A day to day acount of the whacky and wonderful world of Muggaz - i tend to be having too much fun these days, and often cannot remember moments due to debauchery - its time the internet repayed my loyalty by recording my antics.
based on ugly precedents set by their enemies.
Published on August 18, 2004 By Muggaz In International
The Olympics are supposed to be a time of reflection and enjoyment, with ideals of peace being put on the table by the worlds athletes, it would seem that Iran is out to ruin everyone’s party though

A few days ago, and Iranian athlete refused to compete with an Israeli athlete, which is fair enough, each to their own, we can move on from that, but now, the Iranian government is not ruling out pre-emptive strikes on US and Israeli forces in the Middle East should they feel their Nuclear reactor at Bushehr under threat.

Iranian Defence Minister – Ali Shamkhani has warned “We will not sit (With arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventative operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly” This was during an interview with Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq,"

The commander of the Elite revolutionary guards, General Muhammad Baqir Zolqadr has also warned - "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move,"

They look like fighting words.

Should the Iranians make the first strike against Israeli or US forces, It will be safe to say we will have a genuine bloody conflict on our hands. We think Iraq and Afghanistan are human rights tragedies, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Iran would obviously be comfortable with making a pre-emptive strike, because they feel genuinely threatened. They maintain that their nuclear facilities are for energy production – That is for them to say, and us to believe.

The threat that Iran will attack opposing forces in the region is a very real one if they feel threatened. It’s a shame that the targets of Iran's hostilities set the unfortunate precedent that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable.

BAM!!!

Comments (Page 4)
8 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Aug 19, 2004
End it. Period. I don't think a single American OR Iraqi soldier should lose their life storming that damn mosque to cater to the sensibilities of religious fanatics, and I don't think any deference whatsoever should be granted to governments like Iran's. If we are to make war, let's make war, and finish it.


Ah, the Hawk Scorched earth policy....

The problem with your argument Baker is that any conflict with Iran and allies would probably last for 10 years.... rather than having a fresh conflict with different admins every 10 years, you are going to instill hatred amongst a general population in Iran that generally has no gripes with the USA....

BAM!!!
on Aug 19, 2004
Also, I would like to point out the source of the article from the begining. Aljazeera. Can someone confirm this news story by a more reputable news source?
on Aug 19, 2004
Can someone confirm this news story by a more reputable news source?


- you dont think they are reputable?

BAM!!!
on Aug 19, 2004
"The problem with your argument Baker is that any conflict with Iran and allies would probably last for 10 years.... rather than having a fresh conflict with different admins every 10 years, you are going to instill hatred amongst a general population in Iran that generally has no gripes with the USA...."


Please, Mugs. You really think that a war with Iran couldn't end in a matter of days? Do you really think a US soldier need set foot on Iranian soil? I think we could easily have a desperate plea of surrender in a few weeks and never dip in to our nuclear stockpiles.

Granted, people don't make war that way anymore. In order to show "good faith" we'd have to forgo our superior technology and dangle a few thousand soldiers in harms way so that we can pretend we are being "humane".

Hardly. What you are condemning as "scorched earth" is simply protecting US troops. It is sad and ridiculous to send footsoldiers into an area with remaining resistance.

Condemn me all you like, but I don't think a single combat boot should touch soil anywhere we aren't polititely invited into. Until we are offered such a suggestion, our main objuective should be ending the conflict with as few US casualites as possible. Every town in Iraq that offers resistance should be considered "at war" and no one should try and "occupy" it until it is no longer a war-zone.
on Aug 19, 2004
Baker - you remind me of the Denis Leary song "Asshole"

"Cause we got the bombs - ok?"

*sigh*

BAM!!!
on Aug 19, 2004
Snideness aside, I think it is pretty telling that you find putting soldiers in harms way preferable to "scorched earth". It is a comfortable argument here, but if you knew for a fact that you could end a conflict without any losses on your side, or end it with tens of thousands of causalties on your side, you think sacrificing soldiers is taking the "high road"?

You keep trying to make this jingoistic. It isn't. I am sick of seeing our soldiers dragged through the streets, and when facing people who fight as these people fight, they don't deserve to get the chance to shoot at our troops.

It may serve your arguement to keep painting me as some sort of war nut, but what you are suggesting is far, far more bloody and disgusting.
on Aug 19, 2004
It may serve your arguement to keep painting me as some sort of war nut, but what you are suggesting is far, far more bloody and disgusting.


Soldiers get paid to fight.

Civilians dont.

When Soldiers waltz in to Iraq, or Iran, or Vietnam or wherever, they are fully aware of the risk they are taking. To wish death upon a civilian population with a few big bombs based on an administrations threats - empty or not, is just sadistic.

BAM!!!
on Aug 19, 2004
Good stuff, Muggaz.

I think this is a prime example of how poor a foreign policy premptive strike is.
on Aug 19, 2004
Muggaz your accusations are absurd. First of all, Iran would not attack the united states. My previous posts were to support the idea of not provoking Iran. However, the fact remains that we could and would crush Iran and any other country that dared to attack us. No country would be that stupid. We wouldn't be able to use nukes, but we have other bombs. We have fighter jets. We have allies. And we would win. The failure that occured in Iraq would NOT happen if iran were to attack us because we would attack them with a fury not seen since world war II. And I am highly insulted by your sordid remark that soldiers get paid to die. Do police officers get paid to die as well? No. They get paid to fight crime, as soldiers get paid to fight enimies. Yes death is a risk, as it is a risk to the firefighter or the industrial worker, but it is not what they are paid to do. Soldiers further do not get to choose whether or not to waltz into Iraq or Iran, they are ordered to do so. And bringing up vietnam is ludicrous. A draft was instated, meaning our own civilians were forced to go there. Our own civilians died. War is not good, but a ground war is in NO way better then any other form of war.

Bakerstreet- I agree with you on a number of issues. However, we should not endlessly attack the civilians in Iraq, even if in not senslessly slaughtering people a few american soldiers are killed. It is different if we were to be attacked, then the goal of our attack would be to disable our enemy. But the goal of our invasion of iraq was to occupy it, not destroy it.
on Aug 19, 2004
Muggaz your accusations are absurd


Absurd they may be! What accusations are you referring to exactly? I have not said that a ground war is better than any other war... Iran doesn't even have the capacitiy to attack the US, so I dont know what you are talking about...

I agree with you 100% attacking USA or their forces would proove futile for any force, it would no doubt set in action a course of events that would bog the middle east in to war, and a lot of people will die regardless... I just find it disheartening that people like baker here dont give a rats ass about the people of the middle east, as long as USDF personel aren't placed in harms way...

you wouldn't want to press any buttons in an electrical storm, some US troops might get a nasty jolt...

BAM!!!
on Aug 19, 2004
I misspoke. They werent accusations. They were comments. Not accusations. I apologize. That does not invalidate my point about the soldiers not being paid to die. When i say attack the USA i classify any sort of pre-emptive attack as an attack on the USA. I agree that civilians should not needlessly die.
on Aug 19, 2004
That does not invalidate my point about the soldiers not being paid to die


Sorry mate - I have edited the offending comment.

BAM!!!
on Aug 19, 2004
Thank you.
on Aug 19, 2004
actually the first opening salvo against the united states by Terrorists, Rouge Nations, Radicals...and Iran in particular was the US Embassy takeover and the subsequent hostage ordeal....dont know why everyone forgets that...especially since an Embassy is considered the soverign soil of the particular nation ....

as to Iran's latest round of threats...well I highly doubt they are really in the mood for a direct confrontation with the US and its allies...because that be the last mistake the Mullahs in tehran would make....because it would give us the excuse we would need to teach Iran a lesson all americans know....paybacks are a bitch!

Quite frankly....i think its time Iran got a bitchslap....they are partly responsible for Sadr's continued irritation in Iraq.....and other problems there...remember its not in Irans intrest to have another secular nation next to them (this time without a dictator) nor are they happy bout being boxed in as it were with Iraq to the west and Afghan to the east...
i believe...who knows....
on Aug 20, 2004

Pre-emptive strikes are not new for the US or a lot of countries. It is one of the oldest wartime strategies, despite the attempt to portray it as a new phenomenon

the preemptive strike is as old as war.   there's no question about that.  what is a new phenomenon is the leader of a 21st century first world civilized nation proclaiming he has the power to declare war at will with preemptive strikes in what seems to be a total contradiction to the constitution if not common sense.  crucifixion dates back to before the current era.  should we now revive it as well because it works?  

8 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last