WP: Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'

[Sarge]

Sure, just like WE targeted the Iraqi's and Afghans too! Our nation are the terrorists

THey were targeted because in the former they'd been shooting at out planes and ingorning the weak dicked UN resolutions and in the latter they sheltered Bin Laden

But go on believing what the Daily Kooks tells you

[Sarge]

Very commendable. If others had the same sense of personal responsibility towards the issue, it wouldn't be such an issue.

i do have a huge problem with the Hummer set, simply because they show absolutely no social conscience at all. These soldiers die for their 'right' to drive these huge wastes of everything, and it sickens me the entitlement to it they claim.

But, even if we all drove Cooper Minis, the problem would still exist if the extremists get what they want.

we have known we've had to find an alternate energy source for decades, and for a while there auto makers seemed to be in lockstep with it,, smaller cars, tremendous mileage.. now mileage isn't even a concern anymore. The ability to drive to the top of a mountain to get the view, now that is important.

I'd be happy to find every oil company executive that worked to squash alternative energy research and throw them in prison. But at the same time it doesn't change the reality of now.

~Bang

I see after 9 pages no one ever answered your question

[ACW]

Hey Sarge, serious question: why aren't you in Iraq?

[Renegade7]

Oh my, where to start?..............

You do of course realize that they want to kill us because we've treated the entire Middle East like our own personal chess match, using the Iraqis, mujahadeen etc as pawns against our real enemies, all the while blindly standing by Israel regardless of what they do to Palestinians, right? Imagine for a minute why thy might want to hurt the US. It's called "blowback" Regan knew it 20 years ago and we should know it today, but no we just think that they are all just a bunch of ravenous beasts hell bent on destroying the west, while raping our women, and enslaving our children.

Honestly, Renegade, I don't know who you are listening to, but you really do need to figure out what really brought all this stuff on. Are we completely guilty for everything? No, but neither are we innocent by-standers either.

I never said we're innocent, and you admit to the fact niether are they. And regardless of who started this war it needs to end. How do you kill a dragon? You cut off it's head. I don't need a history lesson, I'm not a child, and I know what's going on. I believe all people should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Iranian government does not, and they killing as many people as possible, innocent and guilty a like to prevent that from happening. They also want to wipe Isreal off the map, whom despite how they go about their business of defending themselves, deserve the right to exist. It has to stop. Agree or disagree?

What do you want your country, the supposed leader of the free world to do? Curl up into a little ball and suck it's thumb?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Hey Sarge, serious question: why aren't you in Iraq?

Sarge retired from the Air Force recently

[AsburySkinsFan]

I see after 9 pages no one ever answered your question

pssstt; :secret: Hey Sarge, the reason no one answered his question after 9 pages is because there was no question.

Very commendable. If others had the same sense of personal responsibility towards the issue, it wouldn't be such an issue.

i do have a huge problem with the Hummer set, simply because they show absolutely no social conscience at all. These soldiers die for their 'right' to drive these huge wastes of everything, and it sickens me the entitlement to it they claim.

But, even if we all drove Cooper Minis, the problem would still exist if the extremists get what they want.

we have known we've had to find an alternate energy source for decades, and for a while there auto makers seemed to be in lockstep with it,, smaller cars, tremendous mileage. now mileage isn't even a concern anymore. The ability to drive to the top of a mountain to get the view, now that is important.

I'd be happy to find every oil company executive that worked to squash alternative energy research and throw them in prison. But at the same time it doesn't change the reality of now.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

I never said we're innocent, and you admit to the fact niether are they. And regardless of who started this war it needs to end.

The problem is that we started this conflict when we started screwing with the middle east and displaced people to create Israel. And you say this war needs to end, but what you really mean is "this war needs to end in the way that I want it to end." This war could end tomorrow, but ending the war is not what you want, you want a victory, and that's a different ball game.

How do you kill a dragon? You cut off it's head.

Not really sure what this has to do with anything...however, there are probably more ways to kill a dragon: 1) cutting off head, 2) stabbing in heart, 3) disembowelment, 4) massive blood loss, 5) asphyxiation, 6) acid (not blue dragons though, immunity), 7) blunt force trauma, 8) starvation, 9) dismemberment, 10) crushing...I'm sure there are more.

I believe all people should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Iranian government does not,

Ok, contradiction, you say all people should have these rights, and then literally in the next sentence you say that some do not, so the reality is that you don't believe that all people deserve these things, you seem to believe that certain people deserve these things, and others don't and if that's the case then don't say that all people deserve these things.

and they killing as many people as possible, innocent and guilty a like to prevent that from happening.

How many people has Iran killed in this war? Do you have a figure? Anything?

They also want to wipe Isreal off the map, whom despite how they go about their business of defending themselves, deserve the right to exist.

Oh, even though I seriously question the decision to recreate the state of Israel post-WWII, I do agree that they have the right to exist. Now, that does not mean that they can do whatever they want to those around them and call it "defending themselves", because much of what they do is not defending themselves.

It has to stop. Agree or disagree?

Oh, I certainly, agree it does have to stop...so, who quits first?

What do you want your country, the supposed leader of the free world to do? Curl up into a little ball and suck it's thumb?

Ah, yes the "Go to war with everyone or do nothing at all" approach, as if there is not any alternatives. Oh, and just so you know, the world never elected us as their leader.

[Koolblue13]

I do understand and agree.

Thanks buddy, I thought so.

[ACW]

Sarge retired from the Air Force recently

Ah. It's just that his age isn't listed. At least he's a hawk who's actually served though:)

[Bang]

pssstt; :secret: Hey Sarge, the reason no one answered his question after 9 pages is because there was no question.

[/i]

yeah there was, about 2 pages prior to that.

Kool answered it, Boyd posted a picture of Bush and a dictionary definition and disappeared.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here we go................

Iranian Guards vow to 'punch' U.S.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/18/iran.guard/index.html

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said they would not bow to pressure and threatened to "punch" the U.S., in their first response to Washington's plan to list them as a terrorist organization, newspapers reported Saturday.

Local press in the Iranian capital of Tehran quoted Revolutionary Guards leader Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi saying that he could understand Washington's ire toward the group because of their "leverage" against the U.S.

"America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future," he was quoted as saying in the conservative daily Kayhan. "We will never remain silent in the face of U.S. pressure and we will use our leverage against them."

There was no elaboration on what Safavi meant by the punch or the organization's "leverage."

Washington has accused the Guards of supporting militias and insurgent groups attacking U.S. forces in Iraq -- charges Iran denies.

The fact that the remarks, made on Thursday in the central Iranian city of Isfahan, appeared in local newspapers rather than the official state news outlets suggest the comments are for domestic consumption.

Meanwhile, other Iranian officials continued to speak out against Washington's move to register the group as a terrorist organization, with a government spokesman calling the claims "baseless," on the Web site of the state broadcasting company.

"The claims of the U.S. are baseless and have no takers around the world," he said Saturday, noting that "the U.S. has endangered the world many times under the excuse of fighting against terrorism."

On Tuesday, an unnamed official in the Bush administration said the U.S. planned to list the Guards as terrorist group in order to squeeze Iran.

The move was seen as an effort to pressure businesses the corps is thought to control, from construction to oil sectors. It would be the first time the U.S. would put a foreign government's military agency on the list, which includes the al Qaeda network and the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iranian armed forces spokesman Gen. Ali Reza Afshar hit out precisely against this attempt to declare a state body terrorist in an editorial Saturday in the country's largest circulation newspaper, calling it illegal.

"America's long time hostility against the Guard is clear and understandable, but this move against organization that is part of Iran's armed forces is illegal," he wrote in the daily Hamshahri.

The estimated 200,000-strong Revolutionary Guards is an elite force separate from Iran's regular military and has its own ground, naval and air units.

[twa]

From ASF's article above

"America's long time hostility against the Guard is clear and understandable, but this move against organization that is part of Iran's armed forces is illegal,"

Wouldn't the fact they have already been "punching us be illegal as well?

"America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future,"

I believe they are trying to fight out of their weight class,but who knows.

[ACW]

"Punch" us? Oh noes!

:laugh:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wouldn't the fact they have already been "punching us be illegal as well?

Only as illegal as our invasion of Iraq.

I believe they are trying to fight out of their weight class,but who knows.

We're barely hanging onto some semblnce of stability in Iraq, added pressure from Iran would not be something to look forward too, unless Bush stashed another 200,000 troops in the desert that we don't know about.

[AsburySkinsFan]

"Punch" us? Oh noes!

:laugh:

So an increased casualty count is something to be laughed at? :doh:

[Bang]

A direct confrontation?

Wouldn't that be nice for a change.

This "Elite Guard" punches with indiscriminate bombs placed by roadsides by toadies that do their bidding.

If they would like to actually engage our military forces, I'd give it a week before they are mopped up and wrung out.

But I suspect more women in markets will die from their 'punches' than anyone else.

As usual.

~Bang

[ACW]

So an increased casualty count is something to be laughed at? :doh:

No dude, it's just that "punch us" doesn't seem like much of a threat. If they had said destroy us...

[AsburySkinsFan]

No dude, it's just that "punch us" doesn't seem like much of a threat. If they had said destroy us...

My guess is that (some would) laugh at it even if they said "destroy us". Either way, it just means more dead Americans, and more dead Iraqis, and simply it just means more dead people, and in my book that's not a good thing no matter who's blood is spilled.

[ACW]

My guess is that you'd laugh at it even if they said "destroy us".

:doh: :doh: :doh:

Either way, it just means more dead Americans, and more dead Iraqis, and simply it just means more dead people, and in my book that's not a good thing no matter who's blood is spilled.

Agreed.

[AsburySkinsFan]

:doh: :doh: :doh:

Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically, I meant to write "some would laugh". My bad.

[Koolblue13]

A direct confrontation?

Wouldn't that be nice for a change.

This "Elite Guard" punches with indiscriminate bombs placed by roadsides by toadies that do their bidding.

If they would like to actually engage our military forces, I'd give it a week before they are mopped up and wrung out.

But I suspect more women in markets will die from their 'punches' than anyone else.

As usual.

~Bang

It would be nice. It would be even nicer if one of these countries we are trying to go to war with, was the army we we're fighting, instead of just groups inside of them. The only person who could control Iraq has now been publicly hanged, how is Iran going to be different.

[Bang]

It would be nice. It would be even nicer if one of these countries we are trying to go to war with, was the army we we're fighting, instead of just groups inside of them. The only person who could control Iraq has now been publicly hanged, how is Iran going to be different.

Iraq is a mess largely because the factions who are doing the damage have been supplied and trained by this Iranian guard. IF it came to pass that we actually did fight them, removing that force would go a long way to stabilizing things.

The differences between Iraq and Iran are huge.

The people of Iran are largely educated and have a decent standard of living. They are not filled with warring inter-factions. They live in a democracy, albeit one dominated by religious candidates. (Religious candidates who have been very moderate in the past.)

The people of Iran don't want this any more than anyone else does. Their last elections (less that a year ago, I think) was a sound defeat of the party that supports their current president.

I think that IF a direct confrontation with that regime came about, the people of Iran may not side with the regime, expecially IF the confrontation came without an invasion.

I have said over and over. I don't think we need to invade Iran to change their leadership. I think enough pressure will cause that leadership to make critical mistakes, and the Iranian people will change the regime for us, and do it peacefully with the system they already have in place. As it is now, I think it's merely a matter of waiting out his term. They already want to throw him out of office.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Bang do you really think that destablizing Iran's leadership will result in something other than a power struggle that would lead to physical violence within their own country? I do not believe that this would be a peaceful transition.

[Bang]

It would be nice. It would be even nicer if one of these countries we are trying to go to war with, was the army we we're fighting, instead of just groups inside of them. The only person who could control Iraq has now been publicly hanged, how is Iran going to be different.

I think the current regime is much more dangerous to the future peace of the world.

I think the people there know it too.

And frankly, I think calling the Iranian Guard what it is is fine.

Besides,

read again. I never said destabilize anything. I said that in the due course of their own political process, they will change this path they are on. Aside from the rhetoric that Ahmadinijad has stirred that has brought them to the edges they currently occupy, they have a ton of internal problems, such a gas shortage that is really pissing the people off.

but in terms of their government collapsing entirely, i don't see it. I can see them electing a new set of leaders, and considering their disdain for the ones they have now, they'd probably elect a more moderate set. (I would hope that we could abstain from mucking around in their election, but you just know when the hard-liners lose they will cry foul anyway.)

Power struggles don't have to be bloody, and truth is, most of them that occur around the world are not.

remember, the olive branches have been tentatively extended between us before Ahmadinijad and Bush came to power. I believe that hope for peace still exists among their majority as it exists among our majority here. We don't have to 'defeat' Iran. We don't even have to fight Iran. I don't think the hard-liners and their military groups speak for their majority of citizens.

~Bang

[TradeTheBeal!]

yeah there was, about 2 pages prior to that.

Kool answered it, Boyd posted a picture of Bush and a dictionary definition and disappeared.

~Bang

There are two guys in the picture. One of them is a despot who controls a majority percentage of the world's oil. The other aspires to that. You asked if I was prepared to allow despots to control the world's oil supply. The answer is that they already do.