A Big "I Told You So" from Me to You

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: eits
same goddamn difference... :roll:

moron. bombing = act of war = eventual invasion.

bombing = precursor to invasion

bombing = same effect as an invasion

however you want to slice it, it's pretty much the same thing. don't pull a clinton about the definition of "is"... any idiot knows that if you bomb, eventually, you will send in troops if you haven't already.

this isn't 1930 where an actual soldier invasion comes before a bombing.

I would not agree that bombing = eventual invasion, plus there is a huge difference between a ground invasion and bombing. But I'm not going to do the research for you you'll have to do it for yourself

It is comon convention to differentiate between the two terms. For example the US did not 'invade' the Japanese home islands during WWII but we sure as heck bombed them

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: loki8481
wait, who advocated an invasion of Iran again?

"Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran"

Republicans.txt

phokusisretarded.txt

neo-cons? lokiisadumbfuck.txt

where? who?

Are you retarded?

http://vodpod.com/watch/703973...-we-must-bomb-iran-now

http://www.commentarymagazine....for-bombing-iran-10882

http://www.latimes.com/news/op...oll=la-home-commentary

http://jta.org/news/article/20...-remove-iranian-regime


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

Those are all about bombing Iran.

The OP claims we spoke of INVADING Iran. There is a slight difference.

The US has a long history of bombing belligerent countries.

The conservative estimates are 1500 bombs being dropped:

http://www.latimes.com/news/op...oll=la-home-commentary

With actual numbers being considerably more:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot...war-plan-for-iran.html

(plus plans to bomb infrastructure, send in special forces to seize oil wells etc.)

Also in several of the links, they talk about an overthrow of the government

And this is what the CIA says about the bombing campaing:

??The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran?s nuclear infrastructure is formidable,? says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. ?The question is, what then?? NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran?s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ?The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.??

You're. Retarded.

I would say it is a safe bet that you can find war plans for practically any nation on the globe. They are contigency plans in case of worst case scenarios.

 

[bamacre]

The OP is completely misguided here.

While there may have been a small few extremists calling for an invasion of Iran, the general consensus of Republicans was never in support of an invasion of Iran. And how could it be? Republicans were still being ridiculed, and rightfully so, for the horrible mistake that was the invasion of Iraq.

Regarding Iran, the general consensus of the Republicans was shared by the Democrats. In order to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, both parties were in favor of strong economic sanctions, and international weight to put pressure Iran. Verbal aggression toward Iran came from both parties, even Obama claiming he would do "everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." And his selection for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was very vocal in her aggressive stance toward Iran.

So when we look past the radical few, and look at the general consensus of both parties regarding Iran, we see much more agreement. Thus, for the OP to create a thread that basically concludes, "Democrats were right, Republicans were wrong," is just blatantly dishonest.

 

[alchemize]

I believe the last president to order any invasion of Iran was Jimmy Carter

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TechAZ
I really hope EITS isn't an actual practicing chiropractor. What an embarrassment to the prestigious back cracking industry. Please tell us you're just a secretary.

At any rate, sure there might have been a few people calling for the INVASION of Iran, but hardly a measurable percentage to claim that the "neo-cons" wanted to invade. You do know the difference between a few well placed bombs and an invasion right?

Apparently not, and he's not alone.

semantics. same difference. one leads to the other. either way, it's acts of aggression which escalate. iran wouldn't take being bombed lightly at all which would have resulted in a war.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Exterous

Originally posted by: eits
same goddamn difference... :roll:

moron. bombing = act of war = eventual invasion.

bombing = precursor to invasion

bombing = same effect as an invasion

however you want to slice it, it's pretty much the same thing. don't pull a clinton about the definition of "is"... any idiot knows that if you bomb, eventually, you will send in troops if you haven't already.

this isn't 1930 where an actual soldier invasion comes before a bombing.

I would not agree that bombing = eventual invasion, plus there is a huge difference between a ground invasion and bombing. But I'm not going to do the research for you you'll have to do it for yourself

It is comon convention to differentiate between the two terms. For example the US did not 'invade' the Japanese home islands during WWII but we sure as heck bombed them

hehe true.

we're quibbling over semantics. maybe i should have said bombing or committing acts of military aggression against a country ready and willing to retaliate.

 

[eits]

the fact remains i told you so.

you said we needed to take care of business in iran and get rid of the regime. i said the people will handle it within 5 years and that we need to not be involved whatsoever and let them deal with their own government. i was right, you guys were wrong.

i don't really blame you guys... you're not persian, you've never been to iran, and you don't speak to people who keep their finger on the pulse of iran on a daily basis. you're all just americans who don't really know much about iran or its people... it's understandable for you to be wrong.

 

[nageov3t]

told who so?

I'd say lock this as a call-out thread except you're only calling out phantoms.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: loki8481
told who so?

I'd say lock this as a call-out thread except you're only calling out phantoms.

i'm not calling out anyone, troll. i told those who suggested taking military action against iran.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Phokus
??The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran?s nuclear infrastructure is formidable,? says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. ?The question is, what then?? NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran?s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ?The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.??

-The CIA

Bombing Iran would just be invading Iran anyway, and profjohn is still retarded

I'm not getting your point... seriously you need to stop tooting your anti-republican horn because individual opinions of bombing Iran are not entirely a republican concept.

The DoD, CIA, DIA, essentially the U.S. Government throughout history, has always created invasion and strategic plans for many countries, no matter how likely or unlikely such scenarios would ever have a real need. It's just how our government thinks - have a plan so we can get the ball rolling fast in the event we feel we need to police the world. It's a U.S. concept, far from partisan in any conceivable way, so drop the bullshit. If you want to attack the concept of being the world's police, be my guest, bash U.N. for all I care because they do a terrible job and we like to try and do what the U.N. fails to accomplish. I'm all for a more isolationist approach - screw the world, we need to fix our problems before worrying about others. But, that's the issue with having allies. Great for when the shit really hits the fan, but allies always want to help their allies with the little problems, even when it's only in their region. We'll never change the fact the Israel is locked in with an eternal struggle against the Middle East due to the fact radical Islam interpretations basically forces that situation.

And with that said, we are trying to be the world's police in backing the U.N. treaties and resolutions regarding nuclear capabilities. Since the U.N. wants no more nuclear countries, we want no more nuclear countries. Granted, we're barking down Iran's door about the issue while completely turning a blind eye to Israel shunning the U.N. regarding nuclear capability, so that's another topic that needs addressing.

But the partisan bullshit is tiresome. And further reason why I have no hope for our government because I have no hope for the people who seem prepared to go to war with the other party. Goddamn we need something other than the 2 party system. It completely encourages the never-ending cycle of terrible government due to the lack of logical behavior and apathy from the voters.

don't tell him that during the great progressive era of last century we had military plans prepared for every major country, that would blow his mind.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: loki8481
told who so?

I'd say lock this as a call-out thread except you're only calling out phantoms.

i'm not calling out anyone, troll. i told those who suggested taking military action against iran.

Notice how he conveniently changed it from "invading Iran" to "taking military action against Iran"?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: eits
i'm not calling out anyone, troll. i told those who suggested taking military action against iran.

They would argue that the protesters vindicate their desire to use military force. What better reason than to liberate the people of Iran, who clearly demonstrate their desire for freedom?

 

[ProfJohn]

Ok.. since the end of Vietnam we have invaded:
Grenada, Panama and Iraq. You can include Afghanistan, but that was not a traditional invasion.

In that same time frame we have bombed:
Libya, Iraq multiple times, Bosnia multiple times, Afghanistan, Sudan and Yemen.

So of all the countries we have bombed in the past 40+ years only one saw a follow up invasion.

We shall have to keep this thread in mind for the pwnage thread of the year for P&N. Luckily for you phokus and techs are in a battle royal for that title.

 

[EagleKeeper]

the next person that attempts to call out eits and/or supports such will be gone for a week.

His life is not the subject of the thread.

A PM has been sent to the original perp; those that quoted him are also being placed on alert via this post


Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: loki8481
told who so?

I'd say lock this as a call-out thread except you're only calling out phantoms.

i'm not calling out anyone, troll. i told those who suggested taking military action against iran.

Notice how he conveniently changed it from "invading Iran" to "taking military action against Iran"?

same damn difference. it all fits under the same umbrella of things you righties wanted and i said the iranian people should take care of instead.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok.. since the end of Vietnam we have invaded:
Grenada, Panama and Iraq. You can include Afghanistan, but that was not a traditional invasion.

In that same time frame we have bombed:
Libya, Iraq multiple times, Bosnia multiple times, Afghanistan, Sudan and Yemen.

So of all the countries we have bombed in the past 40+ years only one saw a follow up invasion.

We shall have to keep this thread in mind for the pwnage thread of the year for P&N. Luckily for you phokus and techs are in a battle royal for that title.

some countries you can bomb and nothing will happen other than having lots of people get pissed at you.

basically, here is your logic: "i've poured water on a bar of soap, a soda can, a rock, and a pencil... why would things be any different if i poured water on a piece of sodium?"

either you're an idiot or you're trying desperately hard to try and make the argument for attacking iran not seem like a stupid idea. iran has an active military, and they're a muslim nation full of people who actually LIKE US. did afghanistan, sudan, yemen, or libya have that? absolutely not. they've got no military worth mentioning.

not to mention that there's kind of a threshold the muslim world will take when it comes to the united states attacking its countries constantly. we attack libya, sudan, yemen, and occupy iraq and afghanistan... do you seriously think attacking iran would be a wise choice? especially when iran's population are friendly to america and want iran to be friends with america? hell no.

the fact of the matter is that when it comes to iran, you righties don't know shit from apple butter, which is why you support idiot ideas like bombing iran or military invasions or anything else. most of the time the united states gets involved in the dealings of a muslim nation's government, we NEVER end up clean on the other end... it almost always backfires in one way or another.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eits
the fact remains i told you so.

you said we needed to take care of business in iran and get rid of the regime. i said the people will handle it within 5 years and that we need to not be involved whatsoever and let them deal with their own government. i was right, you guys were wrong.

i don't really blame you guys... you're not persian, you've never been to iran, and you don't speak to people who keep their finger on the pulse of iran on a daily basis. you're all just americans who don't really know much about iran or its people... it's understandable for you to be wrong.

How can others be wrong if you are not right, and you have not been proven to be right at this time? While there have been massive protests, there hasn't been a regime change and there's no real indication that it is going to happen.

Here's what the GC is going to do (some of which has already happened):

1) They will clamp down on the protests and will continue to jail any dissidents.

2) They will deny that the vote fraud had any impact on the elections.

3) They will blame the US and any other boogeyman they can think of for their problems.

4) The Iranian people will realize that the GC is too powerful to overcome and they will eventually tuck tail, go home, and keep their mouths shut out of fear of persecution.

5) This will all blow over and the GC will maintain its fanatical political/religious grip over Iran.

Kepp the above in mind because I won't be so gauche as to start an "I told you so" thread to remind you that I was right.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eits
the fact remains i told you so.

you said we needed to take care of business in iran and get rid of the regime. i said the people will handle it within 5 years and that we need to not be involved whatsoever and let them deal with their own government. i was right, you guys were wrong.

i don't really blame you guys... you're not persian, you've never been to iran, and you don't speak to people who keep their finger on the pulse of iran on a daily basis. you're all just americans who don't really know much about iran or its people... it's understandable for you to be wrong.

How can others be wrong if you are not right, and you have not been proven to be right at this time? While there have been massive protests, there hasn't been a regime change and there's no real indication that it is going to happen.

Here's what the GC is going to do (some of which has already happened):

1) They will clamp down on the protests and will continue to jail any dissidents.

2) They will deny that the vote fraud had any impact on the elections.

3) They will blame the US and any other boogeyman they can think of for their problems.

4) The Iranian people will realize that the GC is too powerful to overcome and they will eventually tuck tail, go home, and keep their mouths shut out of fear of persecution.

5) This will all blow over and the GC will maintain its fanatical political/religious grip over Iran.

Kepp the above in mind because I won't be so gauche as to start an "I told you so" thread to remind you that I was right.

1, 2 and 3 have already happened. It's only a matter of time before 4 and 5 happen.

Excellent post.

 

[Sinsear]

Supreme leader says Iran won't cede on election


Get back to me when the Iranians overthrow him; until then don't make threads calling everyone out with an I told you so. OP = Jackass.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Supreme leader says Iran won't cede on election


Get back to me when the Iranians overthrow him; until then don't make threads calling everyone out with an I told you so. OP = Jackass.

I think the Western media went into overdrive thinking they could push the Iranian over. It didn't happen. I'm surprised people thought it would happen.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Perfect example of why we need the 2nd amendment. As the current government has complete power of the military millions of Iranians would easily die and still no revolution. The only hope they have if some of their top military commanders would go against the "Supreme Leader"

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
Perfect example of why we need the 2nd amendment. As the current government has complete power of the military millions of Iranians would easily die and still no revolution. The only hope they have if some of their top military commanders would go against the "Supreme Leader"

I didn't know Iran had "free speech zones."

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
Perfect example of why we need the 2nd amendment. As the current government has complete power of the military millions of Iranians would easily die and still no revolution. The only hope they have if some of their top military commanders would go against the "Supreme Leader"

I didn't know Iran had "free speech zones."

Buh... 2nd amendment = right to bear arms.

An armed populace in an uprising would just escalate things if the scale was too small. Couple of hundred armed with automatic rifles are still just a couple of hundred people dead. If whole cities were up in arms, then it could be different.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eits
the fact remains i told you so.

you said we needed to take care of business in iran and get rid of the regime. i said the people will handle it within 5 years and that we need to not be involved whatsoever and let them deal with their own government. i was right, you guys were wrong.

i don't really blame you guys... you're not persian, you've never been to iran, and you don't speak to people who keep their finger on the pulse of iran on a daily basis. you're all just americans who don't really know much about iran or its people... it's understandable for you to be wrong.

How can others be wrong if you are not right, and you have not been proven to be right at this time? While there have been massive protests, there hasn't been a regime change and there's no real indication that it is going to happen.

Here's what the GC is going to do (some of which has already happened):

1) They will clamp down on the protests and will continue to jail any dissidents.

2) They will deny that the vote fraud had any impact on the elections.

3) They will blame the US and any other boogeyman they can think of for their problems.

4) The Iranian people will realize that the GC is too powerful to overcome and they will eventually tuck tail, go home, and keep their mouths shut out of fear of persecution.

5) This will all blow over and the GC will maintain its fanatical political/religious grip over Iran.

Kepp the above in mind because I won't be so gauche as to start an "I told you so" thread to remind you that I was right.

1, 2 and 3 have already happened. It's only a matter of time before 4 and 5 happen.

Excellent post.

I think 4 is happening right now.. 5 will happen soon. It must suck to be Iranian. Just across the border in Iraq, when people come out of voting booths with blue fingers, it means something (courtesy of the United States armed forces .. In Iran, not so much.. In Iran, it just shows people how much their vote is worth.. which is nothing...

 

[yllus]

The protests seem to be dwindling quickly. At least Ms. Rahnavard is remaining defiant - her husband seems to have already been cowed.

Iran's Crisis: The Opposition Weighs Its Options

Iran's political crisis would end pretty quickly if the opposition went toe-to-toe with the security forces ? and no matter how courageous and determined the demonstrators are, the likelihood of them toppling the regime on the streets right now is pretty remote.

Although at least 17 and perhaps many more opposition supporters have been killed and hundreds have been arrested, the regime has used only a fraction of its capacity for violent suppression, and its security forces show no sign of wavering or splintering.

The authorities have warned that defiance of bans on demonstration will no longer be tolerated, and reports out of Iran on June 23 suggested that the regime may be moving to arrest opposition presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

The days following the election saw more than a million people protesting in Tehran, but by June 20 that number had reportedly been reduced to 3,000, and on June 22 just 1,000 were said to have made it to the demonstration. But the dwindling crowds on the streets doesn't mean the opposition is beaten.

...

The regime appears to have adopted crowd-control measures that are at once smarter and more brutal. Security forces and allied militia simply take control of the streets before demonstrators do, and prevent opposition protests from achieving a critical mass by beating, teargassing and in some instances shooting at those who are trying to congregate.