Funny- Interesting Iranian War Scenario

Hey spliff, didn't a Russian defense minister or something like that come out after we trounced Iraq and say that it proved the failure of Russian military doctrine, and that they were "lucky they didn't find out the hard way"?
I've been looking for that quote for a while and can't seem to find it.

Vagabound---

Im not sure, I remember hearing that. Give siberiantiger some time. Ill sure he'll have some pychobabble for us about it.

Alls I know, is I was against this war untill we were almost done then these brain-dead idiots started chopping off heads of red cross workers and such. If they want us gone, then SHUT UP and get out of the way. Let us finish and we'll be gone. What do they think? If they lob off a head here and there, we'll leave? Thats sad.

I hope the poeple of Iran are smarter than that. Cease and desist with the nukes, or face the consequences. If we go into talks with them, it makes Iran think that its a "negotation" It is anything but. Its demands. They know what they need to do. Also, why would such an oil rich nation be so hell bent determined for nuclear power? Its not for power, its for Israel. I hope Israel flies some sorties over them and takes the reactors out. We dont need to conquer the whole country. Just set them back another 50 years or so.

So no more hostages, no more embassies. The time to talk is over. The time to deal with the gutless pukes who think they can tell the US how run things is over. Now its time for bombs and collateral damage..I cant wait for "Shock and Awe, pt.2" !! Let me get some popcorn....Ahhh I love living in America.....

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
WOW I just proved to you your nation is run by a bunck of sionist lakeys and you just skipped all what I said and started talking about Russia, hahahaah here let me force you back on subject, you are wrong about YOUR constitiution no were in there is it U.S. called democratic republic, it's called A Constitutional Republic", an Amendment in YOUR constitution is only permissable if 2/3 of Congress (Both The House AND Senate 2/3 of EACH) and 2/3 of the Govenors vote yes on something then it's an Amendment the last Amerndment was the 15th Pal aster that the sionists have made you think 2/3 voted on the rest 16th threw the "so called" 27th Amendments so you have been taken for a BIGGER ride than us at least we know our enemies, here learn something about your nation thats been broke for almost 60 yaers www.new-enlightenment.com...

[edit on 13-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 13-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

We've been broke since we started America, does your history books come with pictures?
Let the mind games begins neighbour

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Goldenshellback]

Originally posted by spliff4020
I hope the poeple of Iran are smarter than that. Cease and desist with the nukes, or face the consequences.

This is a VERY touchy subject here. Proliferation has to be stopped, no two ways about it. But what are we going to do: invade every nation on earth before they get the bomb? That is NOT going to work. Global missile defense is an answer. Fighting proliferation at the source is an answer. Invading every 3rd world upstart that builds a reactor is not the answer. That's the cold war in reverse- do we want to spend ourselves into ruin defending against Russian policies, just like we broke the Soviet Union? We need to get the missile shield working and tell every other nuclear power that proliferation is over or there will be punitive military action directly against their nations. I don't think that America has a right to dictate the policy of other nations, but I do believe we have a right to take a stand against proliferation.

Now its time for bombs and collateral damage..I cant wait for "Shock and Awe, pt.2" !! Let me get some popcorn....Ahhh I love living in America.....

Have you ever been in the military? I was. Now don't take this personal, but do you know what makes me Semper Pissed? Civilian hawks who talk to me about how badly we ought to beat the crap out of people, as if they think it's just an action movie or a street fight. People are killing and being killed.
A guy I went to highschool with is dead. A guy I went through bootcamp with took a bullet through his jaw and lived. My younger brother's best friend has pretty much lost it; he wrote home that a friend of his had been killed and that he has decided to just slaughter Iraqis wholesale, guilty or not. I'll bet you 20 bucks that when he gets home he'll be one of the vets who ends up homeless almost immediately- there have been a lot of those.

War is not always the answer. We don't want to run around making the world safe for capitalism. We don't want to run around mixing it up with every harmless windbag who runs his mouth against us.
We want to protect this country from real threats. Going into Afghanistan was good. Iraq would have been OK if the things we were told had been true, and if we had fought that war the right way (with sufficient troops and going into cities just like we did to Najaf right away).
Going into Iran to protect Israel? Why. Let Israel go into Iran! It's their butt on the line, and they could take Iran with one hand tied behind their back!

I don't know what else to tell you. I'm no peacenik, but I believe in Caspar Weinberger's tests for the use of military force. You need a good reason, a good plan, sufficient forces, strong domestic support, you fight to win, then you get the hell out.

Originally posted by spliff4020
Vagabound---

Im not sure, I remember hearing that. Give siberiantiger some time. Ill sure he'll have some pychobabble for us about it.

Alls I know, is I was against this war untill we were almost done then these brain-dead idiots started chopping off heads of red cross workers and such. If they want us gone, then SHUT UP and get out of the way. Let us finish and we'll be gone. What do they think? If they lob off a head here and there, we'll leave? Thats sad.

I hope the poeple of Iran are smarter than that. Cease and desist with the nukes, or face the consequences. If we go into talks with them, it makes Iran think that its a "negotation" It is anything but. Its demands. They know what they need to do. Also, why would such an oil rich nation be so hell bent determined for nuclear power? Its not for power, its for Israel. I hope Israel flies some sorties over them and takes the reactors out. We dont need to conquer the whole country. Just set them back another 50 years or so.

So no more hostages, no more embassies. The time to talk is over. The time to deal with the gutless pukes who think they can tell the US how run things is over. Now its time for bombs and collateral damage..I cant wait for "Shock and Awe, pt.2" !! Let me get some popcorn....Ahhh I love living in America.....

What about the keg?
To bad they don't have a Navy, oops. I just saw they have 3 row boats, one motor boat, and a couple of logs tied on the beach. Sources say they had one submarine, it sank when they pulled the plug in the tub to dive.

Golden Shellback..................................Mermaids loves Sailors....

To qoute some one on ethier this or another forum ,

"you cant have nukes"

"why? you have them"

"Welll umm we're diffrent...."

"how?"

**shifts uncomfertably***

Originally posted by The Vagabond
This is a VERY touchy subject here. Proliferation has to be stopped, no two ways about it. But what are we going to do: invade every nation on earth before they get the bomb?

It is a touchy subject, on the flip side, what are we going to do: allow every 3rd world upstart to obtain nuclear weapons? Of course most may not be a direct threat to us, but could you imagine if any of the factions in Africa were to get nukes? What kind of world will we be living in when nuclear weapons belong to everybody? You're an intelligent person, so I know you're not gonna say it will be the ultimate deterrent like many others here have said. It will be a world none of us will be living in, IMO.

Global missile defense is an answer.

Not all nukes are missiles. Not to mention a global defense system is a long way off, if ever, and as soon as one's in place, you know as well as I somebody out there (probably us) will find a way around it, it's just the nature of things I guess.

Fighting proliferation at the source is an answer.

How would we do that? Aren't we (the U.S.) the original source of proliferation?

Civilian hawks who talk to me about how badly we ought to beat the crap out of people, as if they think it's just an action movie or a street fight. People are killing and being killed.

Don't worry, the civilian hawks will get their chance to beat the crap out of people as soon as the draft is reinstated. But seriously, I'm kinda disappointed seing a soldier disconnect himself from "civilians", like we're different people from soldiers. Were both your parents soldiers? If not, you're at least half "civilian", and don't forget who pays for the superior technology employed by the soldiers (nobody can pay for their spirit), the civilians grinding their way through the rat race, hawks, doves, sparrows, doesn't matter. I thought we were all part of team America.

A guy I went to highschool with is dead. A guy I went through bootcamp with took a bullet through his jaw and lived. My younger brother's best friend has pretty much lost it; he wrote home that a friend of his had been killed and that he has decided to just slaughter Iraqis wholesale, guilty or not. I'll bet you 20 bucks that when he gets home he'll be one of the vets who ends up homeless almost immediately- there have been a lot of those.

Sorry to see so much turmoil and loss, truly. That being said, we have all been affected by this war, we all know somebody who has lost a loved one or their sanity to this war. But it's part of the job description, anybody signing up to fight in a war, should expect to fight in a war, IMO.

We want to protect this country from real threats. Going into Afghanistan was good. Iraq would have been OK if the things we were told had been true, and if we had fought that war the right way (with sufficient troops and going into cities just like we did to Najaf right away).
Going into Iran to protect Israel? Why. Let Israel go into Iran! It's their butt on the line, and they could take Iran with one hand tied behind their back!

You don't think a nuclear Iran would be a threat to us? Seriously? Israel is not the great Satan (they are a secondary Satan) we are the great Satan. But I do agree, since the secondary Satan is more accessible, they will be first, after the countless innocent Israelis are killed, it will be followed by the extinction of Iran. After an event of that scale, the whole world would be rocked, it would not just be business as usual here in the states.

I don't know what else to tell you. I'm no peacenik, but I believe in Caspar Weinberger's tests for the use of military force. You need a good reason, a good plan, sufficient forces, strong domestic support, you fight to win, then you get the hell out.

I agree fully, hopefully this will be the case, unlike Iraq.

Originally posted by 27jd
Of course most may not be a direct threat to us, but could you imagine if any of the factions in Africa were to get nukes? What kind of world will we be living in when nuclear weapons belong to everybody?

That's a good point, and you're right, there are a lot of people who would DEFINATELY use nukes. I'm not 100% sure that India really knows better even, and I will pretty much bet my bottom dollar that if one side of a genocidal conflict in Africa gets the bomb they will use it, especially if they can manage to obtain an exotic nuclear weapon such as a "salted bomb", which can have a configureable fallout period. Theoretically the use of gold in a "salted bomb" would yield fallout that dissipates in days, or so I have read.
Like I have said, America needs to go after this problem at the source. We need to use force to regulate those who sell fissile material, missile components, and who provide technical assisstance with enrichment systems such as Heavy Water Reactors. I think we're better better off getting into a staring contest with Russia than we are running around having staring contests with a dozen smaller nations for whom blinking isn't even an option. Afterall, Russia can back down and stop proliferation, because they know they can deter us directly when they need to. Unless Russia is put in that situation where they have to deter us directly though, Iran can't afford to back down, because without a deterrent they know for a fact we're gonna mop the floor with them.

You're an intelligent person,

I appreciate that, but a lot of people around here will think less of you for saying that about me . Nobody who knows what they are talking about of course, or so I'd like to think.

Not all nukes are missiles. Not to mention a global defense system is a long way off, if ever, and as soon as one's in place, you know as well as I somebody out there (probably us) will find a way around it, it's just the nature of things I guess.

How would we do that? Aren't we (the U.S.) the original source of proliferation?

We are the original source, but it's never to late to abandon a bad habit.
A missile shield would do a lot for us, even though it wasn't full proof. For example Iran can't threaten Israel so long as there is a good missile/air defense between those nations. All Israel has to do to stay safe is control the security of its borders. Actually even a good Theater Missile Defense would solve many problems.
There is no one sollution, but staring down the proliferators (including our own government) developing defenses, regulating the trafficking of equipment, and yes at times we may have to go to war with the recipients, but that should be the last option because it is very inefficient and very costly. Also, when we do go in, we need to go in and accomplish the goal, nothing more, nothing less. Just start whacking their presidents again and again until one of their presidents changes his mind. Blow up their reactors. If you really want to occupy, take a nice big occupation force to do it right so that you don't spend 3 years there and suffer almost 2000 casualities.

Don't worry, the civilian hawks will get their chance to beat the crap out of people as soon as the draft is reinstated.

But seriously, I'm kinda disappointed seing a soldier disconnect himself from "civilians", like we're different people from soldiers.

I fear that I've been misunderstood. I don't necessarily see myself as completely seperated from civilian America, and I don't look down on civilians.
I simply detest the ignorance that is often displayed by those who support war almost in any case, simply because they do not have any personal connection to the human cost of war. If America had a draft I believe many hawks would temper their warlike attitudes.
I take this example from my grandfather. He definately felt that it was worthwhile to send people off to fight in Iraq- but he argued with me at length when he found out that I had joined the Marines and asked for infantry. I guess he only wanted to send other people's grandchildren off to be shot at. I love my grandfather and I respect him as a man of integrity, and such an error by a man of his wisdom lends credibility to my belief that well meaning members of team America sometimes forget the cost of war simply because they do not immediately share in it.

and don't forget who pays for the superior technology employed by the soldiers

God bless them for it, but let's not forget that it's not exactly done by donation, and the pro-war party (republicans) pushed through a tax cut at a time when they weren't providing maximum funding for the effort to equip our troops. I lean right of center and I wouldn't have voted for Kerry to save my soul, but give me a break man- how could America go to war understrength without even trying to institute a draft and then pass a tax cut when we needed MORE funding for armor?
As I've said- I believe in Weinberger's criteria. We needed overwhelming domestic support and sufficient forces. If America would tollerate a draft and increased military spending in order to field 500,000 troops for up to 2 years, we shouldn't have gone to war. Hand in hand with that point, if the average American voter had knew what this war required and wasn't willing to support that much (most of us didn't know of course) then they never should have supported the war.

Sorry to see so much turmoil and loss, truly. That being said, we have all been affected by this war, we all know somebody who has lost a loved one or their sanity to this war. But it's part of the job description, anybody signing up to fight in a war, should expect to fight in a war, IMO.

I'm with you on that because I agree that we volunteer to fight, not just to sit around and look good in uniform, although that is a fun part of the job sometimes. We don't all share the cost of the war evenly though. As I have said, a lot of hawks wouldn't be hawks if they had a child in the military. We are a team, but we do not necessarily all know it or act like it. Some people would send other people's kids off to fight so they can feel macho, but they'd never send their own kids. You saw the quote I used earlier- the guy who wanted to open up some popcorn and watch my friends fight for their lives.

You don't think a nuclear Iran would be a threat to us? Seriously? Israel is not the great Satan (they are a secondary Satan) we are the great Satan. But I do agree, since the secondary Satan is more accessible, they will be first, after the countless innocent Israelis are killed, it will be followed by the extinction of Iran. After an event of that scale, the whole world would be rocked, it would not just be business as usual here in the states

Are you sure about that? My understanding, which could be wrong, was that America wouldn't necessarily be a satan at all except that they think we're a bunch of Zionist pigs.
The bottom line is that Israel is the one in Iran's sights; They are the ones that might cease to exist if Iran gets the bomb. They should have to do most of the leg work in kicking Iran's butt. Do they need passage through Iraq, fine. Do they need a little help, fine. But why in the bloody heck saus that we have to protect Israel when Israel is capable of protecting themselves. It seems to me that Zionist Christians believe that America has to support Israel, and once again I really don't think their faith runs so deep that they would send their own children to fight for Israel.

The other thing to keep in mind is that our government and some of its conservative supporters are picking and choosing where they apply this policy to. Who do you think gave Israel the bomb in the first place? Why don't we give the bomb to other nations which are endangered by their neighbors? Why didn't we attack North Korea for going for the bomb? Why don't we invade Libya? Why don't we go get Hamas and Hizbollah out of Lebanon and Syria?
Somehow we keep standing up for our values in nations with a great deal of mineral wealth, and none of them happen to be friends of ours. I think it's really interesting that we don't say anything to Saudi Arabia about their support of terrorism, and we don't want Israel to disarm.

I agree fully, hopefully this will be the case, unlike Iraq.

Even if an invasion of Iran weren't quite the perfect answer, I'd be likely to accept it and support it if we did it the right way.


Forgive me if there are incomplete thoughts in here. I have been interrupted and am cutting short.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm not 100% sure that India really knows better even

No kidding. Not since probably the Cuban missile crisis has the world come as close to nuclear conflict, as it did just a short time ago between India and Pakistan, the nuke-newbies. If we let what most of the America hating crowd on this board wish, and let everybody have nuclear weapons to deter the U.S. and it's imperialistic rampage, we will see the same situation over and over. Unstable nations in years old conflicts will have a new toy, but they won't use them, yeah right. How many nuclear standoffs can the world afford? If we don't do something about it we'll find out. Part of me wants America to just pull out of everywhere, fortify our borders, and watch the world burn, I hate to see our guys dying for unappreciative people who have blindly followed what is fashionable in their country, hating the U.S. I don't agree with Bush on Iraq, and many other issues, but I really dislike the hatred I feel towards my country. However, we must live on this planet too, and human beings can't keep rolling the nuclear dice and survive. Not even a missile defense system would protect us from worldwide nuclear winter, our population would be decimated at best.

If America had a draft I believe many hawks would temper their warlike attitudes.

Probably so, anybody who is jazzed up about war should take a serious look inside themselves. However, we probably need people who are jazzed up about war on the front lines, otherwise we would be a hesitant, ineffective army, and would probably get our @sses kicked. The mistake is making those soldiers switch to peacekeeper at the drop of a dime and then back to killers again, then demonizing and prosecuting them when their emotions go haywire and they go too far, probably causing many of them to hesitate on the field in a combat situation. Who knows how many of our men we may have lost because of that.

I take this example from my grandfather. He definately felt that it was worthwhile to send people off to fight in Iraq- but he argued with me at length when he found out that I had joined the Marines and asked for infantry. I guess he only wanted to send other people's grandchildren off to be shot at. I love my grandfather and I respect him as a man of integrity, and such an error by a man of his wisdom lends credibility to my belief that well meaning members of team America sometimes forget the cost of war simply because they do not immediately share in it.

I know what you mean, I think it's just hard to make the connection until you have to think about somebody you actually know being tossed into that hellhole. I don't think we're programmed to feel for entire populations, couple that with violent TV, and the news, and the world itself can just seem like a giant TV reality show. Most people don't allow empathy into the mix. I wouldn't hold it against your grandfather, it's just human nature, IMO.

You saw the quote I used earlier- the guy who wanted to open up some popcorn and watch my friends fight for their lives.

Exactly. It's a reality show to him, when I see the live footage of airstrikes on the news Iraq-cam, I feel sick thinking of the frightened children, like my own 3 yr. old trying to hide, some unlucky ones not making it. But alot more frightened children will die if we let the whole world become a nuclear powder keg, guaranteed.

Are you sure about that? My understanding, which could be wrong, was that America wouldn't necessarily be a satan at all except that they think we're a bunch of Zionist pigs. The bottom line is that Israel is the one in Iran's sights; They are the ones that might cease to exist if Iran gets the bomb.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be extremely dangerous for a number of reasons. Iran’s hard-line fundamentalist regime continues to blatantly threaten the United States, which it routinely refers to as “the Great Satan.”

In May, on the first day of its new session, Iran’s parliament broke into chants of “Death to America.” At Iran’s annual military parade in September, a long-range missile had draped over it a banner proclaiming, “We will crush America under our feet.”

Three different sets of Iranian diplomats at the United Nations have been thrown out of the U.S. in just the last two years for suspiciously photographing infrastructure and transportation sites in New York City. Meanwhile, Iran is working on the Shihab 5 missile, which would be capable of hitting the continental United States.

This radical Iranian regime has a history of following through on its threats to attack the United States. This same regime held 52 US diplomats hostage from late 1979 to early 1981. It was also behind the 1983 suicide bombing by its Hizballah proxies of a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon that killed 241 American servicemen.
www.azcentral.com...

They should have to do most of the leg work in kicking Iran's butt. Do they need passage through Iraq, fine. Do they need a little help, fine. But why in the bloody heck saus that we have to protect Israel when Israel is capable of protecting themselves. It seems to me that Zionist Christians believe that America has to support Israel, and once again I really don't think their faith runs so deep that they would send their own children to fight for Israel.

I agree, but I think our government doesn't want Israel involved, it would bring every Islamic militant, as well as a few countries I can think of, into the fight, and a regional conflict would erupt, who knows on what scale.

Somehow we keep standing up for our values in nations with a great deal of mineral wealth, and none of them happen to be friends of ours. I think it's really interesting that we don't say anything to Saudi Arabia about their support of terrorism, and we don't want Israel to disarm.

I agree there too. We are unfair in those areas, and I would like to see that change.

Even if an invasion of Iran weren't quite the perfect answer, I'd be likely to accept it and support it if we did it the right way.

Hopefully we'll find another answer.

(Many conspirosy insiders have said F.D.R. was elected Four times cuz he was willing to and DID sell of U.S. wealth to the NWOers) HEY SPLIFF how do you explain THIS haha= ``The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive 'policies' and 'Plans' of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word 'socialism', but what else can one call it?''
-H.G. Wells, The New World Order, 1939

Originally posted by 27jd
I don't agree with Bush on Iraq, and many other issues, but I really dislike the hatred I feel towards my country.

That just about sums up my views on foreign relations.

Probably so, anybody who is jazzed up about war should take a serious look inside themselves. However, we probably need people who are jazzed up about war on the front lines

I'm all for having semi-psychotics in the military. Many of the best junior enlisted men I have dealt with were abused children and absolutely loved fighting in any form. A certain level of defiance and fighting spirit can be good for a civilization, but it needs to be a bold spirit willing to participate, not a cowardly one that likes to marvel from the sidelines.
I like my hawks armed and belligerent- not holding a bag of popcorn and anxious to watch.

Most people don't allow empathy into the mix. I wouldn't hold it against your grandfather, it's just human nature, IMO.

I agree entirely. All I ask is that we acknowledge it and take it into account when we are formulating policy.

But alot more frightened children will die if we let the whole world become a nuclear powder keg, guaranteed.

Now there's a reason to take action. Right reason + Right approach= right war.
Wrong reason + Wrong approach = A slower, more excruciating, equally horrible alternative to nuclear meltdown.

I agree, but I think our government doesn't want Israel involved, it would bring every Islamic militant, as well as a few countries I can think of, into the fight, and a regional conflict would erupt, who knows on what scale.

Although I didn't quote a lot of what you said, let me start off by saying you make the case against Iran very well and convincingly. Like I keep saying, if the reasons and the methods are sound, I can accept war as an option.
As for not wanting to bring Israel into the conflict, that's a big part of my problem with the war on terror. We are supposed to be at war with the Islamic militants and the radical islamic governments which would resort to terrorism out of religious hatred. We're not really though- we want to pick and choose and leave the Saudis, Jordanians, and Egyptians out of this.
If we're going to fight a war on terror let's take Israel off the leash against Iran and let them go ahead and rile up all the terrorist arseholes for us. That way we can go in there to help Israel and clean house all at once.
Tell the UN not to worry- we'll forego all rights to contracts in the rebuilding and turn authority over to the UN. All we want is to kill or disarm the terrorists to the greatest extent possible.

I'm sure that kind of talk seems really strange from me after my anti-war stance, but the whole point is that if we're gonna be hawks lets be serious about it and do what we say we want to do. The only thing worse than fighting a war is fighting a stupid war afterall.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
(Many conspirosy insiders have said F.D.R. was elected Four times cuz he was willing to and DID sell of U.S. wealth to the NWOers) HEY SPLIFF how do you explain THIS haha= ``The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive 'policies' and 'Plans' of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word 'socialism', but what else can one call it?''
-H.G. Wells, The New World Order, 1939

Once again your ignorance of America shines bright. FDR was elected 4 times, becasue the people loved him. We were in THE GREAT DEPRESSION and he put this country back to work. He was there when WW2 started (remember that war? Where AMERICA saved your commie as-es). The people wanted him there.

After he died OUR CONSITUTION was ammended to make a person only able to hold the office twice. Its a good idea to keep fresh meat coming in as it brings new ideas. See, we can change. Russia couldnt and died. YOUR COUNTRY IS DEAD DUDE, get it?

Way to distract once again. When ever you feel up to deflecting again, feel free...oh wait, your russian, you dont know what "free" is...my bad..

Just wondering, why is the US going after iran?
Is it really for terrorists?
Really for nukes?
To install a pupet regime to secure the gulf?
I mean holding the gulf would be one hell of a tactical advantage.

Also, I do believe the Russians won the war for us spliff, also russia is very free and has been for a while.
The ahem , alleged "comunist" regime that was there didnt last long, only 60 odd years, not really very long.

I'm glad that Spliff quoted Siberian's thing about FDR or I wouldn't have seen it. FDR and surrounding events in American history fascinate me because there was definately a power struggle taking place early in his administration. He was probably not part of the NWO. He seemed to be part of what you might call an old world order, and was nearly overthrown by the fascist NWO.

FDR has an extremely strange family history. His mother was descended from King Edward I of England and was the product of incest between her parents, as well as 3 other incests further back in her pedigree.
Delano was his mother's maiden name, which she gave to FDR as a middle name. All of FDR's sons recieved the a middle name from his mother's pedigree. Most were passed the name Delano, however John Roosevelt's middle name was Aspinwall, a name that had married on to family just a few generations earlier, and which had been followed by yet another incest apparently aimed at keeping the genes of Edward I's descendants predominant in the family.

FDR was a 5th cousin of Teddy Roosevelt. He married Teddy Roosevelt's niece- his own 6th cousin. His first government office was Assisstant Secretary of the Navy, the same position Teddy Roosevelt had held and used to start the Spanish American War. The two Roosevelt's presidents are alike in many ways all told; even Roosevelts New Deal was named for his cousin's earlier "Square Deal".

One last note on Roosevelt's powerful family- Teddy Roosevelt was made Vice President because the Republican party wanted to get rid of him- he was doing too good a job breaking up Political Machines in New York. At that time, becoming Vice President was usually the end of a political career. Lucky for Roosevelt, his president just happened to get assassinated right at the beginning of a new term. Roosevelt later became the first president to attempt exceeding the 2 term tradition, and his cousin later became the first to succeed.

Why is all of this so interesting? Because no sooner was FDR elected, than an Italian with mob ties tried to assassinate him. Shortly thereafter, the American Legion (a strike-busting organization at the time under a leader who had claimed "what the Fascisti is for Italy, the American Legion will be for America".) was implicated in a bussiness-backed coup conspiracy. It was alleged that key generals in WWII- men who had crushed the bonus army for President Hoover- had promised to stand aside for the coup against FDR. Strange, no?
The NWO, generally defined as a fascist movement tied to Nazism, if I remember correctly, was out to break the Roosevelt dynasty. If anything, FDR, the descendent of a king and practicioner of blood-politics, was OWO.

As for being a marxist- hardly. The Roosevelts were against corruption and broke up corrupt business interests, however the only real socialism they engaged in was FDR's attempts to respond to a temporary crisis (the depression).

Originally posted by devilwasp
Just wondering, why is the US going after iran?

A few more options:
1. The US is not planning on going after Iran but expects a 3rd party to do the "job".
2. The US doesn't know yet if it will go after Iran, and is testing the waters by engaging in random provocation and looking for potential allies within the regime.
3. The US has already decided to engage in war and is now destabilizing the region in order to create justification.

Since there are great differences between the situation of Iraq in 2003 (a weakened nation sickened and burdened by a decade of US-UK-UN interference) and Iran in 2005 (a country much more united and better prepared), it does not look like the US at present is materially capable of designing a realistic war plan, much less engage in war with Iran (no options 2 or 3).

Nevertheless, the US still has desires for an Iranian regime change.
But the temporal window for "democracy by force" as a justification is now closing (it was a natural artifact of 20th century western ideologies).

The result is a clear rationale for option 1: the enlisting of a willing 3rd party, and the launching of destabilization operations within the region. First in the countries neighbouring Iran in order to create hardship and enmity and then in Iran itself, bolstering the vociferous minorities (somewhat like in China, except now the Americans think they can succeed).

It's possible that the Iran thing could turn into a huge mess, but I'm wondering about the validity of what I'm going to call the 'roach motel' doctrine. Now, Iraq was a largely secular country and look how many Muslim extremists flocked there to get their chance to hit America. Considering that Iran is much more religious than Iraq was, the extremists are more likely to think Iran will be the place of the great final battle to destroy America. Thus, a much greater number of fanatics will be drawn to Iran as a US attack becomes imminent. The Roach Motel Doctrine holds that this is actually a good thing, as by giving the evil terrorists a place to concentrate, it will be easier to destroy them without killing so many of the decent folk.