Remember the Schism on DU Before the Iraq War Started?

Probably 25% (my guess) or so were in favor of invading Iraq. They were afraid of the WMDs, they thought the fact that Saddam was a bad man justified it, etc..all the neo-con talking points. There were some pretty heated and personal attacks back and forth. A lot of people left.

I see the same thing happening here with the impending attack on Iran.

I'm wondering if many of us have learned anything in the last four years.

"I'm wondering if many of us have learned anything in the last four years."

I'd say they haven't. People are still hyping war in Iran. I guess they enjoy being made fools of.

I was always more scared of Iran than I was of Iraq.

Doesn't mean I think we'll have a chance if we go up against Iran. King george has destroyed our entire backbone, and we'll be overmatched there, like we have been in Iraq.

Occupation is a different proposition, as * has (not) learned.

That said, I've never been scared by either of them. They don't have the capacity to seriously hurt us, and even if they did they know our retaliation would make Shock & Awe look like pissing in the snow.

Yeah. A nuke in NY harbor would hurt. And their entire nation would vanish. Not even the most insane leader would leave himself open for that.

So let's get real. If there is a war between us and them, WE will start it.

the President of Pakistan has had multiple attempts on his life, and he also came to power in a coup.

Why is it that a nation with strong ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban is not being worried about?

Why are we in the US and Israel talking about the threat of Iran instead of Pakistan?

Is it because its not right next to Israel? Is it because it doesn't have oil?

I'm curious as to what you think.

But maybe I just have a faulty memory.

on the fence than would admit it now. There were some who didn't like the invasion, but believed the stuff about WMDs. There were a few who called us anti-war folk deluded and naive. I don't know if it was 25%--probably not far off, though. Only a few were vocal about supporting it, but they got very hot about it.

I think DU had fewer infiltrators then. Now I see a lot more people I think are plants supporting such things.

Got any links?

Where is the EVIDENCE that Iran threatens the U.S. in Iraq or anywhere else?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_070202_where_is_the_evidenc.htm

"Bush is intent on wrapping all of his inventions toward Iran into another imagined defense of our 'national security' in his self-appointed role as the protector of the world, but he's fashioned himself, and our nation, into the aggressor in this face-off of interests with Iran. The question which is absent from all of those who are advocating for an escalation of our military posture toward Iran is also the most important contradiction in Bush's military posture toward Iraq: What happened to the due process and adherence to law which are inherent in the democracy Bush claims to be defending in his aggression toward these sovereign nations?

Where is the EVIDENCE that Iran poses a threat to our national security to the degree that military action is legal and appropriate under our own laws and Constitution? Where is the EVIDENCE?"

because it's a criticism of the grandstanding, the fabrication of evidence that Iran is interfering in Iraq, the obvious attempt to box Iran in and provoke a response, and the equally obvious intent of the PNAC to force a war with Iran to cripple their ability to threaten any shipping in the Persian Gulf.

That's our job, right?

He is in no way justifying a war against Iran.

and you've, thankfully, understood it well.

evil Hussein, etc., but I believe if I had been here on DU at the time, I would easily have seen the folly of my views!

but I've found things here pan out a lot more often than they do in mass media.

This is the place to come for debunking a lot of things, especially war hysteria.

Welcome to DU!

He is challenging anyone to come up with some shred of evidence that Iran poses a threat to the security of the USA.

Guess that's just me looking in the wrong threads.

I have noticed a lot of people buying into the "Ahmedinejad is a madman/called for Israel to be wiped off the map/denied the Holocaust" claptrap, despite the fact it's all been debunked. Is that the reason behind some DUers supporting escalation with Iran?

Another sad thing is the number of Dem politicians saying "We should be more concerned with Iran/must stop them from getting nukes/blablabla," instead of just saying "We don't believe the lies of this administration anymore, and unless we can prove they are an enemy, we don't accept that." Guess I'm still wishing pigs could fly.

small group of posters who parrot the propaganda put out by the White House controlled media whores. I would say that they are mostly freepers who come in to stir the pot and our fellow DUers are more than happy to feed the trolls.

I didn't believe ANY OF IT! It was all lies.

And I don't believe Iran is a threat. The Neocon talking points are in full swing.

Where are you getting this from?

Edit: oops, mean Iran

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=108925&mesg_id=108925

Here's one.

There have been a few and I've noticed a good many responses either on the fence or supporting it in sort of quietly

advocating invading Iran.

He says criticizing Iran isn't unreasonable, and taking military options off the table would be silly.

I agree.... no President should EVER take military options off the table. That's not to say they shouldn't do everything under the sun to avoid using them.

We have 3 carrier groups in that area, we've delivered Patriot missile batteries to Iraq and Israel, the same war talking points are cranking up on the Great Wurlitzer and PNAC says Iran is next.

I think this is far more than some hypothetical. the discussion begins innocently enough and then:
Kaboom....except this time, the blowback is going to hurt a LOT

you're imagining the worst possible outcome, and then working backwards to say that any criticism of Iran is equal to supporting an attack on Iran. That's simply not the case.

The fact is, Iran IS using bellicose rhetoric, and it should be criticized. That does NOT mean favoring an attack.

Who is bellicose? We have 150,000 troops in the country next door to Iran and WE are threatening to topple its government. Our administration is controlled by neo-cons who have published papers saying that we are going to topple Iraq, Iran and Syria and we've already started the process.

News talking heads are ramping up the rhetoric daily about Iranian 'interference' in Iraq. WE are looking for a reason to justify an attack on them.

What am I missing here. Do you think we are being paranoid?

the US has geo-political interests in the Middle East, including a strong alliance with Israel. I'm not defending that - I'm just saying that is the case as things stand today.

When Iran talks tough about Israel and/or other US interests, perhaps a little tough talk back will PREVENT the outbreak of war, rather than cause it.

and you've misread my article

"The question which is absent from all of those who are advocating for an escalation of our military posture toward Iran is also the most important contradiction in Bush's military posture toward Iraq: What happened to the due process and adherence to law which are inherent in the democracy Bush claims to be defending in his aggression toward these sovereign nations?"

"Where is the EVIDENCE that Iran poses a threat to our national security to the degree that military action is legal and appropriate under our own laws and Constitution? Where is the EVIDENCE?"



Do you have any links to go with your assertion that support instead of countering it?

I remember it being mostly anti-war. It was a really cool time on DU because we had an incredible unity, like back in the old days (2001) here.

because the pro war people around here were generally newbies who stuck out like sore thumbs and were instantly rebuffed.

I wasn't here on DU before the Iraq invasion, so I don't know what was going on here.

But personally, I was against invading Iraq for a long time-- right up until Collin Powell made his speech in front of the United Nations.

Powell sold me on the war.

I believed Powell.

I thought the grown-ups were in charge.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... NO!

Perhaps we would have been justified invading Iran and/or Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, way back in 2002. They certainly had more to do with terrorism than Iraq did.

But even if Iran is a real threat now, we can not attack them now without doing catastrophic damage to ourselves, the middle east, and the rest of the world.

We are in no position to open up a third front in Bush's war against brown people.

I am 100% against attacking Iran.

Even if it is justified-- which I do NOT think it is-- Bush has so damaged our military and credibility that we can no longer wage the kind of war that would be required to attack Iran.

If they're about three years from developing nuclear weapons, then let President Gore deal with it in 2010. I'm sure Secretary of State Richard Wilson will be able to resolve the issue peacefully.

And even if we accomplished all the "military objectives" necessary to neutralize a threat from Iran (and I do not believe such a threat exists) we can not even come close to establishing a peace, winning the hearts and minds of the (surviving) Iranian people, and stabilizing the region. Not with this current band of Dominionist incompetents in charge.

Why does Iran have nuclear technology? Well, with Valerie Plame out of the way, and with Halliburton selling them nuclear technology, do we really need to wonder?

Attacking Iran would be morally wrong, politically wrong, strategically wrong, catastrophically wrong, and perhaps even apocalyptically wrong.

But perhaps THAT is Bush's real plan-- Immanentize The Eschaton. Bring on The War of The Apocalypse.

No.

No.

No.

No.

We can not, should not, MUST NOT attack Iran.

Fewer than before Iraq, but they are starting to grow with the propaganda push

I'm sure they have.

Right?

If they need enlistment forms I would be ok with taking the effort to gather some and send them along to them :eyes:. If anyone is supporting attacking Iran here, that is.

:shudder:

it is about our need for Empire... israel is just one more pupet in the game

And it is time people realize this

is another thread for that discussion.

There were a lot of people posting on DU that supported invading Iraq. What used to make me so mad was that they thought it would be so easy. I knew we were not going to hit and run. I knew we would stay to control the oil. I was very opposed to this war.

I never thought in my wildest nightmare that we would still be fighting and losing soldiers this many years later. I never dreamed that so many Iraqi people would be killed. I never dreamed there would be death squads. I never imagined we would torture prisoners of war. The whole thing has turned out to be so much worse than most of us expected.

Yet, here we go again.

maybe I'm just not looking

is there a poll thread with a 25% in favor bar?

please link