1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Will we go to war with Iran?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by mc mark, Mar 16, 2006.

?

Will we go to war with Iran?

  1. Yes

    32.7%
  2. No

    67.3%
  1. CreepyFloyd

    CreepyFloyd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    1
    how many avg americans have a good idea of how the us govt works? not a lot

    same thing applies for avg iranians



    well you're entitled to your opinion, but i'm sure there are around a billion people out there that disagree with it and believe a man bowing down to a woman is a sign of modesty and respect as opposed to a sexist gesture

    you ever gonna answer my question about name-calling?
     
  2. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    181
    Right. That's what I said - our resident anonymous bbs Iran expert knows better than people living in Iran.

    I doubt there are a billion people that think its right that a man will shake another man's hand but refuse to shake a woman's hand. Considering there are people in Iran who don't believe that, add in a large percentage of Muslims in the West, and those in Indonesia (where the refusal happened) which as I'm sure you know is largely Muslim - I doubt you have anything close to a billion.

    Although it might be the case that gender equality is not near the top of the priority list for a self described 'chick magnet.' It is really hard to assign any credibility on the issue of what does or doesn't constitute sexism to someone who says, for example:

    http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=112670&page=2&pp=20
     
    #262 HayesStreet, May 11, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2006
  3. CreepyFloyd

    CreepyFloyd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    1
    haha...in the words of the houston legend mike jones: Back then hoes didn't want me, now I'm hot hoes all on me

    dont be mad at me hayes because you cant get a date...maybe if you stopped calling me names, i'd send a couple of hoes your way

    i'm glad to see you're reading all my eloquent passages here on the bbs and reacting and responding just like pavlov's dogs

    i'm also glad that you've accepted my superior knowledge about iran, because i'm tired of making you look silly

    we can agree to disagree on the ahmadinejad picture, because a man bowing down to a woman is not a sign of sexism in my book, but is a sign of respect, admiration, and modesty

    there is one unanswered question that remains: will you stop your name calling?
     
  4. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    181
    Well, I won't agree to disagree. You're opinions as expressed are just wrong. I doubt there is an intelligent poster in the D&D that will back up your version of gender equality. You've reduced your credibility on the issue of sexism to zero. Congratulations and thanks for making it so easy.
     
  5. CreepyFloyd

    CreepyFloyd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    1
    well theres no way you can prove my opinion is 'wrong' and yours is 'right,' because they are opinions, but you can keep on trying even though it's futile

    all i've been talking for the past couple of pages has been that one picture of ahmadinejad bowing down to a lady out of respect and modesty, which you think is sexist, you've taken this and ran with it and ranted and raved for two pages now...if it makes you feel better, go ahead and take out all your frustrations either on me, ahmadinejad, iran, or whatever

    still no word on the name-calling though huh???
     
  6. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    181
    Well, we can see how many posters give you a shout out and agree with your assessment on 'hoes' and sexism, gangsta. :rolleyes:
     
  7. CreepyFloyd

    CreepyFloyd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    1
    hayes,

    my posts are enlightening, entertaining, and educational

    yours posts are neither of the three

    the only thing you've done is advocate civil war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqis, which only fox news has thus far agreed with
     
  8. bobrek

    bobrek Politics belong in the D & D

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 1999
    Messages:
    36,288
    Likes Received:
    26,639
    Sounds like an Iranian compromise to me.
     
  9. mleahy999

    mleahy999 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    30

    [​IMG]
     
  10. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19
    Let's not trivialize the ongoing serious discussion, but that's one of a kind camel toe.
     
  11. Cohen

    Cohen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    Not looking good...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060512/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran_2

     
  12. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    Nope!

    --------------
    US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike

    Larisa Alexandrovna
    Published: Thursday May 11, 2006

    Use of Iraq terror group bypassed Congress, sources say

    Concern is building among the military and the intelligence community that the US may be preparing for a military strike on Iran, as military assets in key positions are approaching readiness, RAW STORY has learned.

    According to military and intelligence sources, an air strike on Iran could be doable in June of this year, with military assets in key positions ready to go and a possible plan already on the table.

    Speculation has been growing on a possible air strike against Iran. But with the failure of the Bush administration to present a convincing case to the UN Security Council and to secure political backing domestically, some experts say the march toward war with Iran is on pause barring an "immediate need."

    "In March/April of this year [the US] was pushing for quick closure, a thirty day window," says a source close to the UN Security Council, describing efforts by the Administration to "shore up enough support" to get a UN Chapter 7 resolution.

    A UN Chapter 7 resolution makes it possible for sanctions to be imposed against an uncooperative nation and leaves the door open to military action.

    The UN source also says that a military analysis suggests that no military action should be undertaken in Iran until spring of 2007, but that things remain volatile given this administration’s penchant for having "their own way."

    Strike could come earlier than thought

    Other military and intelligence sources are expressing concern both privately and publicly that air strikes on Iran could come earlier than believed.

    Retired Air Force Colonel and former faculty member at the National War College Sam Gardiner has heard some military suggestions of a possible air campaign in the near future, and although he has no intimate knowledge of such plans, he says recent aircraft carrier activity and current operations on the ground in Iran have raised red flags.

    Gardiner says his concerns have kept him busy attempting to create the most likely scenario should such an attack occur.

    "I would expect two or three aircraft carriers would be moved into the area," Gardner said, describing what he thinks is the best way air strikes could be carried out without disengaging assets from US fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Two air-craft carriers are already en route to the region, RAW STORY has found. The USS Abraham Lincoln, which recently made a port call in Singapore, and the USS Enterprise which left Norfolk, Virginia earlier this month, are headed for the Western Pacific and Middle East. The USS Ronald Reagan is already operating in the Gulf.

    In addition to aircraft carrier activity, Gardiner says, B-2 bombers would be critical.

    "I would expect the B-2's, the main firepower asset, to be flown on missions directly from the United States," Gardiner explained. "I would expect B-52's to be flown in strikes from the UK and Diego Garcia."

    "Finally," he added, "a large number of cruise missiles would be fired from the carrier support ships."

    Steven Aftergood, senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, says that the B-2 bomber is capable of such long range activity.

    "The B2 bomber was designed, with the Soviet Union in mind, for intercontinental operations," Aftergood said. "With aerial refueling, it has a range of up to 10,000 miles."

    Like Gardiner, Aftergood has heard similar claims with regard to a June strike, but has not been able to confirm them independently.

    Intelligence sources confirm hearing the allegations of a June attack, but have been unable to fully confirm that such an attack is in the works. Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post have previously reported that the Pentagon is studying military options on Iran.

    All sources, however, agree that given the administration’s interest in regime change, an attack on Iran is likely, regardless of international support or UN backing. Furthermore, all sources agree that Gardiner’s scenario is the most probable, including an estimated duration and "pause" assessment.

    Gardiner believes that the entire initial operation could run quickly, roughly 24-72 hours. "Most of the strikes would be at night," he said. "The Iranian nuclear facilities will be targeted; more important however, a major effort would focus on Iran's capability to retaliate. The US will target missile facilities, air bases and naval assets."

    "After the initial effort, there will be a pause during which time the Iranians will be told that if they retaliate, the air strikes would continue," he added.

    The Pentagon did not return calls for comment.

    Advance teams under way; Congress ‘bypassed’

    As previously reported by Raw Story, a terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) is being used on the ground in Iran by the Pentegon, bypassing US intelligence channels. The report was subsequently covered by the Asia Times (Article).

    Military and intelligence sources now say no Presidential finding exists on MEK ops. Without a presidential finding, the operation circumvents the oversight of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

    Congressional aides for the relevant oversight committees would not confirm or deny allegations that no Presidential finding had been done. One Democratic aide, however, wishing to remain anonymous for this article, did say that any use of the MEK would be illegal.

    In addition, sources say that a March attack that killed 22 Iranian officials in the province of Sistan va Baluchistan was carried out by the MEK.

    According to a report by Iran Focus filed Mar. 23, the twenty-two people killed in the ambush included high ranking officials, including the governor of Zahedan.

    "Hours after the attack took place, Ahmadi-Moqaddam announced there was evidence the assailants had held meetings with British intelligence officers," the Iranian news service reported.

    "Radical Shiite cleric Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi also claimed the people behind the attack were the same as those behind a spate of bombings in Iran’s south-western province of Khuzestan earlier this year and in 2005," it added.

    Military and intelligence sources say that MEK assets were responsible for this attack, but did not know if the US military was involved or if US military assets were part of the ambush.

    One former high ranking US intelligence official described the use of MEK as more of a "Cambone" operation than a "Department of Defense operation."

    Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence Stephen Cambone, a stalwart neo-conservative, is considered by many to be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s right-hand man.

    During a White House briefing in early May, outgoing press secretary Scott McClellan denied that the administration was using MEK, among several other terrorist organizations named, for ground activity in Iran.

    "There are numerous reports about low-intensity operations ongoing in Iran from three different places -- PKK going over the border into Iraq, the MEK southern border of Iraq into Iran, and also certain operations from Balochistan involving also the Pakistanis," a reporter asked. "Does the U.S. have a policy, given also reports which I know you won't comment on, on possible special forces operations in Iran?"

    "Our policies haven't changed on those organizations," McClellan said. "They remain the same. And you're bringing up organizations that we view as terrorist organizations."

    "We would never cooperate with them, in terms of—" the questioner continued.

    "Our policy hasn't changed," McClellan replied.

    Military, intelligence community alarmed

    According to a New Yorker article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, other activities aimed at intimidating and agitating Iranian leadership are also underway.

    "One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of ‘coercion’ aimed at Iran," Hersh wrote.

    The increase in violence on the southern border of Iran, the movement of aircraft carriers into the region, the insistence of Iran’s leadership that they intend to be a player on the nuclear stage and the Bush Administration’s focus on regime change make military and intelligence sources nervous.

    "[President] Bush thinks that history will judge him as a great leader, not unlike Winston Churchill," one former high-ranking military intelligence official remarked.

    For now, Gardiner and others remain on the sidelines as the Administration plots their next move.

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_military_seen_ready_for_Iran_0511.html
     
  13. CreepyFloyd

    CreepyFloyd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    1
    [​IMG]
     
  14. CreepyFloyd

    CreepyFloyd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    1
    leahy666, i wont be tempted by satan

    [​IMG]
     
  15. CreepyFloyd

    CreepyFloyd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    1
    good post...glad to see somebody reporting on the us support and sponsorship of terrorism against iran

    the funny thing is that the mek/mko is despised by all iranians within the country for fighting along with iraqi forces during the iran-iraq war against their fellow country men and committing countless acts of terrorism within iran as well...this also shows how desperate the us is vis-a-vis iran if they have to resort to the mek/mko for help
     
  16. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    181
    TJ's dopplegangsta, lol :eek:
     
  17. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,791
    Likes Received:
    3,395
    Bush is seriously nuts.

    He is a terrorist.

    Supporting terrorists to attack Iran is just that.

    It is a violation of international law to attack another country by backing terrorism.

    The US has forfeited nearly all moral authority.

    Sadly the US undr the megalamaniac Bush is the principle threat to peace in the world
     
    #277 glynch, May 12, 2006
    Last edited: May 12, 2006
  18. CreepyFloyd

    CreepyFloyd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    1
    US must address Iran security concerns: IAEA

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060512...HdDsFJg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4b3FrcXQ0BHNlYwMxNjkz

    Iran has legitimate security concerns that the United States must address if the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme is to be resolved, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday

    "When you are talking about security, there is only one country that can talk to Iran and that is the U.S., it's not Europe. Europe can talk economics, it can talk trade ... but it cannot talk about hard security issues."

    ElBaradei said while Iran still had to clarify a number of issues with the IAEA, inspectors had not seen any "significant" nuclear material being undeclared or diverted into weapons.

    "We haven't seen a clear and present danger. We haven't seen an imminent threat," he said
     
  19. CreepyFloyd

    CreepyFloyd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    1
    hayes = pavlov's dog

    as soon as he sees my posts, he salivates at the mouth, and has to respond

    [​IMG]
     
  20. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,791
    Likes Received:
    3,395
    McMark

    So did Hitler, Milosevich, Napoleon, Custer and others.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now