In response to:

Don't Let the "Congressional Impatience Caucus" Push us to War in Iran

mburch Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 8:13 AM
So after Iran destroys say ...NYC .. then we should do that it...these 'people ' have no intentions of talking,they can not be trusted to keep their word...Israel is our only ally and friend in that entire region,and fools want to throw Israel under the bus.....right...good ploy...with friends like you...who needs enemys
Texas Chris Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 9:32 AM
Let's have a little intellectual exercise: Name all the countries Iran has attacked in the last 100 years. Now make a list of all the countries the US has attacked. Who is the more likely to destroy whose city?

Now, I'm not saying I like the Iranian govenrment. I don't. Nor do I want them to have any nuclear weapon capability.
wpqr Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 9:37 AM
So Iran hasn't attacked anyone in the last 100 years. What does that prove? Until the last century, Japan hadn't attacked anyone in over 300 years.
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 11:38 AM
1979 US Embassy invasion and hostage seizure = act of war
Two US embassy bombings = act of war
1983 Marine Barracks bombing = act of war
1996 Khobar Towers bombing = act of war
Iranian IEDs,arms and training to Afghan and Iraq insurgents = act of war.
Saudi ambassador assassination plot = act of war

We have PLENTY of justification for dropping a bomb into Iran.
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 11:39 AM
whether or not you realize it,Iran is ALREADY at war with the US.
RyanM Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 12:06 PM
We better kill them all now, wqpr. Better safe than sorry, right?

While we're at it let's take out Russia and China. There is a chance they might strike first!
RyanM Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 12:09 PM
You left one out, Jay.

!953 The US and Britain engineer a coup to overthrow Mossadegh and replace him with the shah.

Just who in the hell do these towel heads think they are, taking our oil?
Bondman60 Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 1:00 PM
You pacifist Libertards always throw that one out there. Well, the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which only began in 1979, is hardly a peaceful one. Just because they fund, train and command NGOs like Hizbollah to commit acts of war against the US and others instead of using its own flag-bearing armed forces, does not free Iran from guilt. What would you call the attack on the Marine baracks in Lebanon in 1983? A diplomatic mission? That was wholly conceived, funded and ordered by the Ayatollah. And if you don't consider that an act of war, along with the hundreds of our servicemen killed by Iranian agents in Iraq and Afghansitan, then there is little hope for you, Chris102. I'd suggest you embrace Islam now.
Bondman60 Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 1:01 PM
Bondman60 Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 1:04 PM
Actually, they did take our oil, Ryan. In the 1950s, the Saudis nationalized all US owned oil properties in the kingdom. US companies had searched for the oil, drilled for the oil, and extracted the oil. Once the hard work and investment was done, the Saudis just stole it all from the oil company shareholders. Ike's reaction? Nothing. We should have sent the Marines and protected our interests. History would have been much different, and much better fior all of us.
RyanM Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 1:15 PM
Why in the hell should marines have to put their lives on the line for what a private business does? Caveat emptor, ever heard of it? Today, you will be happy to know that the forces over there are defending "our oil", but in a different way. This time they are guarding the transnationals and China, of all nations.

It's their oil, Bondsman. One of the reasons the oil was nationalized was that these countries were receiving little in royalties. By the way, the shah also took over the oil industry in Iran later on.

What you are defending is theft.

The manner in which talk of going to war with Iran is being bandied about this election cycle, might lead an observer to conclude such an act would have consequences no more serious than a family squabble over the Holiday dinner table. As Pat Buchanan noted in his column here at yesterday, some war advocates, such as David Rothkopf, suggest that a so-called “surgical strike” against Iranian nuclear facilities and its consequences, would last no longer than “a day or two at most” and would be without any “civilian casualties.”

It is this sort of naïve – bordering on childish...