Is Iran next?

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-04-27 04:11pm

There is a lot of talk running around Washinton that because of the fact that they have been backing terrorist, we might be sending forces into Iran. I have no real problem with this as they have been collectivly fliping off the US for years, but they are thougher then we give them credit for.

Opinions on this subjut anyone?

Ralnia · Post by **Ralnia** » 2003-04-27 04:15pm

Iran is a democracy - if we invaded them, there's no way that we could justify it, especially since they have oil. If we let them elect their own government after the war, they'll just vote the Islamofascists back in. If not, why are we invading?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-27 04:18pm

Iran is liberalizing. Quite frankly I think there's a higher chance of invading Syria then there is Iraq.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-27 04:18pm

Iran, excuse me.

Ralnia · Post by **Ralnia** » 2003-04-27 04:20pm

And if we invaded Syria so soon, everyone would know that we're on a campaign of conquest, not "liberation"

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-04-27 04:20pm

Ralnia wrote:Iran is a democracy - if we invaded them, there's no way that we could justify it, especially since they have oil. If we let them elect their own government after the war, they'll just vote the Islamofascists back in. If not, why are we invading?

They are a theocracy.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-27 04:21pm

Ralnia wrote:And if we invaded Syria so soon, everyone would know that we're on a campaign of conquest, not "liberation"

But we're not going to invade Syria. I'm just saying there's a stronger possibility of invading Syria then there is Iran.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-27 04:22pm

Ralnia wrote:And if we invaded Syria so soon, everyone would know that we're on a campaign of conquest, not "liberation"

Technically, we have a legitimate reason to invade Syria, as they are harboring known international criminals. But, that is a different argument. And you really do think this is a war of conquest, don't you? Tell me, why would we invade Iraq for oil, when we could much more easily and cheaply take over Venezuela...

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-04-27 04:22pm

We won't invade Iran. As it currently stands, many Iranians hate the mullahs, and are beginning to challenge their power. Most likely Iran will fall from within.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-27 04:22pm

Nathan F wrote:
Ralnia wrote:And if we invaded Syria so soon, everyone would know that we're on a campaign of conquest, not "liberation"
Technically, we have a legitimate reason to invade Syria, as they are harboring known international criminals. But, that is a different argument. And you really do think this is a war of conquest, don't you? Tell me, why would we invade Iraq for oil, when we could much more easily and cheaply take over Venezuela...

Forgot to clarify, I am not necessarily for invading Syria, as I do think it would be political suicide.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-27 04:23pm

Nathan F wrote:
Ralnia wrote:And if we invaded Syria so soon, everyone would know that we're on a campaign of conquest, not "liberation"
Technically, we have a legitimate reason to invade Syria, as they are harboring known international criminals. But, that is a different argument. And you really do think this is a war of conquest, don't you? Tell me, why would we invade Iraq for oil, when we could much more easily and cheaply take over Venezuela...

Venezuela isn't hostile to Israel.

Oil is obviously not the only reason for invading Iraq. There are many reasons, some of which are good and some of which are not.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-04-27 04:23pm

Nathan F wrote:
Ralnia wrote:And if we invaded Syria so soon, everyone would know that we're on a campaign of conquest, not "liberation"
Technically, we have a legitimate reason to invade Syria, as they are harboring known international criminals. But, that is a different argument. And you really do think this is a war of conquest, don't you? Tell me, why would we invade Iraq for oil, when we could much more easily and cheaply take over Venezuela...

But we know now that Iran was harboring members of Al Queda so, acording to that arguement, we have legal reasons to invade Iran.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-27 04:26pm

Admiral Johnason wrote:
Nathan F wrote:
Ralnia wrote:And if we invaded Syria so soon, everyone would know that we're on a campaign of conquest, not "liberation"
Technically, we have a legitimate reason to invade Syria, as they are harboring known international criminals. But, that is a different argument. And you really do think this is a war of conquest, don't you? Tell me, why would we invade Iraq for oil, when we could much more easily and cheaply take over Venezuela...
But we know now that Iran was harboring members of Al Queda so, acording to that arguement, we have legal reasons to invade Iran.

Of course we do; we have legal reasons to invade Saudi Arabia, also, but that doesn't mean we're gonna do it.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-27 04:26pm

Admiral Johnason wrote:
Opinions on this subjut anyone?

Believing Washington rumors places you in the moron category. There is no way in hell the US is going to invade Iraq. The most that is remotely likely to happen is a quick raid to knockout there nuclear reactors currently being built on the gulf coast.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-04-27 04:28pm

Actually, I heard the rumor off of both CNN and Fox last night.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-04-27 04:39pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Admiral Johnason wrote:
Opinions on this subjut anyone?
Believing Washington rumors places you in the moron category. There is no way in hell the US is going to invade Iraq. The most that is remotely likely to happen is a quick raid to knockout there nuclear reactors currently being built on the gulf coast.

Why do people always mess up between Iraq and Iran?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-27 04:43pm

Pu-239 wrote:

Why do people always mess up between Iraq and Iran?

Shut up

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-04-27 04:45pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Pu-239 wrote:

Why do people always mess up between Iraq and Iran?
Shut up

... ok.

Ralnia · Post by **Ralnia** » 2003-04-27 04:53pm

Tell me, why would we invade Iraq for oil, when we could much more easily and cheaply take over Venezuela...

Iraq has more oil, and it's easier for the administration to make anti-Iraq than anti-Venezuela propaganda. Also, who says it would have been easier to take over Venezuela? Our tanks stopped more to refuel than they did to fight, and by the time they got to Baghdad, we'd hit them with so many airstrikes that they only had 12 tanks left.

Also, Venezuela didn't try to assassinate Bush I.

Ignorant twit · Post by **Ignorant twit** » 2003-04-27 05:49pm

Iraq has more oil, and it's easier for the administration to make anti-Iraq than anti-Venezuela propaganda. Also, who says it would have been easier to take over Venezuela? Our tanks stopped more to refuel than they did to fight, and by the time they got to Baghdad, we'd hit them with so many airstrikes that they only had 12 tanks left.

Why don't we just recognize the Phillipine's claim to the Spratleys, and enforce said claim by holding "naval exercises" next to the drilling rigs?

Or back say the southern rebels in Sudan? We wouldn't even have to send in ground troops ... just bomb the north and let the south take the place over?

Do you have an idea how many CHEAPER places we could have expended military force to get MORE oil with LESS effort?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-04-27 05:55pm

Ignorant twit wrote: Do you have an idea how many CHEAPER places we could have expended military force to get MORE oil with LESS effort?

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves, after Saudi Arabia.

The Oil is in the Middle East, the rest are leftovers.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-27 05:57pm

Ralnia wrote:Also, who says it would have been easier to take over Venezuela?

General geography and comrade order of battle comparison.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-04-27 06:02pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Ralnia wrote:Also, who says it would have been easier to take over Venezuela?
General geography and comrade order of battle comparison.

You would have to fight in the jungles against a first and a half world country, bigger and far more motivated than Iraq. Brazil and the remaining members of the south american trading union (can't remember the name right now) wouldn't like the idea, and the E.U would bitch like hell, including the British, the Spanish and the Portuguese (the U.S more visible allies against Iraq within the E.U). I fail to see how anyone can mention it as a comparing option at all. The international isolation and military buildup of all the world countries after such an action would be the beginnings of WW3.

edit: Olrik is a fool who reads Venezuela and thinks Argentina. Take no notice.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-27 06:14pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Pu-239 wrote:

Why do people always mess up between Iraq and Iran?
Shut up

Tisk tisk, I thought the great leader would have been more careful with his terminology. You know, with all the nukes and armored divisions at your command, a slip up like that could be somewhat dangerous, although funny.

I see this as time for the...GREAT COUP OF THE HAB!!!

OK, back OT. We won't invade Iran. They are advancing on their own, and I would personally say that they will be a different country on their own in just a few years.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-04-27 06:24pm

Would we back a revolution by the people to set up a democratic government?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is Iran next?

Is Iran next?

Re: Is Iran next?

Re: Is Iran next?

Re: Is Iran next?

Re: Is Iran next?

Re: Is Iran next?