|
|
| pdog |
I'm all for a miltary solution, just not with Rummy anywhere near it...
I want a plan, that will be thorough and well thought out. Iran is no Iraq or Afghanistan. It's a serious player in terms of military might. So we have to be prepared for any and all scenarios. I don't have those answers, and I know Rumsfeld doesn't, he already showed me that with Iraq.
Whatever happened to having someone in his position who actually wore a miltary uniform, or at least not some idiot who spent most of his life working for the defense industry. WTF, can we get it called the War Industry and The WAr Dept. again, this Defense shit is pussy ass semantics... |
|
|
| Scottfree |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Absolutely right. The 10 years thing is only based on the latest NIE evaluation of Iran's capabilities which presumably is the leading expert and capable of giving the best estimate on the subject. Who are these "most experts believe"? My guess is that if they had all these buried in the sand (or maybe they're in Syria w/ Saddam's WMD?) they already would have the bomb and Israel and the rest of the Middle East would only be a thing of the past. If anyone's going to jump on the neocon Rademaker bandwagon, that's kinda sad. Then again our intelligence in Iran may have been better if W. and The Dick didn't out a CIA agent who was working on Iran and nukes.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
When someone says "Boo" do all Republicans jump at once or is it a staggered thing?
[Edited by rasputin56]
So we shan't be proactive? |
|
|
| JerryT |
quote:
pdog wrote:
I'm all for a miltary solution, just not with Rummy anywhere near it...
I want a plan, that will be thorough and well thought out. Iran is no Iraq or Afghanistan. It's a serious player in terms of military might. So we have to be prepared for any and all scenarios.
Not really. Just don't plan on occupying it. Plan on destroying it. Don't under estimate the US military. When given the mission to destroy, and not govern, it's the most effective fighting force in the history of the planet. Iraq in the first Gulf War was far better equipped than Iran is now, And that took what? 3 days on the ground? 150 deaths by enemy fire? Big difference in killing what moves vs. sticking around and trying to keep the peace.
[Edited by JerryT] |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Sure, glad to help
You love to criticize and comment on people/events after they have happened
Anyone can do that. Easy
What does Sirmoonie propose and suggest should be done, if anything with Iran and their threat the "wipe Israel off the face of the map"
Let me know if you need more clafification
Jesus Christ, you are so predictable. Does that Bob Newhart answer-a-question-with-a-question shit ever work outside of telemarketing? Does it even work inside telemarketing?
I've been reading your bullshit for years, and still have no idea what even you try to pretend to think you may believe you are about. "Its all about the (R)" isn't a philosophy, boy. I don't think its even politics. I don't think its even Republican. Its just all around stupid and pointlessly argumentative.
Anyway, as you don't know, Iran is, of course, a temporal question. For past YEARS of speculation on it, go dig up my answers from long ago, and go dig up yours too if you even had any.
Right now, today, I would not piss and deflect like George Walker Bush III, and de facto, his geeky poltroons like yourself. I'd do my best to let all Americans and Westerners in Iran, and all American and Western businesses in Iran, know that we plan on military action. Keep it on the sly as much as possible, but hard to do. In the meantime, I'd do SIGNIFICANTLY more than George Walker Bush III with respect to putting economic pressure on Iran. They have the oil, we need to quit using theirs, penalties to be provided unless compliance. MUCH more, too detailed to go into in this limited audience. But NO more of this borrow, spend, mortgage, and whine like a drunk on a piss-bender that George Walker Bush III does.
Then, unless there was serious movement by Iran - including an absolute muzzle on Ahmadinejan - in 6-8 weeks I'd hit every known nuclear target in Iran with a non-nuclear bomb. 6-8 weeks after that, another round unless agreed upon and inspected compliance. If not then, clearly forewarned invasion by U.S. troops from Iraq and elsewhere. The Iranian "elected" government that all Bush geeks were so ridiculously happy about only a few years ago can stand, we are only after the WMD development projects. No multi-billion dollar nation-building projects this time Bush geeks. That pie-in-the-sky horseshit has proven its lack of utility (as if we didn't know).
That, or anything like what I just said, will NEVER happen under the administration of George Walker Bush III. He is too lame, in too many respects. Number one is that most people in this country have no respect for him.
But you know what I really wouldn't do though, Telecaster? You know what I really wouldn't do? I wouldn't have a Secretary of Defense that the military top brass wants to fucking frag. And I wouldn't sit there and defend him while fucks over U.S troops with his hare-brained schemes. I'd fucking fire his ass. That would be the first thing I'd do with respect to Iraq.
What would you do though? I mean other than stand there like some faggit cheerleader for some other faggit former cheerleader named George Walker Bush III? What would you do? Do you ever have any ideas other than complaining about people who you think are complaining?
Let me know if you need more clarification. |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
JerryT wrote:
Not really. Just don't plan on occupying it. Plan on destroying it. Don't under estimate the US military. When given the mission to destroy, and not govern, it's the most effective fighting force in the history of the planet. Iraq in the first Gulf War was far better equipped than Iran is now, And that took what? 3 days on the ground? 150 deaths by enemy fire? Big difference in killing what moves vs. sticking around and trying to keep the peace.
[Edited by JerryT]
That was Kuwait, not Iraq. We didn't go into Iraq first time. Iran is far better equipped than Iraq ever was militarily. Did you just make that up? Look at a map of Iran too, it's a little bit different than Iraq, like alot fucking different... It's basically more like afghanistan with money and a very well equpped army. We could knock them out in some respect, which is what we need to do to the nuclear sites, but we couldn't invade easily, no rolling over in 3 days. How many days did it take to get to Baghdad in 2003, against about 10 to 20 thousand ill equipped Iraqi troops. You must work with Rumsfeld, b/c you don't know shit.
[Edited by pdog] |
|
|
| JerryT |
"Iran is far better equipped than Iraq ever was militarily. Did you just make that up?"
No. What I said is true. Do you realize how large the Iraqi army was before it was decimated? Fourth largest in the world. Do you remember that? Do you know the equipment they had? The current Iranian army is about half of what Iraq was in the first Gulf War. With basically the same equipment. Whether you want to believe it or not.
And the Iraq army was larger and better equipped in 2002 then Iran's army is now. But I must have made that up to.
You're still operating under the notion that we need to track these people down and round them up and then govern them. We don't. We need to destroy their infrastructure, their nuclear sites, and their will. It could be done quite easily. There isn't much they can do to stop us if we don't concern ourselves with collateral damage. The problems would come if we chose to stick around. All that being said, this administration, and the one that will replace it will NEVER get the nuts to pound these guys into oblivion. They will concern themselves with collateral damage and the situation will devolve into a clusterfuck.
And yes. We did go into Iraq the first time. And destroyed more than half their military equipment. What we did not do was stay. Were you a kid or something when that happened?
And why would you go all apeshit on me? Why? I suggest an alternative and you freak out on me like a child? If you can't participate in a discussion like this without freaking out like a mental patient, then you should probably not participate. Don't be a teabag.
[Edited by JerryT] |
|
|
| justforyou |
Yeah, let's preemptively smash a country that hasn't attacked anyone for centuries. Russia and China will veto any attack, so again the warmongers will have to fight a non approved war. Terrorism will rise up in full force and we, the helpless civilians will be the targets.
How about doing something about Darfur instead ? Hundreds of thousands of civilians (probably in the millions) getting rumsacked, raped, deported etc.
Seems like those in power don't care about civilians - what a sad state of affairs. |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Is it always like this here?
Tele, regardless of what I post I can assure you that your response will be some dimwitted Neville type thing, so why bother.
Now you're catching on---besides Neveille was RIGHT--he got a bum rap; Britain used the time given more effectively than did Germany--radar, Spitfires, destroyers, and a faster relative build-up in 1939 than the Nazis. Further, the Sudetenland WAS German.
Neville Chamberlain saved the British Empire. Winston Churchill liquidated it for the cosmopolitan foreign interests who bankrolled him... |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
and with respect to Iran--all should remember and be warned by the example of Emperor Julian
|
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
Talking Sense On Iran
What will the U.S. do about Iran? Sanction? Bomb? Invade?
How about... nothing.
That's right, nothing.
So suggests a Republican member of the U.S. House who has been sounding the alarm in Congress about the rush to act against what he dismisses as nothing more than "the next neocon target."
"There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her," argues Representative Ron Paul, the conservative from Texas who has in recent weeks voiced the loudest and most consistent objections to attempts by the Bush administration and its allies in Congress to suggest that U.S. military action may be needed to avert a supposed nuclear threat from the country.
An "Old Right" Republican with a long libertarian streak who has been repeatedly reelected from a Texas district where American flags wave in the breezes blowing off the Gulf of Mexico, and where the word "patriot" is taken seriously by the congressman and his constituents, Paul offers the answer to the despairing question of whether there is anyone in Congress who recognizes that the course proposed by the Bush administration and its neoconservative gurus is one of sheer madness.
Instead of planning an attack, the Texas Republican argues, "There are many reasons not to do so."
In a detailed address delivered on the floor of the House last week, Paul detailed them:
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there's no evidence that she is working on one -- only conjecture.
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.
Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons. But we reward them just as we reward India.
We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have no nuclear weapons. But listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin Van Creveld, had to say about this: "Obviously, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I don't know if they're developing them, but if they're not developing them, they're crazy."
There's been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran's nuclear program. This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and promoting UN sanctions.
IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of 'undeclared' sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of nuclear material.
We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative. El Baradi states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement.
We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by the U.S., and we refused to believe UN inspectors and the CIA that he no longer had them.
Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now we're hysterically wondering if someday she might decide to build a bomb in self interest.
Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the NPT (nuclear proliferation treaty) to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It's the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.
Noting that the same neoconservatives who steered the United States into the quagmire that is Iraq now want to start a new preemptive war with Iran -- not because a fight in needed but in order to achieve the regime change they desire -- Paul says what ought to be the official line of all rational observers of the situation: "Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality."
The Texas Republican, who opposed the rush to war with Iraq in 2002 and remains a steadfast critic of the endeavor, also proposes the rational counter to neoconservative calls for a new war.
With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you're looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance-- though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it's a very costly and dangerous policy.
The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It's in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies overseas. We can't afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral arguments against intervention don't suffice for some, the practical arguments should.
Intervention just doesn't work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.
Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today's liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There's no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years.
It's time for a change.
Indeed, it is.
Where to begin? How about with the Democrats in Congress?
Isn't it time for the so-called "opposition party" to start talking as much sense about Iran as a member of the president's own party?
|
|
|
| gimmekeef |
Fuck this..Play some Stones! |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
Fuck this..Play some Stones!
Agreed. How about a voluntary moratorium on political posts for, lets say, 2 weeks????  ??????????? |
|
|
| Chuck |
What is this alarmist, bourgeois bullshit doing on a Stones board?
|
|
|
| JerryT |
quote:
justforyou wrote:
Yeah, let's preemptively smash a country that hasn't attacked anyone for centuries. Russia and China will veto any attack, so again the warmongers will have to fight a non approved war. Terrorism will rise up in full force and we, the helpless civilians will be the targets.
You can't really believe the things you just said can you? |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Jesus Christ, you are so predictable. Does that Bob Newhart answer-a-question-with-a-question shit ever work outside of telemarketing? Does it even work inside telemarketing?
I've been reading your bullshit for years, and still have no idea what even you try to pretend to think you may believe you are about. "Its all about the (R)" isn't a philosophy, boy. I don't think its even politics. I don't think its even Republican. Its just all around stupid and pointlessly argumentative.
Anyway, as you don't know, Iran is, of course, a temporal question. For past YEARS of speculation on it, go dig up my answers from long ago, and go dig up yours too if you even had any.
Right now, today, I would not piss and deflect like George Walker Bush III, and de facto, his geeky poltroons like yourself. I'd do my best to let all Americans and Westerners in Iran, and all American and Western businesses in Iran, know that we plan on military action. Keep it on the sly as much as possible, but hard to do. In the meantime, I'd do SIGNIFICANTLY more than George Walker Bush III with respect to putting economic pressure on Iran. They have the oil, we need to quit using theirs, penalties to be provided unless compliance. MUCH more, too detailed to go into in this limited audience. But NO more of this borrow, spend, mortgage, and whine like a drunk on a piss-bender that George Walker Bush III does.
Then, unless there was serious movement by Iran - including an absolute muzzle on Ahmadinejan - in 6-8 weeks I'd hit every known nuclear target in Iran with a non-nuclear bomb. 6-8 weeks after that, another round unless agreed upon and inspected compliance. If not then, clearly forewarned invasion by U.S. troops from Iraq and elsewhere. The Iranian "elected" government that all Bush geeks were so ridiculously happy about only a few years ago can stand, we are only after the WMD development projects. No multi-billion dollar nation-building projects this time Bush geeks. That pie-in-the-sky horseshit has proven its lack of utility (as if we didn't know).
That, or anything like what I just said, will NEVER happen under the administration of George Walker Bush III. He is too lame, in too many respects. Number one is that most people in this country have no respect for him.
But you know what I really wouldn't do though, Telecaster? You know what I really wouldn't do? I wouldn't have a Secretary of Defense that the military top brass wants to fucking frag. And I wouldn't sit there and defend him while fucks over U.S troops with his hare-brained schemes. I'd fucking fire his ass. That would be the first thing I'd do with respect to Iraq.
What would you do though? I mean other than stand there like some faggit cheerleader for some other faggit former cheerleader named George Walker Bush III? What would you do? Do you ever have any ideas other than complaining about people who you think are complaining?
Let me know if you need more clarification.
Lighten up on the Rogaine, it seems to be absorbing into your skull and affecting your behavior
Cool. So you want to attack Iran and invade and occupy them within 6-8 weeks
Got it, just wanted you on record, which is hard to do but we now have it
Hint: When you are doing your DUI cases judges and juries don't go for the lecture/pontificating/preaching thing
Not only is it boring but it is also ineffective
But I know it makes YOU feel better about yourself
Somethimess less is more
Hope that helps
|
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
Cool heads might prevail. Maybe. |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Doubtful. The Govt. is loaded with people just like some of those here. |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Thank god!
|
|
|
| lotsajizz |
Martin Van Crevald knows his shit....
|
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Lighten up on the Rogaine, it seems to be absorbing into your skull and affecting your behavior
Cool. So you want to attack Iran and invade and occupy them within 6-8 weeks
Got it, just wanted you on record, which is hard to do but we now have it
Hint: When you are doing your DUI cases judges and juries don't go for the lecture/pontificating/preaching thing
Not only is it boring but it is also ineffective
But I know it makes YOU feel better about yourself
Somethimess less is more
Hope that helps
Fatboy. Fatboy working his little phones half the day. Talking shit like he's ever made a real decision in his job-to-job lonely ass apartment living life.
It never ends good for you guys, dude. It never does. We make sure it doesn't.
Don't ever be where I am. |
|
|
| Starbuck |
tele, you want a response? here it is:
i don't know what to do about ahmanenijad. he is a nutcase, that is for damn sure, and he is very dangerous. should we use military force? perhaps. however, we can't! why can't we? because we've just spent billions and billions on the war in iraq. we've overextended our military and tied it down in a vietnam like quagmire, so even if we wanted to take out iran we would need the help of the rest of the international community (or a draft!) to be able to afford to do it.
ah yes...the international community...the ones we completely pissed off when we went to war alone three years ago. are they going to rush to our aid now? not bloody likely.
yup...another example of the idiocy of our president. he's casey jones, asleep at the switch. he spends three years and and billions fighting a war in a country that had nothing to do with the most vicious attack in our country's history....(and in doing so, the perpetrator of that attack is still running amok in the mountains of afghanistan and pakistan)...meanwhile, while we are off in iraq a real threat emerges and now we are powerless to do anything about it.
tele..riffy...PLEASE...i've asked you for months and months now and i still haven't received an answer...
-bushie43's case #1 for going to war in iraq: connections to al qaeda. (said connections never existed.)
-bushie43's case #2 for going to war in iraq: WMDs. (they were never found.)
will you please explain why you continue to defend this president when his two most important reasons for going to war were wrong or erroneously false??
now, when we might actually need to go to war to preserve peace, we can't!
 |
|
|
| JerryT |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
tele, you want a response? here it is:
bla bla bla, Bush dumb, Bush bad, me hate Bush
That wasn't a response at all. That was just another Bush criticism disguised as a response. I thought the question was what would you do? Not why you (think) you can't do it.
And if the international community won't act because they're "pissed", as you suggest, as opposed to making a rational decision on a matter of great importance, then doesn't that tell us they weren't dealing straight with us the first time around? If the other leaders of the world are making decisions because Bush "pissed" them off, instead of doing what is right, then I say that makes them just as incpmpetent as Bush. So it looks as if the whole western world is governed by morons. |
|
|
| JerryT |
What kind of idiot poses the question as "whether we should premptively strike Iran"? It's either a preemptive strike or you let them have the bomb. So those against a premptive strike, please explain how you would go about dealing with them once they have it. Given what their nutty leader has said.
[Edited by JerryT] |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
The best way to proceed is to marginalize the opposition. The best way to do that with the current opponents is to seriously undercut their incomes from the sale of oil. Had this country done what I wanted in 1974 (and have advocated on the message boards for years), the U.S. would have then undertaken a war-time effort to develop alternative energy sources (my favorite is solar). Long before now, this country would have had solar technology cost-affordable for the masses so we would no longer have to import oil, and more importantly, not have to play footsies with desert despots. It also would have reduced or eliminated our balance of trade deficits. Without our needing the oil, they probably could have only gotten about 50 cents a barrel. At that level, they would not have nearly the income and therefore political clout they have developed. Not only that, but also we would have not needed to involve ourselves in their petty politics so they would not have the reason to be at "war" with this country. Unfortunately, the marginalization course of action would not now be as effective because of the increased usage of oil by other countries (China)to take up the slack, but it could still be useful in any event. Even if it weren't, oil is a non-renewable resource whereas solar will be good until the sun goes out. Does that answer your question?
|
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
so even if we wanted to take out iran we would need the help of the rest of the international community (or a draft!) to be able to afford to do it.
ah yes...the international community...the ones we completely pissed off when we went to war alone three years ago. are they going to rush to our aid now? not bloody likely.
in the case of australia Starbuck, which, as you probably know, has been the staunchest ally of the US for a long time and along with britain is the third player in the triumvirate that is the vanguard of the coalition of the willing, that is presently a very interesting question
the shit has hit the fan over here with respect to australia's involvement in iraq in particular our wheat trade with saddam's regime...anyway, without going into all the details i suggest that, at this point, our federal government would have difficulty in persuading the australian people that invlovement in any more warfare in the area is a good idea...the people were relatively easily persuaded that war on iraq was a good thing the lack of WMD and it being the wrong target on the (you'll pardon the expression) war against terrorism notwithstanding...it's a whole new ball game now and our government would be in a very very tight spot if asked to assist the US in another of these middle east affairs - a real "no win" situation - the government will be forced to choose between alienating either her long standing ally or the australian people
as to what to do about the problem, well in my humble opinion we need to acknowledge that 20th century warfare tactics are in many ways outdated ...just bringing in the big guns and bombing people and places to smithereens will not end these problems and will only create bigger ones further down the track...what's needed to fight this enemy is superior intelligence |
|
|
| glencar |
I can't see why we'd ask you. I don't see how we'll be taking action ourselves. Other than multilateral diplomacy, I mean. |
|
|
| steel wls |
As usual Josh is correct. Together Israel and Bush will put iran in its place. |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
well, personally, i'm glad to hear that
not sure what this "diplomacy" will result in tho
stonesthrow makes some good points re the economic realities and alternative sources of energy which are usually at the heart of these things despite the ideological window dressing
and it seems to me the fact that nuclear energy is fast being embraced as a universal solution to the problems created by reliance on fossil fuels will only make the situation more complex and, i suspect,more volatile
|
|
|
| glencar |
Well, we should have come up with enough alternatives to fossil fuels by now. Brazil apparently has done so. We're starting to gear up for some new nuclear plants. In 5 years we'll all be driving hybrids. |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
yes uranium is going gang busters over here at the moment both sides of poltics are accepting this is the way to go -not least for the aforementioned economic benfits - indeed, south australia, where i live, is no great economic engine, however, the largest uranium deposits of yellow cake in the world are found in this state - we are destined to become the new middle east!!
|
|
