|
|
| telecaster |
Oh man
So if we all drove around in little cars that had solar panels on top of them the Iranians would not want to "wipe Israel of the face of the map?"
It must be nice to be so simple |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
JerryT wrote:
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]
LOL Jerry
Your neighbor is assembling a shotgun. As soon as it is put together he has told everyone that will listen he is going to walk over to your house and blow your head off along with your entire family because he feels you don't have the right to exist and he wants you "wiped off the face of the earth"
Let's all hold hands and sing Peter Paul and Mary songs
That will stop him, right?
Or just blame Bush |
|
|
| Osama bin Hiding |
Plans to take out Iran? You foolish American neocons haven't even captured me yet! Mr. Bushy and his cronies are always looking for diversionary tactics.
Ha Ha! The U.S. and the West demonstrated it's moral and military superiority so well in protecting 937,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus from genocidal slaughter!
HYPOCRITES! |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
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.
I didn't ask for a "response" I said "what would you do?"
You said you "don't know" and gave me emotion
Bucky, you said "we can't use military force"
Say what? Less than 5% of our Air Force assets are being used in Iraq.
Nobody, nobody is talking about an invasion/occupation outside of left wing websites and 7th grade girls
The only, only way to take out those nuke sites is with massive air strikes from B-2 bombers with bunker busters
Or nukes
And the only, only country that has B-2 bombers is the US
Israel can't even take out those sites if they wanted
"International Community"? WTF is that? What are they going to do? Nothing as usual beside talk. What possible option does the "international community" bring to the table?
What have they done in the past besides talk and talk and talk and ignore and avoid?
Bucky, the leader of Iran is just like the hijacker who flew the first plane into the WTC. He was the first to die
and loved it. Someday, someway, I hope that you realize we aren't dealing with rational people and "diplomacy", while a nice word, won't work here |
|
|
| caro |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
So if we all drove around in little cars that had solar panels on top of them the Iranians would not want to "wipe Israel of the face of the map?"
It must be nice to be so simple
You really, really should get rid of this habit of yours to sum up other people's posts in one sentence. When posters take the time to write a 10 line post, that means it takes 10 lines to express their political thoughts correctly. Only George Bush makes plans that can be summed up in one sentence. That's one of the reasons why they don't work. |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
caro wrote:
You really, really should get rid of this habit of yours to sum up other people's posts in one sentence. When posters take the time to write a 10 line post, that means it takes 10 lines to express their political thoughts correctly. Only George Bush makes plans that can be summed up in one sentence. That's one of the reasons why they don't work.
What is France doing to help in this situation?
Please advise |
|
|
| Altamont |
He was funnier when he was on the sauce. I miss his sense of humor!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95QaHsJje4o |
|
|
| justforyou |
Give this damn Iran situation a break and do something about more pressing world problems. Disrespecting the International Community is not going to achieve anything positive. Equating the Iranian president with a suicide bomber is childish - he couldn't use abombs without massive condemnation and retaliation, they would be a defensive measure.
If anyone with substantial cash reserves wishes a bomb they can already 'aquire' one from the existing Asian nuclear arsenal and try and make havoc with it. Regardless of Iran. Indulging in more destruction and disrespect could very well increase the probability of this happening. |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
What is France doing to help in this situation?
Please advise
France is going into overtime making new white flags! |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
quote:
Osama bin Hiding wrote:
Plans to take out Iran? You foolish American neocons haven't even captured me yet! Mr. Bushy and his cronies are always looking for diversionary tactics.
Ha Ha! The U.S. and the West demonstrated it's moral and military superiority so well in protecting 937,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus from genocidal slaughter!
HYPOCRITES!
Do we need this bullshit here? |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
caro wrote:
You really, really should get rid of this habit of yours to sum up other people's posts in one sentence. When posters take the time to write a 10 line post, that means it takes 10 lines to express their political thoughts correctly. Only George Bush makes plans that can be summed up in one sentence. That's one of the reasons why they don't work.
So every time someone posts 7 lines, I need to respond with seven lines? Fourteen lines mean a fourteen line response? As for GWB, your country isn't on much of a hot streak right now. At least we're working! |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
France is going into overtime making new white flags!
LOL! |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
glencar wrote:
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.
Did you see The episode of South Park where CO has a smug storm created by CA?
Everyone should see it...
|
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
pdog wrote:
Did you see The episode of South Park where CO has a smug storm created by CA?
Everyone should see it...
Is that the one about hybrid cars? I wanna see that! I guess I'll wait for a marathon. |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
glencar wrote:
So every time someone posts 7 lines, I need to respond with seven lines? Fourteen lines mean a fourteen line response?
YES! |
|
|
| Starbuck |
tele...
lemme get this straight...
quote:
tele mumbled:
"The only, only way to take out those nuke sites is with massive air strikes from B-2 bombers with bunker busters
Or nukes
you are on record in saying that we should use nukes to get rid of iran's nuclear capability? are you serious? no...really?
(is he serious?)
would that not make us exactly the demons we are supposed to be fighting against? this remark is complete insanity. tele, the rest of us, including your republican friends, will collectively try to forget you ever mentioned this.
quote:
tele grumbled:
"Less than 5% of our Air Force assets are being used in Iraq."
no offense, but your use of statistics is not exactly on solid ground.
i didn't give you an emotion. i did no such thing. i said the use of military force may be a necessity in this case. however, we can't use military force because most of our armed forces are bogged down in a war that was and remains completely useless and pointless.
you, on the other hand, have yet to address the issues about why we are in iraq in the first place.
|
|
|
| caro |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
What is France doing to help in this situation?
Please advise
I don't know, ask France.
As for what I would do : I totally agree with stonesthrow's suggestion (note for hasty readers : of course, it's only a part of the solution) (note for hasty readers(2) : I SAID IT'S ONLY PART OF THE SOLUTION!). Apart from that, I would make some long-term changes at the UN : making sure the UN enforces its resolutions, adding permanent members to the security council or getting rid (at least for a try) of the veto system... And also review global trade agreements to make sure rich countries don't subsidize their export (directly or indirectly).
I know all this is not directly related to Iran, but IMHO it would reduce tensions in that part of the world. Ahmadinejad is certainly an asshole, but he's got a lot more to lose in a war against the US than the US themselves. Besides, he offered to discuss the situation in Iraq with the American government. I don't think he poses such a threat that military action is necessary.
Glencar -- My point is : don't distort someone else's post while pretending to sum it up. Just post your own thoughts (in one line or 100, as you like) and don't mischaracterize what other people said.
BTW you're right about France. But at least the whole debacle has sparked a debate about work legislation, which is nice. |
|
|
| glencar |
Caro, one thing I've learned over 9 years (!) of internet posting/reading is that most people sum things up & distortion does occur. Even in face-to-face conversation things said by one party are misunderstood by the other.
Just for the record, I agree that the UN should abide by its own resolutions. On the other hand, whilst not opposed to adding members to the "Gang of 5" I don't think they'll ever get rid of the veto power. Also, as to Iran itself, I'm not in favor of doing much right now. Let's keep an eye & a lot of pressure on Iran but the USA has its hands full right now. As for France, yes, you need to do something over there about your economy. |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
pdog wrote:
I didn't know you were sick, I guess you're feeling better, it was a long time ago.
Please respond with the appropriate amount of letters.
LOL Maybe it was the dentist! All's I know is that I only ever bought one copy of that rag & it was when Jerry finally dumped Mick. The cover caption? It's All Over Now. BTW This post was supposed to be in the Cabo San Lucas thread but it's been shut down for some reason. |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Also, as to Iran itself, I'm not in favor of doing much right now. Let's keep an eye & a lot of pressure on Iran but the USA has its hands full right now.
But...but...they're building a shotgun and he's threatened you... |
|
|
| glencar |
I can disagree with my friends without being an asshole about it. How 'bout you? |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
tele...
lemme get this straight...
you are on record in saying that we should use nukes to get rid of iran's nuclear capability? are you serious? no...really?
(is he serious?)
would that not make us exactly the demons we are supposed to be fighting against? this remark is complete insanity. tele, the rest of us, including your republican friends, will collectively try to forget you ever mentioned this.
no offense, but your use of statistics is not exactly on solid ground.
i didn't give you an emotion. i did no such thing. i said the use of military force may be a necessity in this case. however, we can't use military force because most of our armed forces are bogged down in a war that was and remains completely useless and pointless.
you, on the other hand, have yet to address the issues about why we are in iraq in the first place.
"you are on record in saying that we should use nukes to get rid of iran's nuclear capability? are you serious? no...really?"
(is he serious?)
Ahhh, no. Wrong again. Israel has the nukes....hello? I didn't say "we" as you tried to misquote me. I said the only other way is nukes. And Israel has them. And they are the people being threatened. Did you just emerge from a coma? It is either the US using bunker busters or Israel hitting them with nukes. Zero other options.
And you are a teacher? Really?
"no offense, but your use of statistics is not exactly on solid ground."
No offense but our Air Force, outside of MAC, (Military Airlift Command) is not being used in Iraq. So in fact, my statistics are on rock solid ground. There is that emotion again. But if it makes you fell better about yourself have at it.
You tell me my statistics are wrong but yet you offer zero alternatives outside of your feelings. 95% of our bombers and fighters are available to be used in Iran, despite your feelings..
“ i didn't give you an emotion. i did no such thing. i said the use of military force may be a necessity in this case. however, we can't use military force because most of our armed forces are bogged down in a war that was and remains completely useless and pointless."
Really? "We can't use military force" as you claim. And howe do you know this?
See above regarding Air Force assets. Ditto our Navy assets. But you being an expert and all you know that "most" of our armed forces are bogged down.
When if fact, that is a lie. The Army and Marines arne’t even using 20% of their full forces
"you, on the other hand, have yet to address the issues about why we are in iraq in the first place."
You on one hand, fail to realize this is a thread about Iran, not Iraq. Nice try at changing the subject and moving the goalposts. If you want to talk about Iraq start a thread called "why we are in Iraq in the first place"
|
|
|
| Starbuck |
no doubt raspy. let's nuke the bastards!
 |
|
|
| Starbuck |
um....earth to tele?
first you say "use nukes", then you say "i never said let the US use nukes, let's let israel use the nukes- you're distorting what i said!"
well, your exact quote was as follows:
quote:
"The only, only way to take out those nuke sites is with massive air strikes from B-2 bombers with bunker busters
Or nukes
And the only, only country that has B-2 bombers is the US
Israel can't even take out those sites if they wanted
i'm not going to argue semantics with you. you just said that the US should use nukes. it's right there! "and the only country that has the B2 bombers is the US! Israel can't even take those sites out if they wanted."
but tele...now you're going from saying the US should use nukes (thereby starting world war III) to letting israel use nukes (thereby starting world war III and world war IV). if israel gets involved in any way shape or form, it would act as an immediate recruiting tool for all arab men. that is why the US has always pressured israel to stay out of any ME.
either way, in your distorted view of what should happen, either we or israel starts wwIII? am i right? |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
glencar wrote:
I can disagree with my friends without being an asshole about it. How 'bout you?
How about agreeing with your friends and being an asshole about it.
Fucker! |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
um....earth to tele?
first you say "use nukes", then you say "i never said let the US use nukes, let's let israel use the nukes- you're distorting what i said!"
well, your exact quote was as follows:
i'm not going to argue semantics with you. you just said that the US should use nukes. it's right there! "and the only country that has the B2 bombers is the US! Israel can't even take those sites out if they wanted."
but tele...now you're going from saying the US should use nukes (thereby starting world war III) to letting israel use nukes (thereby starting world war III and world war IV). if israel gets involved in any way shape or form, it would act as an immediate recruiting tool for all arab men. that is why the US has always pressured israel to stay out of any ME.
either way, in your distorted view of what should happen, either we or israel starts wwIII? am i right?
"you are on record in saying that we should use nukes to get rid of iran's nuclear capability? are you serious? no...really?"
(is he serious?)
Ahhh, no. Wrong again. Israel has the nukes....hello? I didn't say "we" as you tried to misquote me. I said the only other way is nukes. And Israel has them. And they are the people being threatened. Did you just emerge from a coma? It is either the US using bunker busters or Israel hitting them with nukes. Zero other options.
And you are a teacher? Really?
“i'm not going to argue semantics with you. you just said that the US should use nukes. it's right there! "and the only country that has the B2 bombers is the US! Israel can't even take those sites out if they wanted."
Of course I never said that as shown from your post. All emotion. Show the board where I said “the US should use nukes?” You said it is “right there! Where? Show us. But yet that is a lie and you can’t prove I ever said that as I never did
Show all of us where I said that. Really Bucky, you teach our kids?
“but tele...now you're going from saying the US should use nukes (thereby starting world war III) to letting israel use nukes (thereby starting world war III and world war IV). if israel gets involved in any way shape or form, it would act as an immediate recruiting tool for all arab men. that is why the US has always pressured israel to stay out of any ME.”
Again. An open lie on your part. Ignoring your lie, is it ok if Iran nukes Israel from your point of view? Because they declared they are going to. And you are ok with that. But if Israel prevents the destruction of their own country they are starting WWIII?
Tell me howe that works again in your brain.
Show the board where I said “we should use nukes” and also where is said
“letting israel use nukes”
You can’t without lying
|
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
glencar wrote:
I can disagree with my friends without being an asshole about it. How 'bout you?
Agree/Disagree, I go for for consistency.
|
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Zero other options.
That's creative. |
|
|
| Riffhard |
I agree with you Blue. Right now our most prudent course is to keep an eye on Iran. Now here's the but,should we determine that Iran is as close to achieving enriched uranium as Ahmadinejad claims then all bets are off.
Look as early as 1936-37 Hilter was stating that the Sudetenland was historically part of Germany,and that he was going to retake it for Germany. The world watched and did nothing. Then in October of 1938 Hitler made good on his threat. Chamberlain made his trip to Germany to insure "peace in our time",and then the shit really hit the fan as the blitzkrieg raged into Poland,and the rest of Europe.
Nobody would deny that Hitler was certifiably insane. Nor should anyone second guess the insanity of Ahmadinejad. He is not concerned with any military strategy. He honestly thinks that the Twelfth Iman is going to appear as a fighting force for Allah and with his arival destroy Israel,and all of her allies. That means everyone who is not Islamic.
So at the end of the day we are dealing with a man who believes in a Messianic Islamic prophecy which states that he must bring about Amegeddon to summon the Twelfth Iman. Any talk that a nut like this would be willing negotiate anything is absurd. Any propossed talks about a deal with him is nothing more than lip service,and will only be used as a tool to further stall the world's intervention in his ultimate twisted goals. Much like Hitler's own brand of insanity.
What's that line about not learning from history,and being doomed to repeat it? The question is not about bashing Bush or any mistakes that have been made in Iraq. No,the question is what would the world do if Iran were to go nuclear with this man in power? That is a scenario that the world can not afford to allow. It would be a mistake that we could never undo. Regardless of whether you're a dove or a hawk we had better be prepared to prevent it from happening by any means necessary. The had better get onboard with some military contingency plans quick.
Riffy
|
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
I agree with you Blue. Right now our most prudent course is to keep an eye on Iran. Now here's the but,should we determine that Iran is as close to achieving enriched uranium as Ahmadinejad claims then all bets are off.
One would hope these people in Washington have already planned ahead for this. I realize that thinking ahead and to have contigency plans for any type of scenario is not this bunches forte but...
Don't be fooled into thinking that that nutso in Iran is the only one in this game with visions of Armageddon and the endtimes dancing in their heads (or being whispered in their ears). |
