world war III anyone?
edit: Ritter is a strong rhetoric and basicaly his predictions of what might happen if US goes to war with Iran are not so inflated as many in the states seem to believe. to me this scenario seems quite plausible. so i'm asking sifter who are from US on their views on possibility of further escalation of Iran conflict right now and in this pre-election time? cause, man - if that happens i'm gonna start digging a deep hole for a nuclear shelter (on the same place where my "dead pool" is right now)

I think he's a little too sure of his prediction. Just a little.

He is a little to sure of himself and whatever you say about America I still dont think we would use nukes. Not because our government doesnt want to, im sure they do, but our international support is so weak that if we nuked anyone I have a feeling we would become outcasts. You think the world hates America now, it wont compare to the amount the world would turn on us if we nuked someone (unless of course we can convince the world we were attacked first...preferably with nukes)

Damn straight.

There have been a lot of progressive victories in Iran over the last decade, and the youth is ready for change. If we start bullying Iran, we will undo this progress, which is perhaps what the neo-cons are really after here.

Iran needs space to grow, not their populace in body bags.

I think Bush and Rumpsfeld were a little to sure in their prediction. Just a little. Why should I believe them now? Because I'm scared?

People seem to think that Iran is nothing but a bunch religious zealots living in huts and riding camels. On the contrary, they are a very metropolitan people living in a highly industrialized nation. We could never walk on Iran because they have a sophisticated military with a highly developed air force.

The Iraq blowback was not because of fundamentalism, but that's a convenient excuse for both sides: invader and subjugated. What would you do if you were invaded tomorrow? What would you do if your house and family were destroyed for reasons you didn't understand. Imagine you were 16. You damn sure wouldn't stand there - without any money - and try to rebuild a smoldering heap of rubble so you can live in it alone. But there always going to be someone there to hand you a gun or teach you how to lay road spikes. And it's guaranteed that he or she would remind you that we can once again be "one nation under god."

Iran would never lay itself down. Iraq was already crippled when the U.S. invaded and look what's happened there. When there's a will there's a way. Invading Iran would destroy the U.S.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I hope QuantumMushroom is watching with his "Iran delenda est" bullshit. To be honest, I don't think the US would seriously undertake to attack Iran- it's a big bluff as a way to get them to change policy.

I don't think it's an effective bluff though- as it's just strengthening the theocracy there- as the Iranians rally round the flag. Stupid NeoCon saber rattling.

Isn't QuantumMushroom just a troll? Like choggie? That was my impression...

Why even mention them...

If you look at the cold war history, its extremely doubtful that the US would use nuclear weapons. Really, IMO the only situation that would lead to nuclear weapon use would be some dictator or other idividual or extremist group using a nuclear weapon.
Every idiot could tell that the USA wouldnt only make the whole middle east their enemy, but also would lose several allies and the rest of the world would also take a (or several) step back from the USA. They would literally dig their own grave.

Los Angeles. Oh, he wasn't serious about picking a city?

I would take a prediction that keeps us out of war over a prediction that scares us into one any day of the week.

ugh. i was avoiding clicking on this one.
because the title, sure as fuck didn't apply to me.
i just wanted to see what dft said, that made the top comments.

upvote for sy hersh's work. you probably should include his name in tags.

and since you you bring it up, >> ^ajkido:
Isn't QuantumMushroom just a troll? Like choggie? That was my impression...
Why even mention them...

"just" one? no. srsly. he can be more, when he wants to be, and he'll get a chance to again soon.
choggie? no.
why? because it's topical, and it wouldn't be hard to guess his reaction, unless he thought about it a little first.

Does he remind anyone else of Chris Farley as he hits that little roll at the end there?
"And that something we should all think about as we march off toward our vaaaan down by the river."

Thankfully I'm Canadian and the prevailing winds where I live are southwards.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Norsuelefantti.

Oh, wait... it's actually *notdead! Sorry!

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by Norsuelefantti.

Currently US forces are so stretched out and tied up on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, that given a possible hostile attack the burden of force would fall on air power alone, without ruling out the possible reality of using nuclear weapons.

But don't let reality get in the way of Bush telling you that getting tied down in two theaters is making you safer every single day.

>> ^Jordass:
... our international support is so weak that if we nuked anyone I have a feeling we would become outcasts. You think the world hates America now, it wont compare to the amount the world would turn on us if we nuked someone

exactly. already nobody wants your dollar, and that hurts more than nukes.

What else does Ritter have to say about Israel.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Israels-influence-of-US-policy

You're all making rational arguments against such an attack yet the Bush administration has made its reputation by not sticking to reason. I'll start digging a bunker anyway...

This guy is a fear mongering idiot and he looks ridiculous when he starts going off the hook. He forgot about the part where cats will start sleeping with dogs.

Epic rhetoric.

I have to agree with everything he said. What basis does the US have for going to war with Iran. They have not threatened/hurt/intimidated/attacked the us at all, so why? what foundation do we really have? Man I can't wait till the US gets a REAL republican in office...

*waronterror

Adding video to channels (Waronterror) - requested by calvados.

>> ^TheSofaKing:
I think he's a little too sure of his prediction. Just a little.


Bud, i've seen how war is, he is sure of his prediction, because that prediction is true, and Bush is the worst president America has ever had.

>> ^KFJ:
>> ^TheSofaKing:
I think he's a little too sure of his prediction. Just a little.

Bud, i've seen how war is, he is sure of his prediction, because that prediction is true, and Bush is the worst president America has ever had.


Apparently, you must be 8 or younger.

arsenault185

Apparently you have never heard Ahmadinejad speak. I also think everyone is a little too sure that an attack is imminent. I don't believe that it is and I hope more then anything that it can be avoided. However, when Iranian leadership, who believe they can bring on the hidden imam by causing apocalyptic chaos, threatens to wipe Israel off the map... I tend to think that we should obstruct their nuclear ambitions at every turn.

The Iranian president is little more than a figure head in Iranian politics. Ahmadinejad has trouble ordering a sandwich much less declaring a military strike. Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, is the only one with any real power, and he's the one expected to act responsibly.

I always thought the administration was saber rattlin' to tell the Iranians not to screw with Iraq while we're building some of the (metaphorical) bridges we (literally) blew up.

"Don't make this harder for us, Iran, or,... well,... we'll bust you up next! Yeah!"

Speculation and fear-mongering. I could never trust someone who speaks wish such certainty about something that is so inherently unpredictable. Saying anything more specific than "Iran's response to an attack would be considerable and they would attempt to reach the US mainland" is completely unfounded.

Well you all have a chance right now to prevent an attack on Iran from ever happening, and you're all voting for fucking hilary and obama.

This stuff isn't aimed at the government, it's aimed at the voters.

And another thing, this isn't speculation and fear mongering, someone needs to go read a few fucking books.

It was speculation and fear mongering that led to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq (this is NOT a war) in the first place.

Now we're on the brink of illegally invading Iran and people are shouting 'oh it's just speculation'.

IT'S A TOTAL INVASION.

Lets all remember who Scott Ritter is exactly, he was chief UN inspector for WMDs in Iraq, in March 2003 he said that the US case for invading Iraq based on WMD was bullshit, he was publically ridiculed and sidelined as Condi Rice declared that we shouldn't let the "smoking gun be a mushroom cloud".

And yes invading Iran would create a huge problem it would mean the US is implicit in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and undue support of Isreal in the oppression of Palestinan people. Already the invasion of two soverign states is a violation of UN charters on aggression and are considered war crimes by Nuremberg standards.

But somehow bombing civilians is far more legit then someone fighting the oppression of a imperalistic power. People should take their blinders off and realize that the War on Terror is simply the new logic of the Cold War fighting communism applied in a new context in order for the US to project power and influence, first how does on fight a tactic? Second how many states were invaded or destabalized during the 60s, 70s and 80s in the fight against the red menace (guatemala, chile, bolivia and so many others)? How many inhumane states are supported now in their regimes if they are against terrorism (egypt, jordan, uzbekistan and many others)?

"But somehow bombing civilians is far more legit then someone fighting the oppression of a imperalistic power."

You make some valid points, but I can't take you seriously when you say things like this. Who's really bombing civilians in Iraq? One sect of muslim fanatics are bombing the other sect, and civilians are their intended targets. You imply U.S forces are targeting innocent civilians (which is untrue), and then ignore the bulk of the damage being caused by the parties of god.

Thats some cognitive dissonace there SofaKing, people dying in any way is bad what makes US bombing raids (which do kill civilians, see the recent heavy bombing near Baghdad some of the heaviest so far in the war, and the current backlash faced by US forces bombing in Afghanistan) anymore legitimate then those who suicide bomb themselves?

It's like if a state is doing the killing it's okay.

I never said US forces weren't killing civilians... I said they weren't targeting them. I believe for the most part they go to extreme lengths to avoid or minimize civilian casualties. The same cannot be said about the fanatics who INTEND to kill as many civilians as possible. There is no cognitive dissonance required to make a moral distinction between the two.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'UN Inspector, Scott Ritter, war, iran' to 'UN Inspector, Scott Ritter, war, iran, nuclear' - edited by calvados

*dark

Adding video to channels (Dark) - requested by calvados.

What Ritter doesn't seem to get is the islamofascists--not necessarily Iranians--want to nuke an American city NOW, not in "retaliation" for anything. I'm sure if the wackjobs were crazy enough to make a statement afterward they'd mumble something about Israel.

The islamofashies are certainly crazy enough to use nukes, and it's this "craziness" that other countries don't like in nuclear-capable countries.

If Iran is as "sophisticated" as liberals claim, then the Iranians already know better than to f--k with the USA and they'll assassinate Amadinnawackjob for us when he runs his beard one too many times.


A troll is someone who disrupts an internet thread for attention.

A "sift troll" is anyone who reminds liberals the emperor wears no clothes.

Leftist historical fiction known as the 'American Empire' is your problem.