Well before that I was against war on Iran, but now IDK.

What part of duhhhhhh doesn't anybody understand? If we start another "war" why would it be in our best interest?

War with Iran is in Israel's best interest for America.

Sanctions placed on Iran have already lowered the quality of life for Iranian citizens considerably, but has little effect on the ruling class. They use the actions of America and our allies to fuel their citizens anger.

I think a reverse strategy on Iran would work wonders. Give to the so their citizens lose their anger towards America. Then their government would be left with nothing to throw.

"War With Iran not in US interest"

No kidding.

Brzezinski strikes me as a Long Game thinker.
#6 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

~ hey, wait a minute there Doc, what kinda scam r u trying to run here?

Israel gets what Israel wants thanks to the pussies in Washington that will not stand up to them. This time will be no different.

If we start another "war" why would it be in our best interest?

#2 | Posted by coyote

somebody has to make the weapons and machines of war. it's very profitable too, and it keeps us from being overrun by (fill in the blank) (terrorist, communists, nazis, jews, baptists, muslims, mormons, godless homosexuals, liberals, etc....)

do you really think this decision is up to fools in washington?

"I don't understand how anyone can seriously argue that this is in the American interest."

That statement reminds me of when George Bush said he wasn't a fan of nation building, but the first chance he got.....

There is probably no situation where a ground war with Iran makes sense but Iran seems intent on creating a situation where bombing them does.

"And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy.""

The guy that wrote that song has endorsed the only candidate R or D that thinks war with Iran is a bad idea.

#12 | POSTED BY SULLY

Well said. We'll know when they're planning on making their move when they start sending buses loaded with little kids to "attend school" in buildings next to fixed-site missile launchers. If you're going to get an ass-whuppin', you may as well try to get some propaganda value from it.

...Iran seems intent on creating a situation where bombing them does.

#12 | POSTED BY SULLY

How is "Iran seems intent on creating a situation where bombing them does."?

Have they moved battle ships off the coast of Israel or America? Have they openly been talking, pressuring, Russia or China about attacking Israel?

Oh that's right, they chant hate rhetoric.

They are totally asking to get bombed.

Why would Iran attack Israel?

How is "Iran seems intent on creating a situation where bombing them does."?

By threatening US ships in international waters. If they follow through on the threats, we have to respond in kind.

Any more questions that indicate you are unqualified to discuss this rationally?

Their ships aren't the only ones sitting there threatening people.

Years since US last attacked anyone: 0
Years since Iran last attached anyone: 2500

Who's threatening whom?

"Brzezinski: War with Iran Terrible Idea"

Ya Think????

"Years since Iran last attached anyone: 2500"

The is only believable if you are willing to play along with their game of Hezbollah and others being independent operators rather than proxies.

Willful ignorance is hardly impressive.

Ten years of war; we have lived through ten years of war. It started with two countries, but we have seen hostilities increased to at least six: Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Uganda. We have seen the death of a US citizen ordered by the President of the United States and carried out in a foreign land. We have become blind to these acts as we tell ourselves "no US causalities" to justify our acts. Since when does your chance of being hurt define an act as right or wrong? Based on that logic, I can punch babies because there is no chance of them hurting me.

To the people of the other nations, it doesn't matter much if it was an American soldier or an American drone that killed your family by mistake; all that matters is that your family is dead because of America. That does not increase our security. Would it be OK with us if Iran sent a drone into New York to attack an Iranian they felt was a traitor to their country? Then why can we do it in Yemen? You can't swing a mace and then condemn someone for blocking and swinging back. That is not America as I grew up.

We need to seriously pull the brakes on this war wagon America is hitched to. There is nothing to be found in Syria or Iran other than death and pointless expense.

Reelect nobody who voted for war; any war.

Willful ignorance is hardly impressive.

#21 | Posted by Sully at 2012-02-16 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

And it is not willfully ignorant to think that bombing the shit out of Iran's innocent citizens is a good idea?

As is we are starving them to death with sanctions, perhaps it would be more humane just to kill them with bombs instead.

Totally with ya on that one Sully, why starve them when we could bomb them instead?

Reelect nobody who voted for war; any war.

#22 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-02-16 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who would be left to vote for?

Who would be left to vote for?

#24 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD at 2012-02-16 01:41 PM |

Those running against.

Kanrei - I agree with you in general but if Iran follows through on their threats against US ships then we have to respond. We can't take an absolute "no war" position.

People tend to look at the most recent failure(s) as the final say on any policy. I've seen posted on this site quite a few times that "preemptive war never works". Um... Noooooooo. The war in Iraq was sold I(with lies) as a preemptive war and was a dismal failure. But you'd have to be ignorant to the rest of human history to say a preemptive war NEVER works.

Same thing here. Yes, we need to calm down and be much more selective as to when the use of force makes sense morally and strategically. But if Iran fires on our ships as they keep saying they are going to do, then hitting them back is the only logical choice.

#25 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-02-16 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

if Iran follows through on their threats against US ships

If we don't want them attacked, don't put them off their coast. As I said: You can't swing a mace and then condemn someone for blocking and swinging back.

Would you be OK with Iranian ships off our coast or in the Panama canal?

Same thing here. Yes, we need to calm down and be much more selective as to when the use of force makes sense morally and strategically. But if Iran fires on our ships as they keep saying they are going to do, then hitting them back is the only logical choice.

#26 | Posted by Sully at 2012-02-16 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, now that you've clarified, I must agree.

Apologies.

There is probably no situation where a ground war with Iran makes sense but Iran seems intent on creating a situation where bombing them does.

#12 | Posted by sully

Israel bombing Iran? That would win Iran about a billion and a half sympathy cards from around the world when now they only have about three.

Having one quarter to one third of the Earth not liking you is one thing. Having them want to attack and kill you is yet another.

Israel will not be attacking Iran any time soon. It would be exactly what Iran wants.

90% of people of Iran hate their government and do not want to cooperate with it. Having Israel attack Iran is the single best thing to rally the population and win them over.

"And it is not willfully ignorant to think that bombing the shit out of Iran's innocent citizens is a good idea?"

Its willfully ignorant to make this strawman arguement. I didn't think I would need to say "bombing military targets" when I said bombing them would be the logical action under certain circumstances. I never said anything about targetting civilians. You made that up.

"As is we are starving them to death with sanctions, perhaps it would be more humane just to kill them with bombs instead."

This is just dram queen nonsense. The sanction issue has two sides to it as well. But you seem incapable of honest discussion so I won't bother...

"Totally with ya on that one Sully, why starve them when we could bomb them instead?"

You're not with me at all. You're an ass throwing out a strawman arguement because you can't refute what I actually said. Congrats.

Would you be OK with Iranian ships off our coast or in the Panama canal?

Posted by kanrei at 2012-02-16 01:50 PM | Reply

I got no problems with that, as long as they are shooting at us...

You better bet that we'd have some ships out there watching them, ready to respond/deter them.

Oh, wait...

"Well, now that you've clarified, I must agree.

Apologies.

#29 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD at 2012-02-16 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:"

Wish I would have read this before writing #31....

"if Iran follows through on their threats against US ships"

If we don't want them attacked, don't put them off their coast. As I said: You can't swing a mace and then condemn someone for blocking and swinging back.

Would you be OK with Iranian ships off our coast or in the Panama canal?

#28 | Posted by kanrei

If we were attacking or threatening to attack Iranian shipping, then I would not be surprised if the Iranian Navy showed up.

All we need to do is to force the Iranian Government to reserve their strategy and start playing nice with the West.

I suspect they will in a few years, but they want to see if their years of preparation for this moment is going to pay off.

I'll bet they thought "Barack" Obama was going to see the light and stop all the sanctions against them...

Someone has to back down soon or this is going to escalate into some idiot in Israel attacking them and then it's all over.

"If we don't want them attacked, don't put them off their coast. As I said: You can't swing a mace and then condemn someone for blocking and swinging back.

Would you be OK with Iranian ships off our coast or in the Panama canal?"

I support the right of Iranian ships to use international waters.

"Israel bombing Iran? That would win Iran about a billion and a half sympathy cards from around the world when now they only have about three."

I could care less about Israel (and the feeling is mutual). I was talking about the US responding to an Iranian attack on our shipping.

But to be honest, I think Israel could easily get away with attacking Iran.

If we were attacking or threatening to attack Iranian shipping, then I would not be surprised if the Iranian Navy showed up.

What do you mean "IF?" What do you think historically it means when we put TWO carriers off a nation's coast and start beating the war drums?

I support the right of Iranian ships to use international waters.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2012-02-16 01:56 PM |

I would be uncomfortable and understand if our government started with the tough talk. It is the same thing Iran is doing now.

It was more hyperbole than strawman.

Sanctions do lead to scarcity and really do nothing to threaten those in power. Bombing them, even military targets (which we seem to have difficulty differentiating) is an act of war. Are we prepared for their response? What would that response be? I am more inclined to think it would be at citizens here or in Israel and not an attack on an aircraft carrier that could wipe out their entire country.

This whole thing just feels like Deja Vu all over again.

Bombing Iran is inevitable.

Wish I would have read this before writing #31....

Posted by Sully at 2012-02-16 01:55 PM | Reply

I forgot my manners, I realized that you were one of the rational ones here.

If they were to fire on our ships, I totally believe in self defense. This just has the iRaq stench all over it. That, and I'm wearing my tinfoil hat today.

"I would be uncomfortable and understand if our government started with the tough talk. It is the same thing Iran is doing now."

Regardless of what anyone has said, we have the right to have our ships in international waters. If they are attacked there, we should (have to, IMO) respond. Iran threatens us and others on a daily basis and has for decades, which forfeits their right to get all sniffy about our rhetoric or anyone else's. If the ships are in international waters and Iran touchers them, that's a no-no.

There is no situation under which I'm going to say its OK for Iran to attack US ships who are not invading Iranian waters.

It is a dangerous game we should not be playing in. It only takes one stupid person from either side to turn it into a firing war. Only one moron who thought they were about to attack. The troops there on boths sides are told only enough to get them on guard and paranoid of the other side. It is only a matter of time before "whoops."

The phrase 'War with Iran' has been in the news an awful lot lately.

And the Pentogon is requesting more powerful bunker busters. I have a feeling were being conditioned so that no one's surprised when we start blowing shit up.

The excuses ought to be good.

"Iran threatens us and others on a daily basis and has for decades,"

And we don't? The big difference, we carry out our threats.

"This just has the iRaq stench all over it."

This situation hasn't reminded me of Iraq, but its not a bad idea to keep in mind that our government lied us into Iraq and could easily lie us into Iran as well. I don't think that is what is going on here but I could easily be wrong...

The lesson of IRaq for the America people is this: trust nothing. Think on your own. If it doesn't pass the smell test, then it is Bullshit. If there is ANY doubt, you don't go to war, period.

How is "Iran seems intent on creating a situation where bombing them does."?
By threatening US ships in international waters. If they follow through on the threats, we have to respond in kind.

Not sure if you've been living in your cave again, but we already have ships in the Straight of Hormuz. Iran did nothing.

As it is we saved Iranians at sea, twice.

Any more questions that indicate you are unqualified to discuss this rationally?

Not sure why you think my discussion with you is irrational. Every time Iran is brought up you have the same response. They are a threat because they chant death to America publicly, well, as far as you have seen on television, not sure when the last time you actually went there to gain first hand perspective was. Also, what's the head count at those rallies? A few hundred Islamic government supporters?

Sully, when was the last time Iran directly attacked/invaded another country/nation?

You seem to believe you can beat someone up because they are calling you names. You can't.

#18 | POSTED BY SULLY

The lesson of IRaq for the America people is this: trust nothing. Think on your own. If it doesn't pass the smell test, then it is Bullshit. If there is ANY doubt, you don't go to war, period.

#47 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-02-16 02:21 PM

Works like a charm every time. (examples include Iraq, al-Awlaqi, etc.)

If the lead up to Iraq didn't tell you they were full of shit...
If the talking about how the Taliban treated women didn't tell you they were full of shit...
If the Pat Tillman saga didn't tell you they were full of shit...
If the Jessica Lynch saga didn't tell you they were full of shit...

...well, you'll probably lap this one up too.

This just has the iRaq stench all over it.

#41 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESHEPERD

I agree, Iraq had mobile laboratories on the backs of trucks building WMDs. Iran has secret underground bases building WMDs.

Iran is a member of the new axis of evil.

Both countries were a "possible future threat to Israel and America".

If we go to war with Iran both wars would be preemptive strikes against nations that have done nothing wrong.

If we go to war with Iran millions of innocent citizens will be murdered. Infrustructure that provides water and power to homes, schools, hospitals, etc... will be destroyed.

War should never be an option. The people you are trying to kill are always the last effected.

And, let's not forget, none of this would be occurring of not for the false division created by religion.

Ironically, I supported war with Iran once upon a time. Pre-Iraq and Afghanistan, I said often the intelligence about Iraq had only one problem- they ended the nation they were talking about with a Q and not an N.

With Saddam in place, a war with Iran would have been much easier. Today, post- Arab Spring, war with Iran will be bloody and endless with mass US causalities as Iran has shown they prefer car bombs to missiles.

Ziggy is obviously anti-semetic. How could any "real" American not be willing to die for Israel, especially for the Orthodox Israelis who don't have to defend their homes and can legally spit on American children?

But to be honest, I think Israel could easily get away with attacking Iran.

#36 | Posted by Sully

I don't think so.

Every country in the Middle East hates Israel more than they hate their own government or hate us, rather they dislike us for being dickhead imperialist but would love to come here and live.

If Israel were to hit Iran in any way, it would be instant war. Every nation in the Middle East would instantly side with Iran. Mostly because China would back them up.

And here we are backing up Israel... I mean, WTF???

Why are in such a one-sided relationship?

But what we'e talking about here is "failure by design", with the 99.999% picking up the tab for the .001% pocketing the tab. Besides we'd be doing it for Israel. Nothing should get in the way of their expansionist policies.

There is probably no situation where a ground war with Iran makes sense but Iran seems intent on creating a situation where bombing them does.

#12 | Posted by sully

So...... let the jews bomb the shit out of the Iranian reactors and cheer them on. If they use their fishing boat navy to close the straights, blow the shit out of their boats and laugh at them. We damn sure don't need to put any troops on the ground over there.

Terrible idea for the USA but the Israel firsters come in their pants at the idea of low life Goyim dying for the sake of the homeland.

#30 | Posted by Eddie

'Fess up-what have you done with our "special" Eddie. You are way too sane to be him.

yeah sure thing...lets see now..WHICH president did he serve under????

hee hee hee hee

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. "

Vote Ron Paul

It might be all pre-election talk. You never know.

..WHICH president did he serve under????

The one before the traitor that sold Iran weapons and ran up the white flag in Lebanon. Old what's his name....

The guy's suspect he is a big supporter of the Arab Spring, which is going turn out that the radical Muslims are going to control much of the MIDDLE EAST.So I ask what is his game remember he was Carter's Sec. of state which set the stage for the Radical take over of IRAN.

remember he was Carter's Sec. of state which set the stage for the Radical take over of IRAN.

Yeah,the Shah and Savak had nothing to do with it,up yours

I have great doubts that we will start a real war with Iran any time soon
it is not because we wouldn't love a war with Iran believe me we do.
the real reason why we would love it is because like Saddam and Gaddafi
Iran wants to stop trading oil for American Dollars And that is the real reason.
but we can not at this time afford the economic hit of a real war with Iran. the only way I can see a war happening with Iran is if Obama thinks he will lose the presidency and hopes a war will rally the American people around him. but the repubs no matter who among there bunch running will nominate a true goober and I think most Americans will reject there extremism and pro corporate greed and idiocy

THE stupidest commentator on the air, bar none: ZB's daughter.

jm

And we don't? The big difference, we carry out our threats.

#45 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2012-02-16 02:16 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

that's the only way to keep children in line.

The one before the traitor that sold Iran weapons and ran up the white flag in Lebanon. Old what's his name....

#62 | Posted by northguy3 at 2012-02-

oh yeah...the worst president in the history of this country...

yeah he really did a bang up job during that iranian thing with our embassy didnt he????

" The one before the traitor that sold Iran weapons and ran up the white flag in Lebanon. Old what's his name....#62 | Posted by northguy3"

Well said - ole Ronnie and his pals did a great job delaying the hostage release, probably sabotaging the rescue attempt too, and selling arms to Iran. A great President he wasn't.

Few believed the Nazis actually intended to carry out their threats against the Jews either.

Whenever one Nation of Man demonstrably threatens another with extermination, then it becomes necessary for the Nations of Men to rise up and crush the provocateurs.

Iran must be stopped before their Dogma reaches its crescendo. Or we will all wonder why the Nations of Men allowed Iran to murder millions in the name of the Mahdi.