/aid certain situations in those areas? Do you believe that Iran has an interest in the outcome of the Iraq war? If you say anything else besides 'yes' you're a fool. Do you believe Iran is willing to influence that outcome? Well that's the question now isn't it?

They've already shown their capacity and willingness to help 'insurgencies' like Hezbollah. Imagining that they would help the insurgency in Iraq is not hard. That's the connection.

Again, do you believe some of those weapons are coming from Iran? Do you really believe the government is not supplying them?

regardless there's nothing that proves it. It's easy to say, "Iran supports Hezbollah so they must be doing this" but that's jumping to conclusions.

This issue is so reminiscent of the Iraq intel it's extremely hard for me to take it with anything other than a grain of salt.

Pro Street · 02-12-2007, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah I guess it could be anybody, but what's the likelihood?

Is it worth gambling a massive regional conflict that could result in millions of deaths, and the possibility of nukes being used?

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Is it worth gambling a massive regional conflict that could result in millions of deaths, and the possibility of nukes being used?

Yes.

Pro Street · 02-12-2007, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes.

that's where we disagree

motivez · 02-12-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

There is no disconnect. What it means is that Iran has interests beyond its borders, and they are not afraid to influence/aid certain situations in those areas? Do you believe that Iran has an interest in the outcome of the Iraq war? If you say anything else besides 'yes' you're a fool. Do you believe Iran is willing to influence that outcome? Well that's the question now isn't it?

They've already shown their capacity and willingness to help 'insurgencies' like Hezbollah. Imagining that they would help the insurgency in Iraq is not hard. That's the connection.

Again, do you believe some of those weapons are coming from Iran? Do you really believe the government is not supplying them?

Of course they have an interest in the outcome. They're a border nation, that's such an obvious question that it doesn't even really merit asking.

The more legitimate question is why don't we make them a partner for a mutually beneficial outcome in Iraq?

The answer: Because we're too good to talk to our enemies according to Bush, even though that's such a stupid position that pretty much anyone with foreign policy experience discounts it, including some prominent neocons.

How is Hezbollah an insurgency? There's no comparison to what's going on with various groups in Iraq to Hezbollah. Read up on them some, the different facets of the organization interesting to learn about.

I have no idea if the weapons are coming from Iran, there's not much (if any) concrete proof yet.. and as the government has stated explicitly, they don't have a direct connection that says the Iranian government is sponsoring or supporting it.. which makes a huge difference.

When you look at the utter lack of evidence supporting the conclusion you've apparently already reached, there's no other rational answer but to say that "Who knows?"

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The more legitimate question is why don't we make them a partner for a mutually beneficial outcome in Iraq?

The answer to this is simple, but different from your answer: Because they don't want the same outcome that we do.

motivez · 02-12-2007, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes.

Based on the utter lack of evidence that links the Iranian government's official involvement (which our government readily admits)?

motivez · 02-12-2007, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The answer to this is simple, but different from your answer: Because they don't want the same outcome that we do.

They have no interest in a destabilized Iraq.

They may have a different view of what stability should look like, but that's part of diplomacy.

If the Iraqi people want to model their government after Iran's, is that not something you're willing to accept?

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If the Iraqi people want to model their government after Iran's, is that not something you're willing to accept?

Of course I'm willing to accept that. But it's clear what the people have chosen. Is it a government like Iran's? No.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Based on the utter lack of evidence that links the Iranian government's official involvement (which our government readily admits)?

Absolutely. I'm ready to go in and dethrone him right now. We should have a long time ago. He wants nukes, and he's doing everything possible to get them. We should have gone in yesterday.

motivez · 02-12-2007, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Of course I'm willing to accept that. But it's clear what the people have chosen. Is it a government like Iran's? No.

How is it clear what they've chosen? They don't even have a viable constitution or government after all this time and money.

The only indication we really have is that they turn out to vote, but people in Iran vote.

Considering the civil war going in in Iraq right now is related to religious differences, I think it's pretty clear that whatever ultimately happens is going to be different than the democracy Bush envisioned and told us about.

motivez · 02-12-2007, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Absolutely. I'm ready to go in and dethrone him right now. We should have a long time ago. He wants nukes, and he's doing everything possible to get them. We should have gone in yesterday.

That's ridiculous. It's this type of rush to judgment that got us into the situation we're in right now in Iraq.

War is not going to solve anything at this point, just like in Iraq. More interventionism in Iran (to continue our long history of interventionism in Iran) will simply radicalize another generation of Iranian's needlessly.