Iran's Response -

[Michael Tee]

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - The head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards dismissed the possibility of U.S. military action against Iran and warned that his forces would respond with an "even more decisive" strike if attacked, an Iranian news agency reported Friday.
The comments by Gen. Mohammad Ali Jaafari came after the United States announced sweeping new sanctions against Iran, focusing on the Revolutionary Guards, a force that is tasked with protecting Iran's Islamic government and reports to the country's supreme leader.
Asked about the possibility of an American strike on Iran, Jaafari told reporters late Thursday that, "These words are just exaggerations, and I don't consider them a threat," the news agency ISNA reported.
"The Islamic Republic has the strength and power of its people's faith. This power is joined with experience, knowledge and technology in the realms of defense. The enemy knows it cannot make any mistake, so these words are just exaggeration," he said. "We will reply to any strike with an even more decisive strike."


No mention of Russia.  These guys sound like they can handle the Great Satan on their own. 

I had lunch with an Iranian businessman yesterday and the talk was turning to Iran, whose government this guy hates like only an Iranian refugee can hate (although he's not a refugee, he lived in the West since he was about 17, during WWII.) He was openly scornful of the U.S.A., feels they've humiliated themselves in the eyes of the world by the fiasco in Iraq and can't believe they would invade Iran, which would lead to a humiliation much bigger than Iraq, due to the size and terrain of the country, the size and battle experience of its armed forces, their weaponry and the attitude of the people.  Feels that Bush's sole effect in Iran is to unify the people and get them behind the Islamic government, which he feels is a fucking disaster for the country.  Very clever, very sophisticated man, well-educated in England and Germany, fluent in five or six European and Middle Eastern languages, and a hell of a businessman.

Fuck with Iran and you are fucking with the buzz-saw.  Although it would be the classic comeuppance for the U.S.A., almost too good to be true, he also feels this would be a disaster for Canada, which does over 80% of its trade with the U.S. and can't afford to see bad things happen to its chief trading partner, no matter how arrogant, ignorant and irritating it may be.  Their misfortune will become our misfortune.  We have not developed our trading relationships outside the U.S.A. sufficiently, although efforts to diversify in some areas of trade have been made, they're just not enough.  We were too lazy and complacent.  Their currency is headed for a crash, which is going to hurt us badly.  The war is only partly responsible, the major factors are beyond the control of the government.

[Plane]

Iran fought Saddam Hussein for eight years and concluded with a draw.

The US can't get that much fight out of Saddam.


What has changed ? The Iranians were not tougher than the Iriquis when they fought them , are they so much tougher now?

[Michael Tee]

<<Iran fought Saddam Hussein for eight years and concluded with a draw.

<<The US can't get that much fight out of Saddam.


<<What has changed ? The Iranians were not tougher than the Iriquis when they fought them , are they so much tougher now?>>

How many men died in the conflict?  A million?   Are you really prepared for casualties on that scale, tough guy?  We'll find out pretty quickly how tough the U.S. is if it has to take on Iran.  I don't think they've got the balls, personally.  They just like to talk tough.  Aren't you ashamed enough of your miserable failure in tiny little Iraq?  Do you really need the additional humiliation you are sure to get from Iran?

[Plane]

<<Iran fought Saddam Hussein for eight years and concluded with a draw.

<<The US can't get that much fight out of Saddam.


<<What has changed ? The Iranians were not tougher than the Iriquis when they fought them , are they so much tougher now?>>

How many men died in the conflict?  A million?   Are you really prepared for casualties on that scale, tough guy?  We'll find out pretty quickly how tough the U.S. is if it has to take on Iran.  I don't think they've got the balls, personally.  They just like to talk tough.  Aren't you ashamed enough of your miserable failure in tiny little Iraq?  Do you really need the additional humiliation you are sure to get from Iran?

Eight million or more.
And it is not me makeing any threats , Iran is beating their chest like a frightened gorilla faceing a guy with a rifle.

Fighting Saddam they lost more than five million men , when we fought Saddam the first time we knocked him over with a few hundred casualtys on our side.

I would not encourage Iran to beleive that casualtys would be anything like proportionate , we have used up so much stuff being gentile in Iraq we will hae to go on and use the big guns in Iran.

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . when we fought Saddam the first time we knocked him over with a few hundred casualtys on our side.>>

Better get back to reality fast, plane.  Saddam is only one man.  You weren't fighting Saddam in any sense except metaphorically.  You were at war with Iraq and you're still at war with Iraq.  Your fighting skills are, to say the least, underwhelming.  It's mind-boggling to me that a nation with your wealth, your weaponry and your utter ruthlessness has been unable to subdue a nation of 23 million people in over four years.

Wikipedia says that the casualties were "more than a million men" and to be honest, that's the only figure I recalled from reading newspaper and magazine articles and editorials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

I honestly can't imagine where you got the figure of five million from (probably the same dipshits that sold you on the Ukrainian Famine hoax) but I'm not buying that either.

<< . . . we have used up so much stuff being gentile in Iraq we will hae to go on and use the big guns in Iran.>>

LOL.  That's hilarious.  Sorry, but I just can't help it - - this reminds me of an old joke.  Guy enjoying the sunshine and a nice drink at a sidewalk cafe in Buenos Aires in the early 1950s looks around and just about chokes on his drink - - there sitting quietly at the next table, reading a German newspaper all alone is Adolf Hitler.  After a few minutes, the guy screws up his courage, walks over and asks if the man's  really Adolf Hitler and if so, can he have a few minutes with him?  "Sure," Hitler says, so the guy pulls up his chair and starts asking Hitler some questions. 

"What are you doing here in Buenos Aires?" 

"Oh, meetings, getting together with whoever's left from the old days and, you know, planning."

"Well, uh, mind if I ask you what it is that you're planning?"

"Obviously, we're planning to re-build the Party, then take over in Germany and then take over the world."

"B-b-b-but isn't that what you already tried to do, and failed?"

"Ja, but this time it will be very different."

"Yeah?  How different?  Different in what way?"

"Well," Hitler says, "for starters:  NO MORE MISTER NICE GUY!"

[Cynthia]

LOL.  That's hilarious.  Sorry, but I just can't help it -"



Michael Tee.

Why do you laugh? Seriously, why are you so pleased to see a country like the USA fail?
Just curious.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why do you laugh? Seriously, why are you so pleased to see a country like the USA fail?
Just curious.

=================================
Fail at what?

I think he is indicating that for the US to attack Iran (population 77 million) when it has been unable to subdue Iraq (population 23 million) while continuing to fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq would be the height of stupidity, and would be doomed to failure.

Military failure in Iran and probably Iraq as well, and political failure in the US.

The US could not defeat Iran without implementing the draft, and that would bring a major resistance to the war, just as it did in Vietnam. Young Americans who do not want to fight in Iraq are in the majority. The ones who want to go have already enlisted long ago.

Would you cheer on the US to victory should it decide to, say, drop H bombs on China?
What are the limits to the imbecility you would support?

Or are there limits?

[Michael Tee]

<<Why do you laugh? Seriously, why are you so pleased to see a country like the USA fail?
<<Just curious.>>

I like the question.  I'm curious too.  What kind of country is "a country like the USA?" anyway?  Obviously, we each see a different kind of country when we think of "a country like the USA."   I'm just guessing, but I think you see the country that I think the USA could have been (and should have been) whereas I see the country that actually is.

XO asked you a very pertinent question in return:  Fail at what?  Fail at invading another country in total violation of all international law, on false pretexts based on deliberate lies and resulting in the deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqis?  Fail at continuing their lawless criminal behaviour and invading yet another country, also in total violation of all international law and killing hundreds of thousands more?

Sure, I want them to fail.  The more interesting question is, why don't you?

[Cynthia]

I want all terrorist supporting nations to fail in their attempts to rid western civilization.

When we lose 100,000 + people in the years to come, you will be able to say we have failed.

But, where will you be. MT?

I find it interesting that the very reason for the "fight" albeit not a wisely executed plan on the part of the Bush administration, was still a necessary one. We have not been attacked on our soil since 9-11.


No, I don't want anyone to "fail" and I don't want to experience the "what next" either.

I think that someone in the world has to be powerful. I'm just grateful that the most powerful nation on the earth is not Iran or Iraq.

Do you want that? Do you want to see our nations of freedom and peace go the way of repression and hardship?

[Plane]

 Being nice is what causes all the high casualtys , for us anyway.

There is no reason to be nicer to Iran than we were to Bosnia or Serbia.

Ther is one thing I have to give Credit to Clinton for , he didn't want American Casualtys , so he didn't expose Americans to anything that could produce casualtys.

This makes it hard to choose targets and avoid slamming the innocent locals or Chineese Embassys , but it does reduce the warfighting potential of the enemy steadily with minimal loss for ourselves.

If George Bush were a bit less compassionate , we would have trounced Saddam , and left it at that.

Which might be the only recourse we would have in an attack on Iran , if we do not use ground forces , we will make up the diffrence with large quantitys of bomb , then never get close enough to the mess for itenerant insurgents to make a speck of diffrence.

Iran talks tough , but they carry a small stick.

I have a realistic appraisal of American capability , which you could share by simply looking up the relitive strengths of the two proposed beligerants , instead of just listening to the rants of the frightened.

May I remind you that no US administration official has ever said that we need to or would invade or attack Iran , Iran is scared simply because they havent said that we won't.

[Cynthia]

I never said anything about A-bombing China, but now that you mention it, if Iran decides to BOMB the United States, or Israel then what would you say XO?   Would you support that? Talk about asking the "support the a bomb question".

My father's work centered around nuclear energy and bomb testing during the 50's. I am a supporter of nuclear energy, but never a bomb for the hell of it.

Sure, we make mistakes, but we have never A- bombed others to gain power because or hold racial hatred and genocidal mania intentions. Does Iran want protection from the west or the swift and ruthless annilation of others?

When the US dropped a bomb in WW2 it was a defensive action. There was a chance that millions more would have been killed if we had not dropped that bomb. That's a fact.
I don't see Iran or other nations deciding to wait to use nuclear bombs or threats there of until that last minute to save millions of lives!

Perhaps the new war to come will be a world war of sorts. The pendulum could swing back to the "swing era" when nations were brought together to fight back. Who's to say THAT type of war will not be the way of the future.
If so, then vietnam will look like a prom date gone wrong.

 As sloppy as Bush has been in this "war"  I really don't believe that he has chosen to do so with the attitude "be damned the rest of the globe". Be damned because we are weak and won't be told no. We cooperate as a world nation.

We have more to offer the world than anything Iran will ever be able to bring to the table in terms of supportive good neighborly policies.  I know that sounds naive, but I truly believe that's who we are as Americans and ironically that's why VIETNAM was such a fiasco.

I think that the Iraqi war was not well planned and probably will cost much.  But, we just can't sit back and let the those who threaten free nations and the west in general to continue as status quo forever!

Politics. Clinton had a chance to fight back. He will shake his finger at us forever telling us that he never did this or that.....but we were warned in 93 that the WORLD TRADE CENTER  power was at threat. Not just an American power.......the "World Trade" power.


American intersts in the globe and desire to share our democracy will take a flavor all its own.  American democracy in the middle east probably won't happen due to many factors , but a version of it is better than the alternative.

Yes, Americans have power. That scares people but it's the essence of survival in all nations, and human beings, XO. You know that. Power is what that "one thing" in the world ----from the office to the bedroom  to the battlefield.....



 
Intent.

What has been the intent for those who hate the west, or for someone like Osama who has risen to his own under the rock power to want "the fight"?
Oil. A more democratic system.
 What has been the intent for the Iranians to snub their noses at the world in the past and most recently on the world stage?




 Life in Iraq. Life in the US.
 I have yet to see a person killed because for being an athlete ready to face the new Olympic stage. Teams in Iraq are not welcomed based on hatred. There have been kidnappings (and probable killing) of Iraqi's athletic brilliance as of late. Under the cover of the headline news.  There's so much more to the intent of the middle east that we can't or dont' want to see.

We must keep those stories on the front page. Those are the essence of the war we are fighting. The war? It started a long time ago. The world will always have war. It's part of the human being. Frankly, when has war worked? You should know, XO.

The question is.....would Iran or Iraq have started a war with the west if we had not invaded?

Have they invaded, attacked or caused anyone harm in the world stage before? hmmmmm

Intent.

[Cynthia]

"Ther is one thing I have to give Credit to Clinton for , he didn't want American Casualtys , so he didn't expose Americans to anything that could produce casualtys."



Plane,

Credit for Clinton. He didn't want AMERICAN CASUALTIES??

What happened on 9-11. Not just American casualties, Plane.

Sure, in a War declared there are going to be casualties in the process.

Was war declared when the terrorist flew into the towers and through the side of the pentagon?

Could those attacks have been avoided under Clinton's watch?

I wonder.

[Plane]

Once there were three bulls on a ranch.

The oldest and toughest Bull was a mountain of muscle and kept eighty cows quite content.

The younger bull was less experienced and strong , but was working out and had twenty cows that would hang with him.

The youngest bull was not yet near his prime and was not up to challenging his companions for the attention of any cows , but he had hope for the future and he ate his oats with gusto.

Then one day the Rancher was talking about buying a new bull where the trio of torros could overhear.



The Eldest Bull stomped in fury and declared with a bellow that no new bull was going to share in his harem , no way at all.

The younger Bull echoed this sentiment and the youngest also bugled defiance of any new compeditor .

Then one day soon a large trailer rolled onto the ranch and from it strode a Brahma Bull of enormous size and extreme musculature. His horns were long and thick , his hooves left tracks you could loose a calf in , his hide quivered beneath scars of combat and rodeo and his eyes were rimmed with fire. His girth was greater than the eldest bull and the youngest together.


The Eldest Bull said "Hmmmmmmmoo  Well perhaps I might make a bit of room for this guy and allow him to date some of my less attractive cows , but right now I think I might have forgotten to do something over there on the other side of the tanks." Whereupon he trotted off to take a nap.

  The Younger Bull said " Well mmmmmmmoo... Perhaps I can make friends with this guy , after all we are all in this ranch to gether right?"

    The youngest Bull began to stomp and snort and tear the ground with his horns , he reared up and arched his back to bellow defiantly and loudly , he tossed a feed trough over the fence and ran up to the gates and rammed them to make the beams that held the gates hinges shiver.

  The middle sized young bull walked quietly twards the youngest as he continued to carry on and make noise to whisper in his ear" Are you nuts? You don't want to challenge that monster to a fight !"

The youngest bull stopped his defiant bellowing for only a moment , long enough to tell his older companion in a low voice, "I don't mean to fight him , but I certainly want him to know that I am a bull."

[Plane]

"Ther is one thing I have to give Credit to Clinton for , he didn't want American Casualtys , so he didn't expose Americans to anything that could produce casualtys."



Plane,

Credit for Clinton. He didn't want AMERICAN CASUALTIES??

What happened on 9-11. Not just American casualties, Plane.

Sure, in a War declared there are going to be casualties in the process.

Was war declared when the terrorist flew into the towers and through the side of the pentagon?

Could those attacks have been avoided under Clinton's watch?

I wonder.

   I am referring to the three times that Clinton went to war. American losses were so light that we tend to forget that there was an actuall war in Serbia , Bosnia , Kosovo, Albania. The Clinton policy of smacking the small targets with invunerable wepons , reguarding the collateral damage as acceptable even tho we could ahve caused less colateral damage if we had exposed ourselves to more counterattack.


  I don't think tha Clinton did anything that directly caused the 9-11 attack and second guessing what he could have done to prevent it is fruitless. With hindsight we can see that it would have been good for us to have tightened up our security a lot ahead of 9-11 , but even since 9-11 the rather mild increased security measures that Bush has enacted have been fought on the grounds of privacy, I don't beleive that Clinton could have done anything effective to increase our security at all , because there was no public mood to support such a thing before 9-11.

Could Clinton have unfettered the CIA and even Delta force to attack Osama earlyer than 9-11 ? Perhaps so, but the operation would have been risky and who had the foresight of 9-11 really?

American response to Osama's challenge being weak is a problem that has roots as far back as the Carter Administration if not further , so how can I single Clinton out as he pretty much continued the policys of his predicessors?

[Michael Tee]

<<I want all terrorist supporting nations to fail in their attempts to rid western civilization.>>

Well, it's kind of hard to argue when there's such a lack of specifics.
   1.  Which nations do you specifically have in mind as "terrorist supporting nations?"
   2.  What specific groups do you have in mind that they are supporting and that you consider "terrorist?"
   3.  Am I correct in assuming that you consider both Iran and pre-invasion Iraq to be "terrorist supporting nations?"
   4.  If so, which specific "terrorist" groups do you accuse them of supporting?

<<When we lose 100,000 + people in the years to come, you will be able to say we have failed.>>

No, I can say right now that you have failed.  You have failed to dominate Iraq in four years of struggle.  Of course if and when you lose 100,000 people, your failure will be that much bigger, but that doesn't alter the fact that you are already miserable failures and deservedly so.

<<But, where will you be. MT?>>

When you lose 100,000 people?  That's an extremely hypothetical quesion, but if it happens, I'll probably be hoping like hell that none of my family are among the 100,000, but adding up the numbers nevertheless and figuring that the Arabs have come much closer than ever before to evening up the score and that they still have a long way to go.  Figuring that this is something you all brought upon yourselves by your own fucking stupidity, greed and selfishness.  And reading all about it in the papers and thanking God every minute that I am not an American.

<<I find it interesting that the very reason for the "fight" albeit not a wisely executed plan on the part of the Bush administration, was still a necessary one. We have not been attacked on our soil since 9-11.>>

So may I take it from that line of reasoning that if you should be attacked again on your soil in the near future, this would prove that the reason for the "fight" was in fact an unnecessary one?"  And a second question:  Don't you think that increased security in the homeland, rather than the attack on Iraq, is the main reason why there have been no further attacks?

<<I think that someone in the world has to be powerful. I'm just grateful that the most powerful nation on the earth is not Iran or Iraq.>>

But that's like being thankful that the most powerful man in America is not Charles Manson.  I mean, why be thankful for things that have virtually no chance of ever happening?  The real issue is not who would be the worst man to hold power in America or which would be the worst country to be the most powerful on earth.  That's all just living in a world of fancy and speculation.  In the real world, there is no doubt that for the time being, the USA IS the most powerful nation, and the only issue is, how is that power being used?  IMHO, it's being used to invade, to torture and to kill.  And that's all wrong.  But in any event, speculating on how other countries would use that power is pointless - - nobody knows WHAT they would do with that power, and since they'll never get it, it doesn't matter anyway.

<<Do you want to see our nations of freedom and peace go the way of repression and hardship?>>

But that's exactly what's going wrong in the world.  Your "nations of freedom and peace" are pushing dictatorship, repressing freedom and breaking the peace.  The U.S.A. for example, overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and brought in the dictatorial regime of the Shah; in the West Bank, it supports a 40-year-old military occupation of three million Arabs for the benefit of 250,000 Jewish settlers.  What is so free and democratic about that?  The U.S. has invaded and is still trying to occupy Iraq.  What is so peaceful about that?  The U.S. backs the repressive dictatorship in Egypt by giving them billions of dollars every year and also backs other repressive dictatorships in Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  Isn't that "going the way of repression?"