Think about it this way.

If you listened to military men who actually knew what they were talking about they advised against the illegal and immoral attack and invasion of Iraq.

They had many reasons for doing so. Some were military, some realpolitik and some humanitarian.

One reason it was a vary bad idea is that it set a universal precedent that justified pre-emptive war.

A fair person has to admit that if the US could make a claim that Iraq posed a threat to the US in 2002 when Iraq virtually had no military even for defense then Iran can justify that the US is very much a treat since it has forces right on Iran's doorstep.

By the logic the US used in 2002 / 2003 Iran has a right to start destroying American ships anytime it wants.

Again, using the attack on Iraq as the example, Iran has nothing to lose by starting a war when the US has proven that it will attack based on a whole series of lies that every expert knew were lies.

Well-educated military men and diplomats knew this would be a consequence of the illegal and immoral attack and invasion of Iraq but the Neo-Cons did not care because they don't really care about the future of the US.

Of course this sort of consideration is far beyond the average American idiot who buys the American exceptionalism propaganda.

Originally posted by revmoofoo
Something tells me that it's mostly talk. That said however, the US really needs to be cautious about how they handle this situation, because I also believe that Iran may just be crazy enough to make the first move if it's pushed just a little too hard.

Rev

edit on 4/1/2012 by revmoofoo because: My kingdom for mad spelling skills!

Originally posted by conspiracy88

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Im so sick of childish ignorant statements such as this. With the exception of Iraq, EVERY war the US has been in has been either instigated by a foreign power first, or we have been asked, sometimes begged for our help. We are not the war monger monsters you and your ignorant ilk continue to try and make us out to be. In fact, you must have missed this little snippet of news from yesterday

I attended california public high schools and even I know that statement holds no weight.

I attended Holy Family which happens to be a Catholic school as well. Where does your logic leave you now?

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by MrStyx

Stop trying to talk up Iran's military like they are something to be afraid of they went to war with Iraq for 8 years. Granted they were winning but 8 years in what took us a night to wipe out. There is no part of their military that's scary besides a nuclear scenario.

How arrogant do you want to be? No one should underestimate any other country's power.
Um, you do know that we also had the recent Iraq War which also went for 8 years lmao

Iraq and Afghanistan actions were not a Full blown WAR. Officially the WAR did end after Saddam was toppled and captured in Iraq and when the Talibs and OBL were on the run in Afghanistan. The rest of the time was spent stabilizing the region and fractions which ofcourse is not a war but there were casualties. They were long term guerilla/urban conflicts involving insurgents (not soldiers in a true sense). All out War would have definitely destroyed both Iraq and Afghanistan in no time. World War II was a war where nothing mattered (Civilians vs Solidiers). Bombs were dropped and used as brute force without any co-ordination or guidance with a single aim to destroy a country (and destroy they did of many cities/countries/population).

But you are correct as the saying goes 'Never underestimate your enemy'.

The rest of the time was spent stabilizing the region and fractions which ofcourse is not a war but there were casualties.

Ermmm...... Iraq stabilized???????? would you care clarifying that statement?

Originally posted by Hellhound604

The rest of the time was spent stabilizing the region and fractions which ofcourse is not a war but there were casualties.

Ermmm...... Iraq stabilized???????? would you care clarifying that statement?

edit on 13/1/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

Well it carries a broad meaning (Neutralize the fractions of extremists, uprisings, looting, foreign jihadists, provide financial support/kick backs to local opposition political parties even though traditionally military commanders never played such brokering roles between politicians and the locals). Reduce the number of IED attacks & US Casualties etc. It is not stabilized 100% thats why I typed 'stabilizing'. Moreover, the recent waves of blasts occurred after the US military officially handed over the commands. That was bound to happen as there are local political parties and militia fractions struggling to establish their territories in a post saddam era.