WP: Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'

[AsburySkinsFan]

It you care to look the designation is focused on seizing their funds and cutting the transfer of money and material....shining a light on the scum that support them.

this is just another step by the Bush adminstration in their lead up to violence against Iran, who was it again advocating striking Iran?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/18834.html

IMO, the Bush administration is going to go after Iran financially in order to provoke them into war.

sorry if that bothers you,since you apparently don't have a horse in this race.

I don't have horse in this race? Are you kidding me? Every man woman and child in the world has a horse in this race.

[Air Force Cane]

Time to start bombing round the clock-

Tomahawks, bunker busters, JDAM, GPS guided SBU

that would let the Mullahs know there is a price to be paid for spilling American blood around the world..

[Predicto]

And where in any of this does it say we are "going for a fight"?

This allows us to apply economic pressure INSTEAD of a fight.

And lets try to remember that these people have been "going for a fight" with us for years. These people are targeting our soldiers and Iraqi citizens with terrorist attacks. They ARE terrorists.

You misread my post.

I did not say that we were going for a fight. I was responding to your post.

You said that "only an idiot" would see this as a bad thing.

My response was that if you are currently trying for a diplomatic solution, you might think this was a bad thing because it might be racheting up the pressure at the wrong time or in the wrong way. You may or may not be right in coming to this conlcusion, but it does not make you an idiot. Diplomacy can be tricky, and sometime racheting up the pressure gets the opposite reaction from what you desire.

However, if you are planning a fight, then you are correct, this is the obvious first step to take and no one would disagree.

[twa]

ASF, Yes this is another step.

Would you prefer we skip it?

Part of diplomacy is applying pressure such as the sanctions and this designation....simply expressing displeasure has been fruitless.

Will it lead to war?

If Iran continues on the same path ... YES

[Koolblue13]

If you are talking about the IRGC or the Quds ,No

Most of their supporters want nothing to do with the US.

I was talking about China.

ASF, Yes this is another step.

Would you prefer we skip it?

Part of diplomacy is applying pressure such as the sanctions and this designation....simply expressing displeasure has been fruitless.

Will it lead to war?

If Iran continues on the same path ... YES

You make me nuts sometimes, you know that don't you.

[ACW]

mboyd, WTF does Israel have to do with this.

And this is a good move; the thing is though, most average Iranians probably support us, yet if we attack Iran they'll support the mullahs (think how we united behind Bush after 9/11). And BTW, Iran's VERY young (70% under age 30).

[twa]

I was talking about China.

OK, I'm sure you don't object to us putting a crimp in any of China's funding of this group...seems only reasonable.

I could go into many areas that China is active in supporting we need to address and they are going to bite us in the ass eventually.

You make me nuts sometimes, you know that don't you.

Be glad you don't live with me :laugh:

[Predicto]

mboyd, WTF does Israel have to do with this.

And this is a good move; the thing is though, most average Iranians probably support us, yet if we attack Iran they'll support the mullahs (think how we united behind Bush after 9/11). And BTW, Iran's VERY young (70% under age 30).

That is exactly right. You want to be careful not to give Ahwannajihad the means to rally the people behind the patriotic banner.

[Koolblue13]

Be glad you don't live with me :laugh:

I am.

[Air Force Cane]

how will did a diplomatic solution work with Kaiser Wilhelm, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, General Tojo, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Osama Bin Laden?

And still leftists think there will be some kind of deal with Achmedinijad and the Mullahs in Teheran?!

He only talks about nuking Israel 3 times a week, so I guess that means he isn't really serious about it

[Mad Mike]

Notice how everyone who has a problem with this is a Bush hater? People who hate bush hate everything he does. Period. I don't like the way he handles a lot of things even but this is smart.

And what about this?...

"It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress.

Yeah, because everything we have tried so far has worked so well. :doh:

There is a term for what is going on by some in this debate, it's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

[ACW]

That is exactly right. You want to be careful not to give Ahwannajihad the means to rally the people behind the patriotic banner.

:laugh: @ "Ahwannajihad."

[PeterMP]

Does anybody doubt that Iran and their Revolutionary Guard are involved w/ terrorist/terroism? If they are, what is wrong w/ saying they are?

[Mad Mike]

OH... MY... GOD! These people are MORONS!

http://www.americanprogress.org

Read their plan for Iraq. :doh:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/strategic_reset.html

The United States should mitigate the increasingly violent fragmentation in Iraq by ceasing the unconditional arming and training of Iraq’s national security forces until a political consensus and sustainable political solution is reached. As the United States redeploys its military forces, it should immediately phase out its training of Iraq’s national security forces and place strict limits on arming and equipping them.

and in the next breath...

Phased Military Redeployment from Iraq in One Year

The United States should immediately begin redeploying its troops from Iraq and declare it does not intend to maintain military bases permanently in Iraq.

So let me get this straight... They want us to stop helping to train and equip friendly Iraqi forces AND pull our forces out. BRILLIANT! Let's let Iraq degenerate into chaos and give al Qaeda a place to set up their next permanent base!

:thud:

[Shadowplay]

Dunno. Depends if you are going for a diplomatic solution or a fight. If you know for sure that you are going for a fight, then you are correct.

No problem with covering all your bases....

[Predicto]

how will did a diplomatic solution work with Kaiser Wilhelm, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, General Tojo, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Osama Bin Laden?

And still leftists think there will be some kind of deal with Achmedinijad and the Mullahs in Teheran?!

He only talks about nuking Israel 3 times a week, so I guess that means he isn't really serious about it

You are right. In the history of mankind, there has never been a diplomatic solution to an impending conflict. Tragic, really.

[Sarge]

You misread my post.

I did not say that we were going for a fight. I was responding to your post.

You said that "only an idiot" would see this as a bad thing.

My response was that if you are currently trying for a diplomatic solution, you might think this was a bad thing because it might be racheting up the pressure at the wrong time or in the wrong way. You may or may not be right in coming to this conlcusion, but it does not make you an idiot. Diplomacy can be tricky, and sometime racheting up the pressure gets the opposite reaction from what you desire.

However, if you are planning a fight, then you are correct, this is the obvious first step to take and no one would disagree.

Bush has gone further than any adminstration since Carter in talking with the Iranians. Obviously, it's doing no good

That leaves two options. Be wussies, or start bombing.

[jpyaks3]

Quick question, what is the main difference between some of the things the revolutionary guard does, and what the CIA does in some states. Arming the people on your side and trying to provoke and destabalize a gov't that doesnt coincide with your interests? The CIA did this throughout Latin America in the cold war and continues to do it with support for some Iranian elements that are against the gov't. I dont consider this terrorism simply a state trying to use its resources to influence a region.

[jpyaks3]

Bush has gone further than any adminstration since Carter in talking with the Iranians. Obviously, it's doing no good

That leaves two options. Be wussies, or start bombing.

How about a cost/benefit analysis, full scale war in Iran with thousands more US casualties, major oil crisis, another trillion or so down the drain, a very unstable middle east, and further radicalizing the muslim population for the most part. Or keep status quo and keep trying to limit thier influece without going in and starting a major conflict that can be avoided.

I for one would rather avoid the consequences of choice one.

[Predicto]

Bush has gone further than any adminstration since Carter in talking with the Iranians. Obviously, it's doing no good

That leaves two options. Be wussies, or start bombing.

Well, there are other things going on that tend to complicate matters. Like invading the two countries on both sides of Iran. You may be right that diplomacy will not work under these circumstances.

Still I like to think there are more than those two options remaining.

[stevenaa]

You misread my post.

I did not say that we were going for a fight. I was responding to your post.

You said that "only an idiot" would see this as a bad thing.

My response was that if you are currently trying for a diplomatic solution, you might think this was a bad thing because it might be racheting up the pressure at the wrong time or in the wrong way. You may or may not be right in coming to this conlcusion, but it does not make you an idiot. Diplomacy can be tricky, and sometime racheting up the pressure gets the opposite reaction from what you desire.

However, if you are planning a fight, then you are correct, this is the obvious first step to take and no one would disagree.

Sometimes racheting it up is also part of the "diplomatic" process. It's hard for any of us to really know for sure.

[Shadowplay]

Bush has gone further than any adminstration since Carter in talking with the Iranians. Obviously, it's doing no good

That leaves two options. Be wussies, or start bombing.

Umm actually there are a lot of options on the table and they all don't have to do with bombing.

- Continue pressuring financial institutions and companies so that they do not do business with Iran.

- Continue to increase our covert assets in country and network with those sympathetic to change.

- Continue to marginalize Iran and make them look like an out of control regime.

And you conveniently left out Regan when it comes to "talking" to the Iranians since we all know he did that.

[Predicto]

Sometimes racheting it up is also part of the "diplomatic" process. It's hard for any of us to really know for sure.

You are correct, of course.

Again, I was only responding to the post that said "only an idiot" would oppose this. Non-idiots might think the timing was wrong or the internal political reaction in Iran would not be worth the benefit.

[stevenaa]

You are right. In the history of mankind, there has never been a diplomatic solution to an impending conflict. Tragic, really.

There was some pretty strong sabre rattling going on during the Cuban Missle Crisis.

[redman]

Dunno. Depends if you are going for a diplomatic solution or a fight. If you know for sure that you are going for a fight, then you are correct.

That's true. It's always better to deal from a position of appeasement. That's worked well with the world's tyrants throughout history.