[QUOTE]WASHINGTON - The White House has reportedly given its approval for the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran[/url]

This is troubling on a host of different levels. I guess we've been doing a catch and release deal with Iranians in Iraq, and now we're doing kill or capture. This raises, for me, a number of different thoughts:

1. Are the Iranians actually in uniform, traveling in Iranian military vehicles, or otherwise identifiable as Iranian? If so, that seems to be a much more formal level of involvement than we've been led to believe. If not, however, I'm wondering how you could make the determination to kill someone. I would think there'd be a standing kill order for anyone showing hostility, but this would seem to suggest that might not be the case.

2. If anyone's interested, there's a story on rawstory.com from Tuesday that suggests that we've been leading up to getting Iran involved for the last 6 years or so. Raw Story is a liberal web site, so consider the source, of course, but it's an interesting read regardless. I had kinda been looking at it with a fairly jaundiced eye up until I saw this story this morning.

[url]http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Iran_The_Road_to_Confrontation_0123.html[/url]

3. Boy, if Iran ends up fully engaged in this as well, all hell is going to break loose.

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

[quote=toasty;441632]3. Boy, if Iran ends up fully engaged in this as well, all hell is going to break loose.[/quote]And the US will have its butt kicked royally if you ask me. :what

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

[QUOTE=KinKyJ;441636]And the US will have its butt kicked royally if you ask me. :what[/QUOTE]

Honestly, if Iran gets fully engaged, I think we're going to see a much broader war on our hands than just US vs Iran/Iraq.

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

^Agreed. And it won't be just US vs. lots of other countries. It will be lots of other countries vs. lots of other countries.

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

[QUOTE=Lorn;441659]^Agreed. And it won't be just US vs. lots of other countries. It will be lots of other countries vs. lots of other countries.[/QUOTE]

exactly. I remember years ago, before we even went in to Iraq. Someone on here predicted that going into Iraq would lead to WWIII. I recall that I dismissed the suggestion as ridiculous. Now I'm starting to think that dude might have been pretty smart.

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

WWIII has already begun...imo. Its a stealth war at the moment.

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

we should have been killing those iranian insurgents long ago. much of the bullshit that is happening in iraq is fueled by tehran. what's iran going to do? admit they've been trying to prevent stability in iraq?

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

I don't think Iran or the U.S. wants war with each other. Iran wants the U.S. to to infuriate the Iranian public to keep itself in power. Stories about us killing or capturing Iranians will only help the President of Iran keep a stronger grip on the country. Why would they want a war? They got the government they want and making lots of money from selling oil.

And the U.S.doesn't have the soldiers and resources to fight another war besides Iraq. Iraq had already caused enough trouble for Bush and the U.S. The people voted in the Democrats because of their disgust with Bush and his handling of the war.

I think it'll take a large event or extraordinary circumstances to get a war with U.S. vs. Iran going.

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

[quote=superdave;441734] And the U.S.doesn't have the soldiers and resources to fight another war besides Iraq. Iraq had already caused enough trouble for Bush and the U.S. The people voted in the Democrats because of their disgust with Bush and his handling of the war.

[/quote]

I've posted on this before, and you're absolutely wrong on this presumption. The Republicans were voted out because the public didn't want to deal with corruption and slyness anymore. It wasn't the war at all.....

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

[quote=88Mariner;441741] I've posted on this before, and you're absolutely wrong on this presumption. The Republicans were voted out because the public didn't want to deal with corruption and slyness anymore.[B][U] It wasn't the war at all.[/U][/B]....[/quote]

you really cant believe that, can you? i mean, comon. get real.

and toasty, im the one that said the iranians getting thier hands involved would lead to ww3. they dont want to see a gov't in place that will cooperate with everyone else, as opposed to another islamic styled govt that only worries about the middle east. its gonna happen, cuz amenjihad will send in more ppl now just to show the world they arent afraid.

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

[QUOTE=88Mariner;441741] I've posted on this before, and you're absolutely wrong on this presumption. The Republicans were voted out because the public didn't want to deal with corruption and slyness anymore. It wasn't the war at all.....[/QUOTE]

Well now that's just absurd. It is true that voters listed corruption as the number 1 reason they voted as they did, but to say that "it wasn't the war [B]at all[/B]" is just wrong. In one exit poll, for example, 71% of voters listed corruption as being either extremely important or very important. In that same poll, 67% said that Iraq was either extremely important or very important. [URL="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html"]source. [/URL] That isn't a huge difference.

Voters were not completely ambivalent about Iraq last November. It seems like such an elementary point, I honestly can't even believe it has to be made.

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

[QUOTE=thesightless;441753] and toasty, im the one that said the iranians getting thier hands involved would lead to ww3. .[/QUOTE]

You may well have said that, but I don't think you're the person I'm thinking of. This was a couple of MS iterations ago. I seem to recall that we've lost everything and started over from scratch twice now since I've been a member, and this post was before both of those.

I dunno, though. You could be right.

Re: Well, this probably isn't good

its a weird situation.

for as much as the middle east wants to left alone and isolated, they quickly demand that ppl pay attention to them, and work with them (hamas payments, oil tariffs, the india/pakistani border region,etc). right now, iran wants both attention, and the 'west' outta there, simply to exert influence and pressure the region into thier own goals. they want us to cooperate with them peacefully, but they wont do it nicely. they clearly are attempting to pressure the so called allies into bending more for thier interests, especially calling for a role in the iraqi govt and reconstruction.

eh, like i said, either have the world grow a pair and get in their and just deal with everyhting they have to at once, or pull out, and stop helping them, cut the aid, cut the fighting etc, and tell em they are on thier own. and when oil prices rise off the charts, dont fight, just tariff the shit out of goods going into unfreindly regions. hurt them peacefully via the economy, and general goods. trust me, the royal families and whatnot will change a little bit when the luxury goods they have arent there any more. no more mercedes, no more fine foods, no more electronics. i.e. force thier livestyles to a point where they realize they need to step up to the rest of the planet as opposed to the planet stepping down into the dark ages like so many of the countries there want to be.