I'm not Bush-basher, and because of the military people that I have talked to, I don't necessarily think that we need to be out of Iraq right now. And there could be reasons to go into Iran.

 

But I will be honest, I am starting to think that it is possible that GWB wants to be right so badly, that he is being led by his stubbornness. It is starting to get old....

I'm right there with you. Maybe he figures that since we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, then we have Iran surrounded.

I'm not saying go in guns blazing immediately or anything like that. The fact is Iran, IMO, is a very serious threat to the US, and if the intel says they aren't cooperating in regards to nuclear weapons, I see no problem with us having a military presence there.

 

 

 

 

You have no idea about my personal situation, so don't go there.

 

No, I don't, but it's a lot easier to say that you "have no problem" when you aren't the one that has to go and fight.

I'm not Bush-basher, and because of the military people that I have talked to, I don't necessarily think that we need to be out of Iraq right now. And there could be reasons to go into Iran.

 

But I will be honest, I am starting to think that it is possible that GWB wants to be right so badly, that he is being led by his stubbornness. It is starting to get old....

 

 

I think you touched on something here that I have been thinking for some time. I think Bush is stubborn, led by his gut, and a "right-fighter." I think he sees Iran as led by a lot of bad people and wants to be proven right so bad that he ignores possible consequences of such actions.

I think you touched on something here that I have been thinking for some time. I think Bush is stubborn, led by his gut, and a "right-fighter." I think he sees Iran as led by a lot of bad people and wants to be proven right so bad that he ignores possible consequences of such actions.

 

Agreed. :thumb:

Shouldn't the real question be "why are we conducting missions such as this when our military is so ridiculously spread thin?"

 

And Sy Hersh is pretty much on the ball all of the time. The guy has the best sources in the business.

 

I think the only real strain would be on the intelligence analysts. The article says it's covert operations, probably some special ops guys, and who knows what else. So really not alot of the guys you'd find in Iraq, and some of the ones you may find in Afghanistan.

I saw an interview with Hersch on BBC America a little while ago. He stated that regardless of how far-fetched folks think it is, Bush and Cheney believe that Iran is preparing to go nuclear, and that they believe that an invasion of Iran is in the best interest of the United States. And that basically no one, regardless of what they personally believe (and he specifically cited Gates here) will stand up to the president and the vice president on the issue.

When will you be deployed?

 

The people CHOOSE to be there so what's your point?

The people CHOOSE to be there so what's your point?

 

He's taking a shot at me, that's all....

He's taking a shot at me, that's all....

 

It was not intended as a shot, but a point. To have "no problem" invading a country, whether for good cause or not, means IMO overlooking the sacrifices that will be made by the individuals that fight. I have a problem with the lives that would be lost, even if I totally agreed with the war. I also feel for the families that would be missing their family members during the deployment.

 

My point is that it's easy to overlook the sacrifice if you are not the one that has to make it.

 

Seriously, I didn't mean it to appear as a shot at you. Sorry if it came across that way. I apologize.

The people CHOOSE to be there so what's your point?

 

That's a misnomer I think. They choose to fight and defend this country. They expect level headed thinking at the leadership position.

Shouldn't the real question be "why are we conducting missions such as this when our military is so ridiculously spread thin?"

 

And Sy Hersh is pretty much on the ball all of the time. The guy has the best sources in the business.

 

I'm not sure why we can't learn from history.

 

When the great empires began to collapse, one of the leading contributors was an over extension of their armed forces controlling occupied territory.

 

The Nazis were doing pretty well until they opened up a second front that led to an over extension of their resources and military.

 

Napoleon did well until he invaded a vast country (Russia) and stretched too far beyond his base and supply.

 

The Soviet Union found it hard militarily and economically to continue to occupy the Slavic countries and Eastern Europe while boosting up a Cuba, and keeping a military presence in Afghanistan.

 

 

To think of expanding the current war into an even larger country that contains more Muslim shrines is ludicruous. When we invaded Afghanistan we had the moral high ground and few muslims cared much about that rock pile. When we invaded Iraq, many questioned our motivation after less than what we thought was there was found. It enraged some of the Muslim world but few cared about the Sunni's themselves. Now we invade the Mecca of Shiite strength and you can bet that the Islamic retaliation will be far greater than anything seen thus far.

I'm not sure why we can't learn from history.

 

When the great empires began to collapse, one of the leading contributors was an over extension of their armed forces controlling occupied territory.

 

The Nazis were doing pretty well until they opened up a second front that led to an over extension of their resources and military.

 

Napoleon did well until he invaded a vast country (Russia) and stretched too far beyond his base and supply.

 

The Soviet Union found it hard militarily and economically to continue to occupy the Slavic countries and Eastern Europe while boosting up a Cuba, and keeping a military presence in Afghanistan.

 

 

 

 

 

To think of expanding the current war into an even larger country that contains more Muslim shrines is ludicruous. When we invaded Afghanistan we had the moral high ground and few muslims cared much about that rock pile. When we invaded Iraq, many questioned our motivation after less than what we thought was there was found. It enraged some of the Muslim world but few cared about the Sunni's themselves. Now we invade the Mecca of Shiite strength and you can bet that the Islamic retaliation will be far greater than anything seen thus far.

 

 

 

 

Excellent.

I'm not sure why we can't learn from history.

 

The answer to that question is simple:

 

We are being led by foolish people who don't even listen to their own advisors, let alone the distant echoes of history.

Excellent.

 

I concur.

I'm not sure why we can't learn from history.

 

When the great empires began to collapse, one of the leading contributors was an over extension of their armed forces controlling occupied territory.

 

The Nazis were doing pretty well until they opened up a second front that led to an over extension of their resources and military.

 

Napoleon did well until he invaded a vast country (Russia) and stretched too far beyond his base and supply.

 

The Soviet Union found it hard militarily and economically to continue to occupy the Slavic countries and Eastern Europe while boosting up a Cuba, and keeping a military presence in Afghanistan.

 

 

To think of expanding the current war into an even larger country that contains more Muslim shrines is ludicruous. When we invaded Afghanistan we had the moral high ground and few muslims cared much about that rock pile. When we invaded Iraq, many questioned our motivation after less than what we thought was there was found. It enraged some of the Muslim world but few cared about the Sunni's themselves. Now we invade the Mecca of Shiite strength and you can bet that the Islamic retaliation will be far greater than anything seen thus far.

 

Are we really talking about invading Iran here? Or doing what many detractors of the Iraq invasion advocated doing, i.e. using covert ops to stimulate regime change?