Oh, this could be bad. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16656642/) If Iran also decides to get involved to protect Shias in Iraq, this will turn into a region-wide war.

Saudi Arabia believes the Iraqi government is not up to the challenge and has told the United States that it is prepared to move its own forces into Iraq should the violence there degenerate into chaos, a senior U.S. official told NBC News on Tuesday.

You mean the Saudis finally bought a military that is willing to get dirty?

If Iran and Saudi Arabia start fighting, who do we side with?

We were attacked by Saudis on 9-11, not Iranians.

Quite the condundrum, however, it was not the Saudi gov't (officially), whereas the Iranian gov't is openly hostile (verbally at this point) toward the U.S. and allies.

Nuke 'em both! :D

Nuke 'em both! :D

Awww, that's too easy!

Nuke 'em both! :D

I remember a time in my life when I was much farther to the right philosophically and would have happily advocated that response.

I remember a time in my life when I was much farther to the right philosophically and would have happily advocated that response.

I have to specify that that was a joke.

I have to specify that that was a joke.

I know. :)

I say we let them fight each other, if a conflict should break out.

If Iran and Saudi Arabia start fighting, who do we side with?

We were attacked by Saudis on 9-11, not Iranians.

I hope your not suggesting that we should side with Iran because of the actions of 15 Saudis who were following the orders of the Taliban.

A few "accidental" strikes against certain houses of the royal family probably would not be unwelcomed.

If Iran and Saudi Arabia start fighting, who do we side with?

We were attacked by Saudis on 9-11, not Iranians.
Hmmm... Interesting question. And it looks like there's no easy way out for the US, at least, openly. This would be well-worth watching out for. The implications are staggering.

I think if Iran and Saudi Arabia start fighting we should just let them destroy each other. Perhaps providing weapons (on the sly of course) if one side seems to be gaining too much of an advantage might be a good move.

The Saudis are at least publicly friendly to the West, whereas the gov't of Iran certainly is not.

I think if Iran and Saudi Arabia start fighting we should just let them destroy each other. Perhaps providing weapons (on the sly of course) if one side seems to be gaining too much of an advantage might be a good move.
we did that during the Iran/Iraq war. look where it got us.

Well then why didn't they destroy each other? :lolhit:

Well then why didn't they destroy each other? :lolhit:
they darn near did. Iran was using children in human wave assaults, and the Iraqi Army was electrifying the marshes in the south to stop them.

they darn near did. Iran was using children in human wave assaults, and the Iraqi Army was electrifying the marshes in the south to stop them.

Not to mention using chemical weapons provided by the United States.

If Iran and Saudi Arabia start fighting, who do we side with?


?!?!?!?!

Which one would Bush and his band of liars and thieves side with....?!?!?!

Surely you jest.

?!?!?!?!

Which one would Bush and his band of liars and thieves side with....?!?!?!

Surely you jest.

The Iranians aren't completely stupid. They could very well wait until after the next Presidential election - and the anticipated results (a Dem winning) - before engaging in serious conflict with the Saudis. The Iranians showed their reluctance to face a Rep POTUS in '80 when the hostages were released. With a Dem in office they may well feel empowered to act in any way they see fit gambling that U.S. support for Saudi would not be immediately forthcoming.

The Iranians aren't completely stupid. They could very well wait until after the next Presidential election - and the anticipated results (a Dem winning) - before engaging in serious conflict with the Saudis. The Iranians showed their reluctance to face a Rep POTUS in '80 when the hostages were released. With a Dem in office they may well feel empowered to act in any way they see fit gambling that U.S. support for Saudi would not be immediately forthcoming.

That would be a bad gamble.

The Dems are almost as subservient to the interests of Big Oil as the Repubs under Bush have been.

No Administration in this country is ever going to side with Iran over the Saudis; Saudi Arabia is THE center of the oil trade, and our Coin-Op Congess is addicted to that Oil money.

Oh......and I find it truly hilarious that you or anyone else thinks the reason Iran just "happened" to release the hostages at the precise moment of Reagan's inauguration was due to there at that minute being a Republican in office instead of a Dem.

Oh......and I find it truly hilarious that you or anyone else thinks the reason Iran just "happened" to release the hostages at the precise moment of Reagan's inauguration was due to there at that minute being a Republican in office instead of a Dem.
You're right - it was probably just coincidental.

OTOH, it's a goddamned good thing they did, or Iran would've been vaporized shortly thereafter.

OTOH, it's a goddamned good thing they did, or Iran would've been vaporized shortly thereafter.

If you're saying that Reagan wouldn't have given a fuck that he was "vaporizing" 52 American citizens as long as he could get some political capital out of the deal, you've probably got a point.

Not to mention that he'd have probaly set off WWIII if he'd done it. But then, Rambo Ronnie wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the fucking drawer, to put it mildly.

Oh, this could be bad. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16656642/) If Iran also decides to get involved to protect Shias in Iraq, this will turn into a region-wide war.

You need to discern between rhetoric and ability.

If you're saying that Reagan wouldn't have given a fuck that he was "vaporizing" 52 American citizens as long as he could get some political capital out of the deal, you've probably got a point.
It would've been regrettable, no doubt - but necessary, nonetheless. We could've set the precedent in Iran, and it would've been completely warranted. The kicker is, it all comes down to a simple selling tool: A.I.D.A.

Now, you may ask yourself why I think it's simple....

Fair question. Now let me elaborate:

The reason is because it sells itself.

A - Attention. ( ::a few thermobaric CBU-72 Fuel-Air Explosives go off in Tehran:: ) Do I have your attention?

I - Interest. Are you interested in waking up tomorrow?

D - Decision. Have you made your decision for Christ?

A - Action. It's do or die time. Are you ready to meet your maker? If so, then pick up an AK and wait.

Problem solved.
Not to mention that he'd have probaly set off WWIII if he'd done it.
Bullshit.

Not at that time. No where near it, as a matter of fact.

In retrospect, it should've been done either way. Bye-bye, Khomeini - give my regards to Allah on your way down.

I hope your not suggesting that we should side with Iran because of the actions of 15 Saudis who were following the orders of the Taliban.

I don't know. I was asking the question.

But the fact remains that Iran did not attack us on 9-11. It wasn't even Shia who attacked us on 9-11, it was Sunnis.

The Iranians held candlelight vigils in solidarity with the Americans after 9-11.

The Sunnis in Saudi Arabia were dancing in the streets.

Since the conflict in the middle east is splitting down sectarian lines, we had better get used to making that distinction if we want to understand what happens from here on out.

You need to discern between rhetoric and ability.

If you have some reason to believe that Saudi Arabia lacks the ability, then by all means, share with the rest of us.