Optional

Dammit ex-idaho, *I* was gonna say that... Was reading down thru the responses, tailoring my post in my mind, then you said everything first! *grump*

Ah well, one extra thing...

I don't see how BushCo has a single shred of credibility when they say they will support Iranian dissidents all the way. That is precisely what his father promised Iraqi dissidents, and precisely what his father failed to do. W is not his father, true, but he has shown in the past year a tendecy to be a little, er, honesty challenged...

-me

Genghis Pwn

lol at not having the manpower. One US carrier group could easily smash Iran's armed forces. A few of our special forces guys backed by a ragtag band of Afghans wearing sandals routed the Taliban in a couple of weeks.

There is a huge anti-government force growing day by day inside Iraq. Many, if not most, are pro-American.

The fact is, we WILL act if we feel our national security is at stake. Bush will not like let our major cities be nuked by islamic militants. He could not live with the blood of millions of innocent Americans on his hands.

Blixy Sticks

Actually, a war with Iran will assure him a landslide victory in the 2004 election.

ex-idaho

I think you may be suffering from GOP delusions. Sure a carrier group could do alot of damage but without ground troops to occupy Iran we are only creating a new Iraq.

As far as the Taliban goes they were chumps. They had no money, no infrastructure and no standing army.

I seem to recall the same thing being said about Afganastan and Iraq yet we are still suffering losses to people that are pro-American.

Are you Ari Fliescher? You sure sound like him.

Genghis Pwn

It's better to lose a couple hundred soldiers than a couple million people.

ex-idaho

Do you really think any world leader would be stupid enough to launch a nuclear attack on the US? That is a suicide mission of gigantic proportions.

Stop the fear mongering! I don't care what your personal agenda may be and the same goes for everyone else but please stop trying to influence the direction of society with fear and ridiculous claims that the sky is falling. If you don't have anything rational to add to the conversation then please don't participate!

Genghis Pwn

They would not fire a missile, they would pass it off to terrorists. Then the terrorists would then smuggle the nuje and set it off in Israel, NY, Los Angeles or DC.

As for "stop the fear-mongering"... I bet if I came to this board in July 2001 saying 19 Arabs were going to hijack airliners full of people and crash them into the pentagon and both world trade centers towers, bringing both towers down, you would have called me every name in the book and laughed me off the forum. The fact is, we don't know what exactly these brainwashed, evil Islamic groups are planning to do in their next attacks. But we do know there will be be more.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are on the record saying it is their "religious duty" to obtain nuclear weapons and use them against the US.

Iran, a longtime state sponsor of terrorism, could also pass spent nuclear fuel to radical muslims (their god damn leaders are crazed muslims) to make a dirty bomb.

Evangelion

The Taliban sustained moderate damage and withdrew (or simply changed sides in some cases) when they were ready.

They were not "routed" at all.

Evangelion

Two questions:

• When's the last time this happened? (Hint: never.)
  
• Why hasn't it happened yet?

Hugo Holbling

I realise you're a troll, but nevertheless it isn't wise to hold forth on the capabilities of naval forces when you neither understand their employment nor appreciate their uses. Since warfare in the littoral battlespace is quite obviously insufficient to topple Iran, your remark is ridiculous.