Invade Iran ??

[phreakwars]

Word coming in round the net at various places I have visited, suggest that Iran might be a target coming up .... soon...

 

Given the fact that British, and I believe some other country are pulling out troops from Iraq.. Is starting some shit with Iran really the right thing to do ??

.

.

[builder]

I posted a thread about this weeks ago. What gives? Any new info phreakster?

[snafu]

Most defiantly! They are a major threat to world peace. They are a supplier to terrorism. Do you want someone like in control of nukes?

[phreakwars]

Snafu (A Republican) doesn't fear world war III.

 

Which exactly, in my opinion, is what will happen.

 

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20070221-100238-7697r

 

Fucking war mongering Republicans !!

 

Edit: And I wouldn't expect China would be very happy about it either.

 

To me it's a collision course to the downfall of the United States.

.

.

[snafu]

Snafu (A Republican) doesn't fear world war III.

 

Which exactly, in my opinion, is what will happen.

 

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20070221-100238-7697r

 

Fucking war mongering Republicans !!

 

Edit: And I wouldn't expect China would be very happy about it either.

 

To me it's a collision course to the downfall of the United States.

.

.

 

Yeah well that

[Msixty]

No, we should not declare war, or invade in a conventional mass infantry act.

 

 

let SOCOM handle this one. The middle east does not understand what true terror is...

 

(By SEA Land and Air, swift silent deadly, To free the oppressed, death will come on swift wings to those who threaten the freedom of the world, may you sleep with one eye open, we will find you....)

 

They are the Weather warriors' date=' Swift silent and deadly, they Lead the way, on SEA Land and air, To free the oppressed, they are the soldiers of the United States Strategic Operations Command (SOCOM) The Air force Special Tactics, The Marine Force Recon, Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, and Army Special Forces. They are the greatest warriors on the planet, experts in everything they do, and the silent enforcers of freedom and democracy. You will never hear them coming, and never see them leave, they are the final solution to terror and tyranny. Sleep with one eye open those who threaten Freedom, they will come for you.[/quote']

[Msixty]

Is peace only to be achieved by appeasement?

 

I dunno, ask the french, they tried that in the beginning WWII to convince hitler to stop. don't think it worked...

[hugo]

We need to go back to the Monroe doctrine and we need to understand why Ronald Reagan rejected Wilsonian Carterism and cut and ran from Beirut. We need to reread Washington's Farewell Address.

[snafu]

We need to go back to the Monroe doctrine and we need to understand why Ronald Reagan rejected Wilsonian Carterism and cut and ran from Beirut. We need to reread Washington's Farewell Address.

 

Now what would the Monroe doctrine and Washington Farewell address have to do with today? It's not a America's getting involved with a European thing anymore. We now have the capability to reach out and touch someone anywhere in the planet. And now they are striving for the same capability. What happens there effects us here. And visa versa. It's not possible to sit back and say I'm gonna stay out of it.

[Msixty]

I agree, they were separated by natural boundaries then (water for instance, a shit load of water) now, a small plane can come over here and deliver a weapon that can kill millions in the time that an army of that power took to move 1/2 a mile, times change, it's a small fucking world after all...

[hugo]

The fact is we are not their natural enemies. We need to stop being the world's policeman. Reagan, smartly, cut and ran from Beirut. I suggest reading Pat Buchanan's "A Republic, Not an Empire"

[hugo]

Let me begin by commending you all - on the campaign by Antiwar.com and the Center for Libertarian Studies - to forge a new anti-interventionist American coalition. Only an engaged and informed citizenry can bring about a reversal of the neo-imperial foreign policy that has been foisted upon us in the post-Cold War era by the elites of both Beltway parties.

Foreign policy, they tell us, is not an issue in this election year. By that they mean it is off the table, a matter already decided upon and settled by those who know what is best for America. So they, and their media auxiliaries, redirect our attention away from foreign policy to such burning national issues as the dating policy at Bob Jones University.

 

What is best for America and the world, they tell us, is that the United States should remain a superpower sheriff, the Wyatt Earp of the West, possessed of the sole right to deputize posses, or go it alone if necessary, to discipline evil-doers, wherever our "values" are threatened. I submit that this foreign policy poses a great and growing danger to the peace and security of the United States.

 

Last year, for 78 days, U.S. pilots flew thousands of missions against Serbia, destroying bridges, factories, electrical grids, and, yes, even hospitals, schools and the occasional embassy. Yet, before launching his war, Mr. Clinton never received the authorization of Congress. But as a consequence of our triumph over Serbia, young men and women from California, Kentucky, Florida and Maine are in Kosovo policing territory that has been violently contested for hundreds of years.

 

As of now, we do not know if U.S. troops will end up fighting Serbs, or Kosovar Albanians, or first one, then the other. But it is a near certainty that United States will one day be forced to pull out of Kosovo, after having earned the lasting hatred of Serbs -- a people who never harmed the United States -- and of the Albanians, whose aspirations will not be satisfied until the U.S. helps to carve out an ethnically pure Greater Albania.

 

Look at the balance sheet of Bill Clinton's unconstitutional war. NATO, a defensive alliance, launched an offensive war against a nation that threatened no member of that alliance, dissipating the moral authority with which NATO had emerged from the Cold War. Serbia is smashed. Montenegro and Macedonia are destabilized. Kosovo was purged first of Albanians, then of Serbs. And lies in ruins. U.S. relations with China and Russia have been damaged. For what? So we and NATO could police in perpetuity a Balkan province that has not the remotest connection to U.S. vital interests. Such are the fruits of neo-imperialism.

 

Meanwhile, a decade after the Gulf War, American soldiers and airmen stand ready to die to defend Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from Iran and Iraq - as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait conspire with Iran and Iraq to keep oil prices over $30 a barrel -- to loot America and gouge U.S. consumers.

 

For ten years, the U.S. has played the dominant role in maintaining rigid sanctions on Iraq. By one UN estimate, these sanctions have resulted in the premature deaths of 500,000 children. Will the parents of those children ever forgive us? Even our European Allies recoil. By keeping these sanctions fastened on Iraq, we flout every tenet of Christianity's Just War doctrine, and build up deposits of hatred across the Arab world that will take decades to draw down. One day our children shall pay the price of our callous indifference to what is happening to the children of Iraq.

 

I speak as a proud Cold Warrior who supported every great anti-Communist initiative from JFK to Reagan. And I support a U.S. defense that is second to none and a foreign policy whereby America responds resolutely to any attack on American citizens, honor, or vital interests.

 

But what purpose is served by our shortening the lives of Iraqi people who have done us no harm? If Desert Storm could not remove Saddam Hussein, how are the women, children and elderly of Iraq, the victims of our sanctions, supposed to overthrow him?

 

And if 78 days of bombing could not eject Milosevic from power, how does forcing the people of Serbia to endure a brutal winter without fuel or heat advance our goal? What happened to the moral idea of proportionality, even in wartime, between means and ends?

 

We are in an election season, and the two major parties have made their predictable selections. Their debate over foreign policy -- it is no news to anyone sitting here - was devoid of any fresh thinking. Both parties are frozen in the mindset of a Cold War that ended ten years ago.

 

During one debate, John McCain singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea as "rogue states" and advocated the armed overthrow of all three by U.S.-trained and equipped armies. Pressed on what he would do if his armies were being annihilated, the Senator did not respond. But he did not reject the notion that Iran, a nation of 70 million, should also be designated a rogue state to be targeted for overthrow.

 

Friends, this is hubris; this is triumphalism; this is the arrogance of power; this is America's Brezhnev doctrine. I single McCain out not because he in particular is misguided, but because such ideas are commonplace among the global gamesmen in Washington.

 

Governor Bush cried out in anguish when he was compared by Senator McCain to Bill Clinton, but he did not utter a skeptical word about McCain's plans for rogue regimes. Indeed, the Governor has exhibited neither absorbing interest nor extraordinary aptitude for foreign policy -- to put it generously. His call last year for the war on Serbia to be waged "more ferociously" was his one memorable foreign policy utterance. But in the cluster of foreign policy aides, the self-styled "Vulcans," now home-schooling the Governor, notions of "rogue state rollback" are music to the ear.

 

Among the more prominent of the Vulcans is Paul Wolfowitz. A Pentagon aide to Bush the Elder, Wolfowitz produced in 1992 a blueprint for war against Russia that would utilize six carrier battle groups and 24 NATO divisions to rescue Lithuania, should Moscow recolonize that tiny republic.

 

Richard Perle, another of the "On-to-Baghdad" brigade, is perhaps Washington's premier enthusiast of using U.S. power to topple rogue regimes. Another tutor to Governor Bush is his father's former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. A few months ago, General Scowcroft advocated putting a division of U.S. troops on the Golan Heights, to police peace between Syria and Israel, thereby insuring there would be dead Americans in any future Syrian-Israeli clash.

 

Not one of the "Vulcans" embraces the new thinking on foreign policy that has taken root in Congress and the country in the aftermath of the Cold War. This new thinking alarms both Clintonites who call it "isolationist," but even more the neo-conservatives who believe America should convert her hour of power into a "benevolent global hegemony."

 

Indeed, during Clinton's war on Serbia, one neoconservative strategist was so disheartened by the lack of war spirit among the Republican rank-and file, he mused about giving up and leaving the GOP altogether.

 

But while many Democrats and some on the Left are eager to challenge the Bush-Clinton New World Order, Vice President Gore is not among them. Mr. Gore is a Wilsonian in full. He exhibits a New Republic-style lust for cruise missile strikes on "rogue nations." He was all for the war on Serbia. Nor did he allow a ray of daylight to open up between himself and Mr. Clinton on sanctions against Iraq or the strikes against that poison gas factory in Sudan, that turned out to be a pharmaceutical plant.

 

Mr. Gore is also an acolyte of the New World Order, ever ready to cede American sovereignty, and an architect of Clinton's Kyoto Treaty, under which global bureaucrats would dictate America's use of fossil fuels. When young Americans perished in a tragic accident over Iraq, Gore reflexively offered his condolences to the families of those who, quote, "had died in the service of the United Nations."

 

Quo Vadis? Where are you going, America?

 

Because of our sanctions on scores of nations, cruise missile strikes upon others, and intervention in the internal affairs of still others in the wake of the Cold War, a seething resentment of America is brewing all over the world. And the haughty attitude of our foreign policy elite only nurses the hatred. Hearken, if you will, to the voice of our own Xenia, Madeline Albright, announcing new air strikes on Iraq: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future." Now I count myself an American patriot. But if this Beltway braggadocio about being the world's "indispensable nation" has begun to grate on me, how must it grate upon the Europeans, Russians, and peoples subject to our sanctions because they have failed, by our lights, to live up to our standards?

 

And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution? Recall: it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya that Khadafi's agents blew up Pan Am 103. And it is said to have been in retaliation for the Vincennes' accidental shoot-down of that Iranian airliner that Teheran collaborated with terrorists to blow up the Khobar towers. From Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar - have we not suffered enough not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price of empire?

[hugo]

America today faces a choice of destinies. We can be the peacemaker of the world - or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle. Let us use this transitory moment of American power and preeminence to encourage and assist old friends and allies to stand on their own feet and provide and pay for their own defense.

 

Let me state my present intent: If elected, I will have all U.S. troops out of the Balkan quagmire by year's end, and all American troops home from Europe by the end of my first term. Forty years ago, President Eisenhower pleaded with JFK to bring all U.S. troops home from Europe. Certainly, sixty years after the end of World War II, and fifteen years after the Berlin Wall fell, is not too soon to get all U.S. troops out of Europe and let Europeans provide and pay the cost of their own defense. If not now, when?

 

And let us quickly adopt a measure of humility about how much we know about what is best for other peoples and cultures. In the words of the great scholar Russell Kirk: "There exists no single best form of government for the happiness of all mankind. The most suitable form of government depends on the historic experience, the customs, the beliefs, the state of culture...and all these things vary from land to land and age to age."

 

We are entering a fertile and exciting time in our politics. Our ossified two-party system, that has managed to stifle serious foreign policy debate for a decade, is cracking up. Pressure is growing from dissidents within, and this year, there will be a mighty challenge from without. As Joe Namath said, I guarantee it.

 

Our Reform Party will be on the ballot in 50 states, and, if I have anything to say about it -- and I expect to -- it will become a non-interventionist party, a peace party, that will reach out to Americans of Right and Left who reject the Third Way imperialism being forced upon us by the elites of both Beltway parties.

 

In this new era, many of us are rediscovering the old distrust of crusading that was at the center of the world view of the old American Right. We are conscious of our love for this country. We do not wish to isolate America from the world, only to isolate America from wars -- the religious, ethnic, and territorial wars of less fortunate lands. We know there is a powerful body of American thought -- from Washington to John Quincy Adams to William Jennings Bryan and Robert Taft -- as well as all the near forgotten figures written about by Justin Raimondo and others -- to help guide us. And their message is one I intend to stamp upon our banners in the campaign of 2000: A Republic, Not an Empire! America First!

[Msixty]

We need to stop being the world's policeman

 

Too fucking late, don't like it? should have taken that up with one of our greatest presidents, Theodore Roosevelt.

 

We police the world, why? because we have the power and thus the responsibility to ensure the future of the planet is not run by dictators and power hungry mad men. we, the big man, have the moral obligation to protect the little man. But i guess your ass is more important than them, and they aren't worth fighting for huh...

 

War is an ugly thing' date=' but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. [/quote']

[hugo]

Too fucking late, don't like it? should have taken that up with one of our greatest presidents, Theodore Roosevelt.

 

We police the world, why? because we have the power and thus the responsibility to ensure the future of the planet is not run by dictators and power hungry mad men. we, the big man, have the moral obligation to protect the little man. But i guess your ass is more important than them, and they aren't worth fighting for huh...

 

You are a true liberal Wilsonian. The duty of a government is to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens. We have no moral obligation to rid the world of despots. Nor can we.The big man has no moral obligation to support the little man. That is truly globalist and socialist crapola you spew. You are another victim of our left wing education system.

 

You'd think that after free elections resulted in victory for anti-American parties in Iran and Palestine the neocons (strong emphasis on the neo) would begin to realize that democracy in the Middle East ain't such a great idea. You would think after the last election loss Republicans would realize they need to return to Morganthau's balance of power philosophy, reject Wilsonian idealism, and realize we cain't create heaven on Earth. Our boys are dying because of the flawed neocon ideology which is far removed from true conservatism.

 

Politics Among Nations by Hans Morgenthau, familiar to almost anyone who has taken a course in international politics, I suggest reading it.

[phreakwars]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

 

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

 

 

 

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

 

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

 

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said.

 

“There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

 

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike.

 

“All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

 

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

 

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

 

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

 

Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.

 

Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.

 

A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”

 

But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.

 

Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.

 

Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.

 

“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”

 

Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.

 

The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.

 

According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.

 

However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.

 

Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.

 

One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned

.

.

[Kryptonite Man]

Invading Iran won't be necessary, if we play our cards right. The Islamist reign in that hell-hole has it's own internal problems. The shithead ayatrollas are barely hanging on to their illegitimate power by a VERY slender thread.

[hugo]

The problem is we ain't playing our cards right. The increasing American presence in the ME provides propaganda material for the extremists.

[N1ckL21]

Bad Idea. We don't have the recourse, troops, or the funds to start another lost cause ware. It might even been the downfall of our country. This is a ridiculous idea.

[Msixty]

Bad Idea. We don't have the recourse, troops, or the funds to start another lost cause ware. It might even been the downfall of our country. This is a ridiculous idea.

 

1) it may be vital to the future of the planet depending on where this all goes

 

2) We don't need mass infantry like i said, SOCOM can handle this one.

 

3) It's spelled war.

[N1ckL21]

1) it may be vital to the future of the planet depending on where this all goes

 

2) We don't need mass infantry like i said, SOCOM can handle this one.

 

3) It's spelled war.

 

 

Well if you want to get technical and pick out grammatical errors, you need to capitalize your I, and capitalize the I in It to being a sentence.

 

But back to the WAR, how can the SOCOM Navy Seals handle such a large task when the Army, Navy, Marines, and Airforce can't control Iraq? North Korea is a much larger threat and Iran is, they have already tested their weapons. Why not invade there too? Hell let's just reinstate the draft and invade every country that isn't Christian. Dumbass.

[Msixty]

Well if you want to get technical and pick out grammatical errors, you need to capitalize your I, and capitalize the I in It to being a sentence.

 

If you can't spell the thing you talking about, don't talk about it.

 

But back to the WAR, how can the SOCOM Navy Seals handle such a large task when the Army, Navy, Marines, and Airforce can't control Iraq? North Korea is a much larger threat and Iran is, they have already tested their weapons. Why not invade there too? Hell let's just reinstate the draft and invade every country that isn't Christian. Dumbass.

 

I will take leave from sanity now...

 

YOU GOD DAMN PEACE OF SHIT FUCKING 13 YEAR OLD WANNA BE WAR ADVISOR STUPID ASS MOTHER FUCKING RETARD!!!!!!!!!!!

 

JUST BECAUSE THE ONLY INFORMATION YOU HAVE ON THE MILITARY IS FROM A FUCKING VIDEO GAME DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SEAL's ARE THE ONLY SOCOM FORCES!!!!!!!!

 

SOCOM, includes Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Army.

 

ALSO, the draft is still in action, when and if you turn 18 you will need to sign up for the 'selective service' THAT'S THE DRAFT. All the government needs to do is say, "ok, draft time" and away you go.

 

Now go back to your PS2 and leave the thinking to the big kids, YOU FUCKING TWIT!

[N1ckL21]

If you can't spell the thing you talking about, don't talk about it.

 

 

 

I will take leave from sanity now...

 

YOU GOD DAMN PEACE OF SHIT FUCKING 13 YEAR OLD WANNA BE WAR ADVISOR STUPID ASS MOTHER FUCKING RETARD!!!!!!!!!!!

 

JUST BECAUSE THE ONLY INFORMATION YOU HAVE ON THE MILITARY IS FROM A FUCKING VIDEO GAME DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SEAL's ARE THE ONLY SOCOM FORCES!!!!!!!!

 

SOCOM, includes Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Army.

 

ALSO, the draft is still in action, when and if you turn 18 you will need to sign up for the 'selective service' THAT'S THE DRAFT. All the government needs to do is say, "ok, draft time" and away you go.

 

Now go back to your PS2 and leave the thinking to the big kids, YOU FUCKING TWIT!

 

Sigh...

 

SOCOM is not the Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Army. SOCOM is the special forces FROM each branch. Hence, Navy Seals would be the special forces from the Navy.

 

Anyways...

 

If the military were to require additional troops after all available reserve personnel had been called to active duty, congress and the president would have to consider reinstating the draft. To reinstate the draft, the congress would have to pass appropriate legislation, and the president would have to approve that legislation. After the president enacted this legislation, the Selective Service System would switch gears rapidly, going from "registration mode" to "draft mode."

 

So no, you fucking retard, you cannot just say, "ok draft time" And by the way, I've already filled out my papers and sent them...

 

Oh, and way to continue my point of North Korea, or are you still trying to find it on the map?

 

And by the way, "If you can't spell the thing you talking about, don't talk about it."

 

That entire sentence you quoted was spelled right, and if you meant GRAMMATICAL, which I think you did, that's spelled right too.

[Msixty]

Sigh...

 

SOCOM is not the Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Army. SOCOM is the special forces FROM each branch. Hence, Navy Seals would be the special forces from the Navy.

 

No shit, you google that up? Because a second ago you were acting like the SEAL's were the only ones involved with SOCOM. Actually, lets look at what you said...

 

But back to the WAR, how can the SOCOM Navy Seals handle such a large task when the Army, Navy, Marines, and Airforce can't control Iraq?[/Quote]

 

Oh I dunno, because it's not just the SEAL forces? Quoting a fucking video game title then correcting yourself from info found on google does not equate to actual intelligence kid. And on a side note, They are not all Special Forces, Special Forces is just one member of SOCOM.

 

SOCOM, Strategic Operations Command, Including the Navy SEAL's, Marine Force Recon, Army Special Forces, Army Rangers, And the Air force Special Tactics.

 

Anyways...

 

If the military were to require additional troops after all available reserve personnel had been called to active duty, congress and the president would have to consider reinstating the draft. To reinstate the draft, the congress would have to pass appropriate legislation, and the president would have to approve that legislation. After the president enacted this legislation, the Selective Service System would switch gears rapidly, going from "registration mode" to "draft mode."

 

So no, you fucking retard, you cannot just say, "ok draft time" And by the way, I've already filled out my papers and sent them...[/Quote]

 

Google is your best friend no?

 

I never said just the President could instate the draft, i said the whole government, and they very well could, like you said, if they all agree and sign the right papers, insto-draft.

 

Oh, and way to continue my point of North Korea, or are you still trying to find it on the map?[/Quote]

 

Korea is a bigger threat than Iran how? They tested their weapons? big fucking deal, hell, in that aspect, China is a bigger threat, but you know what China and Korea aren't doing? They aren't electing terror cell leaders as governors, they aren't holding rallies in the street chanting "Death to America" China and Korea are NOT as big a threat. They didn't hold U.S. Embassy personnel hostage for a year, they didn't suicide bomb a Marine Barracks killing over 200 of our boys. And in response to the Christian comment, this isn't a religious war, i hate religion, ESPECIALLY Catholic/Christian/Muslim churches, so don't go slinging over-used slogans to protest the war, it's not for oil, it's not for religion, it's over one asshole that was mass murdering his people and tried to kill our presidents dad, put that together, and shit tends to happen.

 

And by the way, "If you can't spell the thing you talking about, don't talk about it."

 

That entire sentence you quoted was spelled right, and if you meant GRAMMATICAL, which I think you did, that's spelled right too.

 

I was referring to you not being able to spell war, not knowing more than a video game title about the Special Operations aspect of the military, and still acting like you know what we should or shouldn't do half a world away from you.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

This is fucking ridiculous. The US doesn't care about leaders being power hungry madmen; in many cases they install power hungry madmen when they present less of an opposition to US imperialism. The US is the world police because they gain more power that way, same as Rome, France, and England before them. Their support of Israel and Saudi Arabia are good examples of this.

 

 

Iran is hardly as big of a threat as Israel, which the US is allied with. How often have they invaded countries? They're pissed at the US due to getting fucked over by them and at Israel for forcing Arabs to leave their lands. What do people expect them to do, be "yay America!" while they're surrounded and under constant threat of invasion? Given how often they're threatened, Iran would be insane to NOT look fior a deterrent of some sort such as nukes. They aren't going to start a war that they know will destroy their country. And again, if they were the raving maniacs that US propaganda portrays them as, they wouldn't be allied with someone like Hugo Chavez who is pressing hard for equality of all countries, Arab and non-Arab, regardless of size or religion.

 

 

Iran is mainly being punished for going against the US in the 70's, similar to the treatment of Cuba since Castro decided to ally himself with the Soviets. They're being punished for being anti-US. It has nothing to do with any objective look at how oppressive they are compared to other countries.

 

 

By the way, for once I agree with the majority of Hugo's points.