Wednesday, March 08, 2006

How about "Go to Hell Tehran"

Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain' Over Nuke Meeting
Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program and for plans to push fellow council members to impose tough measures against the Islamic republic.

I know that it's not hard to look tough when most of the people around you wear rags and ride camels but guess what Iran, you are talking to the United States of America. People here actually have indoor plumbing and the foundation, let alone the walls, of my house isn't dirt.

If Reagan was president he would tell these bastards to stick their nukes in the appropriate orifice.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lest me forget Daniel, Reagan sold weapons to Iran during the same time at which the administration was supporting Iraq during the 1980-88 war. It's called Iran-Contra, read a f-ing history book.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah and Iran is probably the most educated (15% of all residents have graduate degrees, not just college degrees) and middle class country in the middle east you racist pig.

BEAR said...

Be reminded, lefties, of who won the Iran-Iraq War. It was a draw. And how many tens of thousands of Coalition troops were supposed to die in the initial attack on Iraq? Iran has the same chance of surviving an attack by the AMERICAN MILITARY as you have of promulgating a logical argument.....None. They had best beware of pissing us off.

Anonymous said...

Telling Tehran to go to hell is like wishing bad luck on the Blazers.

fish_on said...

Educated and middle class eh?

Guess that let's them think it's ok to use children as suicide bombers...and make a cartoon for kids about it...

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=87439&ak=null


Oh, and anon #1...since you seem to be up on your history...our history as a nation, and as individuals, can always come back to bite us in the ass from time to time. I'm sure (well, now that I think about it maybe not) YOU yourself are not proud of something(s) you've done in your past.

IT WHAT WE DO NOW THAT WE SHALL BE JUDGED UPON IN THE FUTURE.

Daniel said...

How typical, a country full of lunatics threatens America and when I bash them the liberals leap to their defense.

I absolutley predicted the response.

Anonymous said...

Bear, yes not many died in the intial assualt but more than 2,000 have died since.

I'm not defending Iran, just stating that you are ignoring historical facts vis a vis Reagan's role and are taking a highly racist view of their culture.

Frankly, the US army lacks the manpower without a draft to do anything at this point so its moot.

BEAR said...

No, it's not moot. every tinhorn who has underestimated the will and power of the USA has found out the hard way. One of the first flags this nation had said "don't tread on me." Good advice...then and now.

Anonymous said...

And Vietnam was...

Anonymous said...

... a democrat failure finally ended by a Republican.

Scottiebill said...

Anonymous said that telling Teheran to go to hell is like wishing bad luck on the Blazers. Teheran is already in hell and if the Blazers didn't have bad luck, they would have no luck at all. So your statement is just about as worthless as your first two statements.

Kaelri said...

I am frankly puzzled by the frequency of visitors here who seem to have taken to heart the idea that the United States could actually invade another country by itself.

The only means we currently possess of annihilating their defensive force and command hierarchy would necessitate that President Bush could recall and articulate nuclear launch codes.

(I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. In all seriousness, though, I don't need to tell you that producing the sequel to Hiroshima and Nagasaki after a sixty year hiatus is likely to backfire on a number of fronts.)

We could also try another Bay of Pigs-esque maneuver, but that, given Iran's border security (probably increased out of paranoia, which is understandable, given the war being fought on their western border), military manpower (570,000 not including available reservists), and the number of Arabs willing to help us makes this thinking somewhat wishful.

Curiously, a conventional military occupation and regime change are remarkably thwarted by exactly the same reasons, with the addition of the fact that we'd have to conduct the invasion with a military force that's already spread just unbelievably thin. Iran is bigger than Iraq, they likely hate Americans a lot more, their army is bigger, their government is better organized, they may actually have weapons of mass destruction with which to return fire, and we'd have to cope with all of these problems with, at best, half the number of troops who are (though not for a lack of determination and passion) utterly failing to maintain order in the Scenario of Lesser Gloom.

Simply put, an invasion of Iran by the United States' armed forces would be bad for virtually everyone.

Thomas said...

" a country full of lunatics threatens America and when I bash them the liberals leap to their defense"
What the liberals fail (or refuse) to recognize is that these same lunatics that they defend will just as happily saw their heads off as quickly as they would the rest of us!
Though in fairness, not ALL Iranians are of the mindset of "President" Ahmadinnerjacket. I have heard (though at this time I can't comfirm) that each year on the anniversary of 9/11 many demonstrations (ala candlelight vigils) are held in Iran to pay respect to those Americans who were murdered by Islamic fanatics.

Re: Anon.'s post #2

Well, Daniel, I guess you lose this debate; you've been called a racist pig, so I guess that trumps anything of value you might have had to say on any subject.
Once the "racist" card is deployed - debate over - you have been declared (officially) "irrelevent"!

/sarc - off

Anonymous said...

I'd suggest that anon read a dictionary for the term "pragmatist" it might go along way in determining why RR chose to side with Iraq. Christ! Why not drag in the Crusades, and the rest of the baggage along with Vietnam? They're all history.

Gunslinger said...

We would mop up Iran prety quickly, IF, we left their military in place like we have in afghanistan. However, China now has an enourmous financial interest in Iran. China has been conducting joint military training with Russia for some time now, and Russia has been suspected of supplying weapons to the Iranians. While I believe whole heartedly that we would be just fine to head to Iran and start a fire, I think that we may want to tread lightly. We do not need a world war kicking off in this day and age. Not that I am too worried about it, if things get too bad over there, you can count on Isreal to strike first with nukes, in order to save their own country.

It does make me wonder though, if these candy ass nay sayers that doubt the power of our military, would be the first to lay down and take it in the ass from an invading force. Oh, wait, they already are. Illegal immigration. How silly of me.

Kaelri said...

For the obvious criticism, invading another country's a lot different from getting invaded ourselves.

For the sorry attempt at changing the topic, I'll remind you that you're basically the only ones who seriously (not just in the text of a stump speech) consider ten million impoverished Mexicans swallowing cocaine in Ziploc bags to hide it from the first cop they see to be an "invading force." You might have an argument if they were receiving cryptograms from the Mexican Ministry of Defense, Druggèd Farmhand Division. But this is no Bay of Pigs.

Scottiebill said...

Why bring up the Bay of Pigs fiasco some 45 years later? We should remember that it was a failed attempt to invade Cuba by primaily Cuban expatriates. And the failure was the complete fault of JFK and little brother Bobby, who were the smarter brothers of Teddy Kennedrunk, presently the big-mouth in residence at the US senate. JFK called off the Naval support of those Cubans who were trying to get back their country from Castro. Would they have succeeded if they had had our Naval support? Who knows? But they never had the chance to find out because of the Kennedy betrayal of their cause. Remember, too, that Kennedy was a Democrat. The common thinking today is that JFK was one of our better presidents. That is mainly because he stopped the Russians from moving ICBMs into Cuba with a Naval blockade. (For some reason, getting assassinated in Dallas also somehow contributed to his "greatness".) But, the Bay of Pigs mess cancelled that out.

My point here is that it does no good to bring up the Bay of Pigs or Reagan's Iran-Contra mess today. Kennedy's fiasco happened in 1961 and Reagan's fiasco was 20 years later, in the early 80s. That was then. This is now. Times change and living in the past serves no one except those who choose to bring up the past to make some obscure point.

Kristopher said...

Iran is just another third world shithole. A large one, but a third world shithole none the less.

It is not the equivalent of Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan.

If Iran forces the US congress and President to formally declare war, Iran burns.

What the US military did in Afghanistan and Iraq was extremely gentile in comparison to what this country is capable of. Even without using nukes, SAC can make every town in the country a Dresden re-enactment.

The US is only limited by the ability of the far-left to undermine it.

BEAR said...

You know, Kristopher, I'm reminded of that group of self-proclaimed peace-niks who went to Iraq to offer themselves as human shields against the American military. Saddam tried to tie them in front of legitimate military targets, and the little darlings decided to opt out. Maybe the lefties can pretend to show their pretend cajones by making the same offer to the islamo-fascists in Teheran. We could even offer to ship our favorite anti-Americans over there. Alec Baldwin, come on down! Babs Streisand, come on down! Hollywood would be almost empty. The mainstream media would cease to exist! Portland would be a ghost-town. Eugene and Corvallis would be only memories. Each and every appeasement-monkey should stand up and flee to Iran. Think of how much ammo and ink could be saved by nailing them all at once.

Gunslinger said...

Iran shares a borer with Russia. Russia has said that they will not support any action against Iran. China has a huge financial interest. (this is the same China that for years has been buying American currency to support our economy so we can continue to buy their crap) China and Russia are new best pals.

I really think we need to sit this one out, and let the EU or some other folks handle this. Not because I think we would lose, for that is not the case. I have been part of the military enough, in certain areas to know our full potential. But discression is the better part of valor.

ANyone remember Korea? (I was not alive during the conflict, but I have stood post on the walls there). I know people who were there during the war. They came over a hill, chasing the Koreans, and ended up machine gunned by some chinese gents for their troubles. Iran has the potential to go the same way. We would certainly beat the stew out of them, but at what cost to relations with China and Russia?

HMIL said...

Geez ... I sure do miss Ronald Wilson Reagan!!!

Scottiebill said...

Bear, you are dead on in your last blog. The big problem here is that when these so-called peaceniks came back to the US, we let them in. They should have been sent back to the Middle East to complete their mission.

Another Idea: What if the military was given Hollywood to use as a bombing and firing range for a week. I think then we might have a Hollywood that would actually be worth something. Of course, we couldn't give them any advance notice, lest Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, and Whoopicushion Goldberg and their ilk get out ahead of time.

To anonymous and Robert: The above paragraph was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. You do understand "tongue-in-cheek" don't you??? I didn't think so.