The new President elected in theran is a hard-line Muslim who embraces the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini and as tortured those whom disagree. He is definitely anti-American, and is threatening to raise prices to where they would cripple the US.  Europe has asked this potential dictator not to restart the nuclear program. SO far, that has fallen on deaf ears. :(

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8377805/

BTW: I changed the tone of  this question, because I wasn't getting any feedback. :-\\

I am very disappointed this topic still hasn't gotten any response. Here's a dictator who could be ten times as evil as Saddam, even more evil than Kim Jong Il or the Ayatollah Khomeini himself. Is America so sick of the war that they don't want to bother with more Middle East conflict, then fine by me. I just need some opinions here. Remember who the REAL enemy is. >:(

Yes, I agree that the election of this hard-liner is not good for use, and I, for one, would not like to see Iran develope nuclear weopons.  So maybe it is time to fear Iran again.  And so we have another failure of Lil' Georgie's administration.  With not enough troops in Iraq to handle that job, ditto in Afganistan, there is certainly no military option.  And so, once again, Lil' Georgie's exagurations, lies, provarications etc come back to bit us in the a33.  And still, where is Osama?  Where is Zarqui?  All I can say is that its a good thing these idiots weren't around during WWII or we'd all be doing the Goose step.  Zig Hial

Before you blame everything on Georgie, remember that Bill Clinton reduced the military to the weak state it's in now. And Bush, Jr., who has either refused to add more firepower because of the bottom line, or loathes the military himself, has forced the Forces to do more with less. Thus, creating the quagmire that is Iraq.
And yes, I agree we'd be speaking German with Bush, Jr. or Clinton as President in WW2. :(
Yes, I agree that the election of this hard-liner is not good for use, and I, for one, would not like to see Iran develope nuclear weopons.  So maybe it is time to fear Iran again.  And so we have another failure of Lil' Georgie's administration.  With not enough troops in Iraq to handle that job, ditto in Afganistan, there is certainly no military option.  And so, once again, Lil' Georgie's exagurations, lies, provarications etc come back to bit us in the a33.  And still, where is Osama?  Where is Zarqui?  All I can say is that its a good thing these idiots weren't around during WWII or we'd all be doing the Goose step.  Zig Hial

Fear Iraq again?  I wasn't afraid the first time around.

Fear Iraq again?  I wasn't afraid the first time around.


Not Iraq (Saddam Hussein) but Iran (where the ayatollahs rule). ;)

Before you blame everything on Georgie, remember that Bill Clinton reduced the military to the weak state it's in now. And Bush, Jr., who has either refused to add more firepower because of the bottom line, or loathes the military himself, has forced the Forces to do more with less. Thus, creating the quagmire that is Iraq.
And yes, I agree we'd be speaking German with Bush, Jr. or Clinton as President in WW2. :(


You misunderstood.  I think Bill would have done as well as FDR, while I think Lill" Georgie would have pi33 his pants in the face of the Nazies, as he did in the face of 9/11.  But that is not the issue.  I would point out the the current state of our military is the  result of Sec Rumsfeld's policy, which contradicted the advice of Colin Powell.  Ir was Rumsfeld who decided the troop levels necessary to do the job in Iraq, and it is Rumsfeld, and his bosses, who bear the responsibilty.  Don't blame Clinton for this deacle.  And maybe we should all start to study Ababic.

FDR, the man who started this war crap in the first place. Overrated in my book.

I think Clinton would have been better off dying like FDR if he had to serve 2 more terms in WW2. 8 more years of a Clinton in office would just about equal FDR, and would be unbearable. But my point being that Clinton's loathing of the military is a sore spot on his otherwise "laudable" record. If or when Hilary is elected, you can kiss any Forces and defense plan goodbye.

You misunderstood.  I think Bill would have done as well as FDR

Before you blame everything on Georgie, remember that Bill Clinton reduced the military to the weak state it's in now. And Bush, Jr., who has either refused to add more firepower because of the bottom line, or loathes the military himself, has forced the Forces to do more with less. Thus, creating the quagmire that is Iraq.
And yes, I agree we'd be speaking German with Bush, Jr. or Clinton as President in WW2. :(


Who said that we don;t have enough troops?

We've CHOSEN to not send more troops to Iraq.  If we wanted to, we could easily have placed 500,000 troops on the ground.  The 138,000 troop figure was a political decision, not a military one.

Can't wait to hear what "fearless leader" has to say about this.....  ::)

And we've also chosen not to send in more weaponry which we could use to fight insurgents from each end of the Persian Gulf. Therefore, the troops lack the firepower they had in the first Persian Gulf war. So no matter how much manpower we send in, the Forces will be ill-equiped.

And LB, 138,000 was a budget cutting decision as well as a political one. Dubya needs to save money for the oil he is buying from the sheiks.
Who said that we don;t have enough troops?

We've CHOSEN to not send more troops to Iraq.  If we wanted to, we could easily have placed 500,000 troops on the ground.  The 138,000 troop figure was a political decision, not a military one.

From what I hear..and wouldn't put it past them...the new Iranian leader was one who help hold the Americans hostage during the Iran conflict!!!

REVOLT! BUT NO...THERE ARE PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY NOT WANTING US TO BULLY ANYONE WE DON'T BELONG BULLYING...

>:( >:( >:(

I'm sure the new Iranian government is planning their bullying strategy on the US right now. We didn't push Khomeini enough and it cost us. Let's not make that same mistake again.::)
REVOLT! BUT NO...THERE ARE PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY NOT WANTING US TO BULLY ANYONE WE DON'T BELONG BULLYING...

>:( >:( >:(

the interesting thing about Iran, is that it was tending away from these Ayatollahs after 9/11.  After we invaded Iraq however, the anti-American sentiment flared up amongst the normal people, not just those in charge. 

As for the troop shortage in Iraq.  Sure we could send in more troops, but who are they going to send?  Pencil pushers from the Pentagon? People who have already done a tour of duty there?  New recruits?  Those are at all time lows.

Who said that we don;t have enough troops?

We've CHOSEN to not send more troops to Iraq.  If we wanted to, we could easily have placed 500,000 troops on the ground.  The 138,000 troop figure was a political decision, not a military one.


Without a draft?  No way.  Are you ready to enlist?  Face it, requirtments are down, reenlistments are down.  And our own generals (some focibly retired) tell us that we don't have enough troops.  J.H.C, pay attention to more than Lil' Georgie's fantacies and delusions.

It's not about blaming Bush.  It's about recognizing that it takes two to tango.  Iran is like a rattlesnake.  It's a lot more afraid of us than we are of it!  I hate the idea of Iran having nukes.  I hate the U.S. having nukes already!

But why does Iran hate us?  What did we ever do to Iran?  Not much.  We only conspired in 1953 with the British to overthrow the government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh  and then installed the puppet regime of General Fazlollah Zahedi.
A few years prior, Mossadegh decided it was time for Iran for Iranians.  He nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
Secretary of State John Foster Dulles hated Thrid World upstarts like Mossadegh, plus he was red-scared about oil-rich Iran bordering the Soviet Union.  These fears brewed in the Truman administration, but Truman was more sympathetic to Iran.  It was under Eisenhower that the CIA deputized Kermit Roosevelt to woo General Zehedi and plot a military coup.
The new government installed Iran's regent, the Shah (at that time a mere figurehead, like the monarch of Denmark), as head of state.
For saving Britain's bacon in Iran, America got a whopping 40% of Iranian oil revenues.

So what the Irananians had between 1953 and the Kohmeni revolution of 1979 was a puppet government favorable to American oil interests. 

Thus, Iran is a monster Britain and America created by way of empire and greed for oil.

Patriotic Americans resented world-wide suspicions that America was going to Iraq for oil, as though such suspicions were unfounded.   
::)
And just why was the British government such a tenacious supporter of the Iraq war when the vast majority of the British population hated it?  Could these events in the Middle East fifty-two years ago have anything to do with it?

I'm not saying Iran isn't scary, I'm just suggesting we as Americans (or Britons) examine how and why a country such as Iran becomes threatening to us in the first place.