The war we are sure to lose.. a war started in 1979 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The war we are sure to lose.. a war started in 1979


Skyhook
04-11-2012, 12:37
.. or thereabouts.

That we acknowledge we really and truly at war will make our PC friends and neighbors very upset and angry with us- some will even call us names- for they are dedicated to the ostrich view and lack the constitution to accept the horrible future we are presenting to our children and grandchildren.

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2012/04/10/wrong-wrong-wrong-but-celebrated/?singlepage=true

This is the only opportunity we will have to fight and win the confrontation we did not want.

Dogpatch06
04-11-2012, 13:12
So Iran has been at war with the USA for over 30 years?

How many battles have been fought? How many casualties?

Your thinking reminds me of:"We've always been at war with eastasia"

We have the country of Iran completely surrounded with military bases. The US or Isreal have been murdering UN nuclear scientists (how come killing civies is only called Terrorism when other countries do it to us? ). Our politicians joke and sing songs about bombing Iran.

Who is the aggressor in this 30 year war?

Gunnut 45/454
04-11-2012, 14:04
Dogpatch06
O.K is good to lay the crack pipe down!:faint:

"How many battles have been fought? How many casualties?"
Lets see who killed our troops in Beruit- Hezbola-Iranian backed terrorist group

Who killed most of our troops in Iraq? Was it not proved over and over again that Iran had not only provided the Explosives but actual people ( many Iranians found/captured in Iraq)

Who is the major supporter of Hezbola/ Humas /PLO - Iran!

Didn't they commit an act of war when they took our Embasy personel prisoner?

"The US or Isreal have been murdering UN nuclear scientists"

So are you saying the UN is violating there own laws? Please site where the UN sceintists have been murdered? The UN is building the Iranians nuclear program -really? This one is really out there. Do you also believe the US government blow up the Twin towers?:rofl:

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 14:14
That article is correct!

There are elements in this world that have been at war with us since WWII.
Not a "shooting war", but still a war.

The communists from different countries, the Islamic religion from the Middle East
and dissent leftist groups in our own country.

Yes, I said the Islamic religion! The terrorist movement is just a tool being used by Islam to conquer the world.

All the peace talks in the world are totally ineffective, because in a conflict true peace can only be obtained when one side beats the other into submission and unconditionally imposes their will upon them.

That's the only answer to the Middle Eastern problem and every other problem in this world.

That's something America and it's citizens do not have the stomach for.
Therefore we lose.

Dogpatch06
04-11-2012, 14:15
Dogpatch06
O.K is good to lay the crack pipe down!

"The US or Isreal have been murdering UN nuclear scientists"



Sorry meant to say Iranian nuclear scientists. See here (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-11/middleeast/world_meast_iran-who-kills-scientists_1_iranian-nuclear-scientists-iranian-regime-natanz?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST)

Iran took some hostages 30 years ago, and hasnt done much since then.

We cant go around fighting aggressive wars with every country who thinks the US is bad.

JBnTX
04-11-2012, 14:24
Iran took some hostages 30 years ago, and hasnt done much since then.




Iran is one of this planets primary supporters of international terrorism. They train, finance and provide safe haven for our enemies.

They've continually threatened the United States and Israel with destruction.

And now they want nukes!

Gunnut 45/454
04-11-2012, 15:07
Dogpatch06
So we just put our heads into the sand and do zero when they kill our people?:faint: Let me guess your an RP supprter?:rofl: So what would you do if and or when they get a Nuke and use it to destroy Isreal? Or maybe detonate it in GA or somewhere else in the US? :whistling: Please tell us all when would you do something anything to protect US or anyone else for that matter?

Javelin
04-11-2012, 15:25
Iran was training, financing, and in some cases fighting US forces in Iraq.

Dogpatch06
04-11-2012, 15:52
Dogpatch06
So we just put our heads into the sand and do zero when they kill our people?:faint: Let me guess your an RP supprter?:rofl: So what would you do if and or when they get a Nuke and use it to destroy Isreal? Or maybe detonate it in GA or somewhere else in the US? :whistling: Please tell us all when would you do something anything to protect US or anyone else for that matter?

No im not a Ron Paul supporter. He has got some good ideas but also has some crazy ones.

If Iran gets a nuke, they are in the same boat as the rest of the world that has nukes...fire one off and they are all dead. Mutually Assured Destruction. I would prefer they dont have the option to get a nuke, but I wouldnt want to go to war with them (or any nation) on the hunch that some years in the future they may want to nuke us.

The state of perpetual war that the US has gotten into has really not accomplished anything except to radicalize more enemies against us. In that, I agree 100% with Ron Paul. End these wars....

GRIMLET
04-11-2012, 16:02
Wasn't one of Obama's campaign platforms was to sit down, face to face, with akmajini.....whatever his name is and Chavez?
This was supposed to bring the citizens of the world together.
Not so, good job Barry.

G29Reload
04-11-2012, 16:07
So Iran has been at war with the USA for over 30 years?

How many battles have been fought? How many casualties?

Your thinking reminds me of:"We've always been at war with eastasia"

We have the country of Iran completely surrounded with military bases. The US or Isreal have been murdering UN nuclear scientists (how come killing civies is only called Terrorism when other countries do it to us? ). Our politicians joke and sing songs about bombing Iran.

Who is the aggressor in this 30 year war?

Iran. Started with taking the hostages.

GRIMLET
04-11-2012, 16:15
Yes they did.
They will say the Shah was abusive in power and overtthrew his dictatorship.
The USA has known to curl up with unpopular leaders and insurgents, Marcos, the Shah, Danial Ortega, Saddam Hussein, Noriega....I'm sure I am missing a few.
Oh, the Mujahadien(sp). Now the Taliban.
Our government will lay with dogs and we suffer the fleas.
But, that's politics.

Gunnut 45/454
04-11-2012, 16:33
Dogpatch06
Yep that really worked well on 9/11 and the Embasy's in Africa bombers and USS Cole . Tell me what did we do to make these people do these terrorist acts. Didn't Osama Bin Laden state years before hand that he was at war with us? You going to trust that the very same Muslim extremist's will not use a nuke if they get one? Remember they think it's great to die for Islam. If Iran is so peaceful why does Wackideenojob keep stating he will destroy Isreal? These very same people would slit your throat for the fun of it just cause your a Christian( if your are) or for just being an American.:faint:

GRIMLET
04-11-2012, 16:45
I agree with you. We can't discuss OBL and his anger for being spurned by the Saudi regime in the Gulf War. It doesn't really matter at this point. The new us vs them has turned into a Hatfields vs McCoys on a global scale. It goes back so far, the participants don't really recall the original circumstances.

GRIMLET
04-11-2012, 16:49
I would hope the majority of efforts of our government would be for the Iranian people to rise up, again, and change their government.

Gunnut 45/454
04-11-2012, 18:01
GRIMLET
They (OBAMMOA) had there chance in 2009 and let the Iranian Government slaughter hundreds and never said boo. Cause they didn't want to offend there Muslim pals!:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
04-11-2012, 18:07
The war we are sure to lose.. a war started in 1979

Nothing is sure about the future. That's what makes it so fun to watch.

GRIMLET
04-11-2012, 19:22
GRIMLET
They (OBAMMOA) had there chance in 2009 and let the Iranian Government slaughter hundreds and never said boo. Cause they didn't want to offend there Muslim pals!:rofl:

I agree. They let the original arab spring wither and die. The United States failed in supporting its objectives.
A full on attack from an outside nation will solidify the nationalism of all Iranians. The Iranian people are not our enemy. Their government is.

rgregoryb
04-11-2012, 19:29
No im not a Ron Paul supporter. He has got some good ideas but also has some crazy ones.

If Iran gets a nuke, they are in the same boat as the rest of the world that has nukes...fire one off and they are all dead. Mutually Assured Destruction. I would prefer they dont have the option to get a nuke, but I wouldnt want to go to war with them (or any nation) on the hunch that some years in the future they may want to nuke us.

The state of perpetual war that the US has gotten into has really not accomplished anything except to radicalize more enemies against us. In that, I agree 100% with Ron Paul. End these wars....

their leadership would be OK with that because it will bring about the 12th Inning :supergrin: (don't know why they want such a long baseball game)

please try to keep up with current events

G29Reload
04-11-2012, 21:08
Iran took some hostages 30 years ago, and hasnt done much since then.


Like hell. A more naive statement was never made.

They've funded hezbollah, made a puppet state out of Lebanon, work with Syria to foment violence, incite violence against israel and in the past year have bombed targets in Thailand, India and even south America just off the top of my head.

juggy4711
04-11-2012, 21:29
Nothing is sure about the future. That's what makes it so fun to watch.

For sure as in 100% certain, no and I agree with that. But probabilities based on the past do not look good. Of course it depends on what one considers a win.

RC-RAMIE
04-11-2012, 23:44
Iran. Started with taking the hostages.

What was some of the reasons giving for taking hostages? Who supported the Shah of Iran that was overthrown in a revolution less than a year before the hostage taking? Blowback is real.


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

Big Mad Dawg
04-12-2012, 00:48
If Iran gets a nuke, they are in the same boat as the rest of the world that has nukes...fire one off and they are all dead. Mutually Assured Destruction.

You need to do a little research on what Imanutjob and his fellow wacky Iranian leaders believe in. They are radical followers of the Muhammad Al-Mahdi the 12th Imam “the hidden one”. They believe that if a war erupts and they (the true followers of Islam) are in danger of annihilation the hidden Imam will reappear and lead them to world domination and bring about a new Islamic paradise on earth. They are not afraid of MAD they embrace the idea as a way to bring this idiotic fantasy to life.
I don’t make this nutty crap up just informing the ignorant.

Big Mad Dawg
04-12-2012, 00:59
What was some of the reasons giving for taking hostages? Who supported the Shah of Iran that was overthrown in a revolution less than a year before the hostage taking? Blowback is real.



So you would understand if Americans took hostages from embassy’s of the nationalities of each of the 9 11 terrorist? I mean there is blowback right?

Cavalry Doc
04-12-2012, 06:15
So you would understand if Americans took hostages from embassy’s of the nationalities of each of the 9 11 terrorist? I mean there is blowback right?

You ave to understand, for most of the people talking about "blowback", we are the bad guys, and no excuse for what we do is acceptible.

Gary W Trott
04-12-2012, 07:14
.. or thereabouts.

That we acknowledge we really and truly at war will make our PC friends and neighbors very upset and angry with us- some will even call us names- for they are dedicated to the ostrich view and lack the constitution to accept the horrible future we are presenting to our children and grandchildren.

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2012/04/10/wrong-wrong-wrong-but-celebrated/?singlepage=true

This is the only opportunity we will have to fight and win the confrontation we did not want.
This "war" didn't begin in 1979, it began in 1953 (http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm) when we and the British orchestrated the overthrow of the Iranian government and installed a dictator. To say that we "did not want" it is ridiculous or maybe you meant to say that we didn't want to experience and repercussions from what we did.

RC-RAMIE
04-12-2012, 07:30
This "war" didn't begin in 1979, it began in 1953 (http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm) when we and the British orchestrated the overthrow of the Iranian government and installed a dictator. To say that we "did not want" it is ridiculous or maybe you meant to say that we didn't want to experience and repercussions from what we did.

Blowback? You think America is guilty shame on you.


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

Skyhook
04-12-2012, 09:55
You need to do a little research on what Imanutjob and his fellow wacky Iranian leaders believe in. They are radical followers of the Muhammad Al-Mahdi the 12th Imam “the hidden one”. They believe that if a war erupts and they (the true followers of Islam) are in danger of annihilation the hidden Imam will reappear and lead them to world domination and bring about a new Islamic paradise on earth. They are not afraid of MAD they embrace the idea as a way to bring this idiotic fantasy to life.
I don’t make this nutty crap up just informing the ignorant.


Beat me to it, BMD! Good job. :thumbsup:

MAD (mutually assured destruction) only works with sane people who embrace this world and value their own lives, the lives of their women and the lives of their children.

We have evidence they really do not like women much and have wrapped their precious children in belts of explosives.

Islamists do not fit that mold (sane people) well, especially those of the radical bent as they get 72 (at least) 'virgins' as a reward when they are killed while doing the jihad-- with or without music.

How does one reason with the unreasonable?

(But, hey, don't take my word for it.. listen to one of theirs) http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0412/may041212.php3?printer_friendly

Skyhook
04-12-2012, 10:21
This "war" didn't begin in 1979, it began in 1953 (http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm) when we and the British orchestrated the overthrow of the Iranian government and installed a dictator. To say that we "did not want" it is ridiculous or maybe you meant to say that we didn't want to experience and repercussions from what we did.

Well, I guess we actually could have agreed this "war" started back in the 1700s?

As I recall President Jefferson sent a reply to those pirates of the Med. way back then.

The only difference is time passed and faces (masks) changed. We are still dealing with barbarians who firmly believe that killing and intentionally maiming those different from them is not just acceptable, but a way of doing business. Today, however, they are much better organized, better armed, and we have no will (officially) to meet them in any equally forceful manner. We have tender bellies.

SCmasterblaster
04-12-2012, 10:30
It is high time that we nuke our enemies in Iran. THAT would end the war. :cool:

Blast
04-12-2012, 10:48
This "war" didn't begin in 1979, it began in 1953 (http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm) when we and the British orchestrated the overthrow of the Iranian government and installed a dictator. To say that we "did not want" it is ridiculous or maybe you meant to say that we didn't want to experience and repercussions from what we did.
Those were Cold War days. The Soviet Union long had designs on Iran. If "we and the British" had not "installed a dictator" friendly to the West, the Soviets would have orchestrated an overthrow to install their own dictator.
The majority of the Middle East was either pro West or pro Soviet during the Cold War due to the influences of both sides. It was a super power chess/poker game. Political and strategic positioning.
The same game in Central America and South East Asia.

rgregoryb
04-12-2012, 15:31
Those were Cold War days. The Soviet Union long had designs on Iran. If "we and the British" had not "installed a dictator" friendly to the West, the Soviets would have orchestrated an overthrow to install their own dictator.
The majority of the Middle East was either pro West or pro Soviet during the Cold War due to the influences of both sides. It was a super power chess/poker game. Political and strategic positioning.
The same game in Central America and South East Asia.

quit confusing us with facts, America is bad, bad, bad..........:whistling:

juggy4711
04-12-2012, 21:53
So you would understand if Americans took hostages from embassy’s of the nationalities of each of the 9 11 terrorist? I mean there is blowback right?

You ave to understand, for most of the people talking about "blowback", we are the bad guys, and no excuse for what we do is acceptible.

You're both confusing reasons for excuses. Not all reasons for an act are excuses of said act.

Those were Cold War days...

The Cold War. Reason or excuse? Give your enemies no reasons to be used as excuses and when they cross anyways, give them no mercy.

Skyhook
04-13-2012, 07:15
You're both confusing reasons for excuses. Not all reasons for an act are excuses of said act.



The Cold War. Reason or excuse? Give your enemies no reasons to be used as excuses and when they cross anyways, give them no mercy.


You say tomayto, I say Tomahto.. I doubt the 'excuses/reason' argument can be as solid as it may appear.

Just sayin'. :wavey:

Gary W Trott
04-13-2012, 17:30
Well, I guess we actually could have agreed this "war" started back in the 1700s?

As I recall President Jefferson sent a reply to those pirates of the Med. way back then.
Was there some sort of massive shift in the earth since 1700 that moved Iran away from the north African coast of the Mediteranean and to where it sits today?

Gary W Trott
04-13-2012, 17:48
Those were Cold War days. The Soviet Union long had designs on Iran. If "we and the British" had not "installed a dictator" friendly to the West, the Soviets would have orchestrated an overthrow to install their own dictator.
Why the British and ourselves started the war in 1953 doesn't change the fact that it began twenty six years before the original poster said that it did.

But since you brought up the "why" I'd like to address it. If keeping the Soviets out of the Persian Gulf really was the reason for our supporting a coup, we could have accomplished that goal by supporting the government that already existed in Iran. (If you read the paper I link to you will see that is exactly what we were already doing at the time) Of course that would have still meant the oil business in Iran would have been nationalized and the British would have been out of luck. The Soviet threat was just something they dreamed up to get us involved.

coastal4974
04-13-2012, 19:40
This country is no longer equipped to win any war.

The only thing we do now is get Americans killed for nothing and continue to show our weakness.

rgregoryb
04-13-2012, 21:12
This country is no longer equipped to win any war.

The only thing we do now is get Americans killed for nothing and continue to show our weakness.

oh, we're equipped...we're just not allowed to use everything available

juggy4711
04-13-2012, 21:16
You say tomayto, I say Tomahto.. I doubt the 'excuses/reason' argument can be as solid as it may appear.

Just sayin'. :wavey:

Sorry but words have specific definitions. Reasons and excuses are not the same thing. It's like the difference between hear and listen. All this new speak crap doesn't jive with me.

Blast
04-13-2012, 22:17
Why the British and ourselves started the war in 1953 doesn't change the fact that it began twenty six years before the original poster said that it did.

But since you brought up the "why" I'd like to address it. If keeping the Soviets out of the Persian Gulf really was the reason for our supporting a coup, we could have accomplished that goal by supporting the government that already existed in Iran. (If you read the paper I link to you will see that is exactly what we were already doing at the time) Of course that would have still meant the oil business in Iran would have been nationalized and the British would have been out of luck. The Soviet threat was just something they dreamed up to get us involved.
To get rid of the gov. we supposedly were already supporting, but turned around and replaced it must mean things didn't go as planned. Something had to change.
It's easy to retro view with a liberal mindset and say it was this or that, and that the USA is always the bad guy.
Iran was definitely wanted by the Soviets. That would give them a warm water port not to mention the strategic advantage of the Persian Gulf.
Liberals need to remove the blinders and see the world as it was and is. Not pretty... never was... but that's reality.

Gary W Trott
04-13-2012, 22:54
To get rid of the gov. we supposedly were already supporting, but turned around and replaced it must mean things didn't go as planned. Something had to change.
You are correct. The government of Iran had to change so the British could retain control of it's oil. That is all it was and you my friend are the one with blinders on as you cannot see the whole affair for what it was.

It's not like we'd never been involved in something like that before and since you don't like third parties to "retro view" things, here it is by someone who actually participated in these types of activities:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." - Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1933 (http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm)

At least in Iran we didn't have any troops losing their lives to protect the interests of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company.

cowboywannabe
04-13-2012, 23:53
we will either fight iran when they have nukes or before they have nukes, but we will fight them.

Blast
04-14-2012, 00:30
You are correct. The government of Iran had to change so the British could retain control of it's oil. That is all it was and you my friend are the one with blinders on as you cannot see the whole affair for what it was.

It's not like we'd never been involved in something like that before and since you don't like third parties to "retro view" things, here it is by someone who actually participated in these types of activities:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." - Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1933 (http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm)

At least in Iran we didn't have any troops losing their lives to protect the interests of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company.
Oil was a side bonus. Oil in those days was a fairly cheap commodity. The main issue was strategic. The US and allies were on a containment campaign. Iran shared borders with the Soviet Union.
So many liberal types see oil as the root of all the worlds problems. These days oil is a significant issue, but back then, not nearly as much.
But anyway, what are we supposed to do? Bury our heads in the sand and hope the problems go away? Apologize to Iran and then help them with their nuclear activities? Should we just pull all assets from all over the world, stop supporting Israel and hope all the nations that hate us will then be friends?
What was done is done. View it to your content. Will not change the future.

Gary W Trott
04-14-2012, 05:29
Oil was a side bonus. Oil in those days was a fairly cheap commodity. The main issue was strategic.
It definitely wasn't the oil for us, but it was for the British and they are the ones who pushed the fear of the Soviets so that we would support a coup rather than just working with the current government. And because of their chicanery we went along with them.

From the article linked in my original post on this subject (http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm):

"The origin of British planning to aid the overthrow of Musaddiq lay in his decision to nationalise oil operations in Iran, which was passed into law in May 1951, the month after he became Prime Minister. In the dispute that followed, Musaddiq offered to compensate the AIOC but Britain demanded either a new oil concession or a settlement that would compensate for loss of future profits."

But anyway, what are we supposed to do? Bury our heads in the sand and hope the problems go away? Apologize to Iran and then help them with their nuclear activities?
What we should do is begin with your second suggestion which is to apologize for being suckered into the whole thing by the British. That would place the blame where it truly belongs and then take it from there. That doesn't have to be done in public and could be done in private negotiations. Maybe it will work and maybe it won't but if it does work it will be pretty much cost free in both lives and money, unlike sanctions and/or military operations. It will also put us back on friendly terms with them which we haven't had since 1953.

Our worry with Iran having a nuclear program is due to our past and present problems with them...and not just to the fact that they have a nuclear program. As for helping them with their nuclear program we should not be helping any nation with pretty much anything. If American companies however wanted to that would be up to them. If we got our political problems with Iran corrected that would be a great opportunity to push past the Russians and Chinese who are close with Iran, and also the reasons for why the containment policy you speak of was instituted around the world in the first place.

Skyhook
04-14-2012, 06:00
Was there some sort of massive shift in the earth since 1700 that moved Iran away from the north African coast of the Mediteranean and to where it sits today?


I doubt it, but there was a massive increase in the brainwashed populations adhering to the Muslim view of this world and the next. That motivating factor should not be ignored as it obviously propels its believers in the same directions as it did in 600AD... just like those pirates.