[Loth Don]

Sadly predictable course of action for this administration.

I find the word order discouraging- kill or capture, I wonder if that is a phrase used by the washington post or the administration.

If the U.S. has the evidence of interference, then capture them and prove that the Iranian government, not individual iranians, is behind it.


U.S. Troops Authorized to kill Iranians

This post has been edited by tarzanjr23: 26 January 2007 - 11:25 AM

[Cheeseinator]

only one more year then we get a new president.............................................. one that will hopefully change the Iraq situation for the better

[Duke]

Quote

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing.

Yeah perfect, kill them all then you can be sure you got the bad guys.

[Klarin]

Ah, the stupidity of Mr. Bush keeps escalating. Incidentally, anyone else want to bet on how much longer it'll be until the Republican Party is dissolved?

Klarin

[Mighty BOB!]

You have got to be kidding me.. I always knew this administration was stupid.. but this is ridiculous..

Quote

anyone else want to bet on how much longer it'll be until the Republican Party is dissolved?

Never. You can't kill the 2 party system. It is like a deep-rooted cancer.

[(DoV) Tokakeke]

Iranian/Persian Shi'a is completely at odds with both the insurgent Sunni and Iraqi Shi'a, why would they be involved in any of this?

[Wiseman]

The Iranian "volunteers" have no business there in the first place. Every unit has their own SOPs in terms of dealing with enemy fire, reactions to ambush, and etc. There is no way of telling what the nationality of the person shooting at you is. This is an asymmetric war.

[Klarin]

Yes, well, they shouldn't even be there getting shot at in the first place. That's a big part of the problem. And authorizing them to kill Iranians isn't going to help. More to the point, it'll make Iran more rationally angry at us, and take away still more international support.-

Klarin

[Wiseman]

How can the Iranians get angry when they deny that they're even in the country?

This post has been edited by Wiseman: 26 January 2007 - 11:20 PM

[MarbleRye]

I could care less, I mean how much more can they hate us? I mean they prolly say they can kill us, so whats the difference, I dont like how those jerks burn our flag so thats just what they get.

P.S. I am going to get an Iran flag and burn it. See how they like it!

This post has been edited by Videoteck: 26 January 2007 - 11:14 PM

[popcorn2008]

As much as I hate the bush admin. I dont really have a problem with this. It doesnt matter if it makes the iranians more angry with us, its going to happen anyways. And fact is, there are Iranians in Iraq causing us more problems. Even though the Iraq war may be unjustified and what not and you can give all these arguments, fact is our administraition has placed us in a war, and we should at least try and minimize casualties.

Unlike most democrats, or liberal thinkers, I wont disagree with every decesion the admin. makes just because Bush is president. This is one of those rare things that I really dont see a problem with.

[Klarin]

popcorn2008, on Jan 26 2007, 11:58 PM, said:

And fact is, there are Iranians in Iraq causing us more problems.

Are there now? Where? And what's your source?

Klarin

[MarbleRye]

Klarin, on Jan 27 2007, 12:00 AM, said:

Are there now? Where? And what's your source?

Klarin

Oh come on, isnt it easy to see that Iran would love to help terrioists.

Videoteck

[Klarin]

I'm sorry, that isn't a valid argument.

Klarin

[HissingNewt]

We can't prove it, but I think there are Iranians in Iraq too. Can you prove that there aren't?

[Klarin]

You don't act on supposition when dealing with international politics. You act on fact. To do otherwise is just stupid.

Klarin

[(DoV) Tokakeke]

Klarin, on Jan 26 2007, 09:23 PM, said:

You don't act on supposition when dealing with international politics. You act on fact. To do otherwise is just stupid.

Klarin

I'd think that'd be a given. *shrug*

[Klarin]

It clearly wasn't, in Hissingnewt's case.

Whether there are or aren't Iranians in Iraq, and whether they are or aren't helping 'terrorists' - hard to call anyone terrorists in a civil war - the fact remains that by imposing this regulation, it accuses Iran of something. This is a major faux pas in international politics, unless the accusation is accompanied with definitive proof. In other words, it will alienate still more of the ever-more-necessary international community.

Klarin

[(DoV) Tokakeke]

I can see it now.. "There are..uh..Norwegians..causing trouble..in northern Uganda!"

[Ghostly_Substance]

Videoteck, on Jan 26 2007, 11:13 PM, said:

I could care less, I mean how much more can they hate us? I mean they prolly say they can kill us, so whats the difference, I dont like how those jerks burn our flag so thats just what they get.

P.S. I am going to get an Iran flag and burn it. See how they like it!

And here I thought flags were just pieces of cloth dyed into a nice pattern holding no magic or anything. So what you would be burning would be what some person made instead of what the country stands for. For all you know some kid could be burning toy American flags to mock the conflict over in the middle east in some playground (yes matches and lighters do roam around). Even though that was a joke thought i'd point out the obvious


@ Some other post: omg omg terrorists are breed in Middle-east only omg omg.

edit: Pissed off at what I saw in Great Teacher Onizuka episode 16 with some snotty school girl taunting teachers and I can't stand them kind of people. Maybe thats why you'll take my post negative like but not the way I meant it.