|
Taptrick |
Actually thinking ahead is axiomatic for any administartion as DoD utilizes unified commands, quadrennial defense reviews, war colleges, battle labs, and think tanks to constantly review every possible scenario immaginable in the future and options available for dealing with them. The preparation is constant and occurs regardless of who is Preseident.
[Edited by Taptrick] |
|
Riffhard |
quote: rasputin56 wrote:
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).
Well as to your first point. Those people in Washington do indeed have contingency plans. Nobody could argue that the taking of Baghdad was one of the most sucessful military campaigns ever acheived. It was. Now the holding of Baghdad is another story completely. However,with regards to Iran we are looking at a massive airstrikes as oppossed to a ground attack. There is no desire to occupy Iran. Just to remove the nuclear threat,and the madman who has threatened to unleash Allah's wrath.
For your second point. I can only assume that you are refering to Bush when you talk about others with visions of Armegeddon dancing in their heads. That is preposterous Raspy,and you know it! Yes,Bush is a Christain,but that is not a bad thing! Regardless of what you may think. If anything Bush would rather prevent the "end times",as oppossed to hasten them. Plus in Iran you are dealing with a population that is madeup of mostly people 30 and younger. This is true of the entire Middle East for that matter. These kids have been inundated with thoughts of the rise of Islam by imams for generations now. They have been brainwashed to the point of delusion. The same could never be said of most Americans,Israelis,or Europeans(other than the radical muslims which have infiltrated that Continent),about our own religious beliefs. It's true that most of the younger Iranian generation is pro Western culture,but the radicals are in control.
Contrary to what you believe,Bush does not want to start a war in the name of Jesus. If he wanted some kind of religious showdown he sure as hell would not continually refer to the Muslim faith as a "peaceful religion". Their history has not bourne out this whole "peace" talk,but I digress. The only madman that we need to concentrate on is threating to unleash a nuclear Armegeddon on his region,and thus,drag the rest of us infidels into the fray. We had better damn well find a way to stop him before he gets that capability. Bitching about Bush isn't going to deter this whackjob from persuing nukes. On that you can make bank!
Riffy
|
|
pdog |
quote: Riffhard wrote:
For your second point. I can only assume that you are refering to Bush when you talk about others with visions of Armegeddon dancing in their heads. That is preposterous Raspy,and you know it! Yes,Bush is a Christain,but that is not a bad thing! Regardless of what you may think. If anything Bush would rather prevent the "end times",as oppossed to hasten them. Plus in Iran you are dealing with a population that is madeup of mostly people 30 and younger. This is true of the entire Middle East for that matter. These kids have been inundated with thoughts of the rise of Islam by imams for generations now. They have been brainwashed to the point of delusion. The same could never be said of most Americans,Israelis,or Europeans(other than the radical muslims which have infiltrated that Continent),about our own religious beliefs. It's true that most of the younger Iranian generation is pro Western culture,but the radicals are in control.
Riffy
Who teaches these beliefs in the mid east?
Saudi's... |
|
Riffhard |
quote: pdog wrote:
Who teaches these beliefs in the mid east?
Saudi's...
There's no doubt that Saudi Arabia has let Wahabism have free reign inside their country. They did this for selfserving reasons. "Feel free to teach this radical shit. Just leave us the hell out of it!" You talk about chickens coming home to roost! However,Wahabism has taken root in most of the Middle East,and parts of South East Asia,as well as Africa. So it's not all the Suadi's doing. It's Islam's number one export. Terror. Wahabism is just used to rally the forces.
The thought of this radical mindset coupled with nukes is too scary to comprehend. I would like to think that we all agree with that.
Riffy
|
|
Starbuck |
tele...buddy...you're talking complete nonsense.
again, here is the quote where you say we (the US) should use nukes to take out iran's nuclear facilities:
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
let's do a sentence by sentence analysis, shall we?
SENTENCE ONE: "The only, only way to take out those nuke sites is with massive air strikes from B-2 bombers with bunker busters...Or nukes."
-from this sentence, the reader will infer that, a) iran's nuclear sites can be taken out only by air strikes by B2 bombers carrying bunker busters, OR, b) by the use of nuclear weapons.
SENTENCE TWO: "And the only, only country that has B-2 bombers is the US."
-from this sentence, the reader will infer that the US is the only country that has the military capability to take out such bunkers because we possess the airpower necessary to carry out the task.
SENTENCE THREE: "Israel can't even take out those sites if they wanted."
-aha! here's the kicker! from this sentence, you say that israel does not have the capacity to do the task; therefore, it has to be up to the US.
i have spelled it out for you! i don't think anyone can deny that the above quotation says directly that you believe the US should use nukes to resolve the situation. just out of curiosity, do me a favor: show me where you believe i have misquoted you, and be specific, using the quote you made above about bunker busters and nukes.
irregardical, whether it be the US or israel, you are still advocating the use of nukes to end the conflict. diplomacy won't work. we must bomb them into submission, thereby killing millions and starting world war III.
|
|
JerryT |
Weren't you supposed to tell us what YOU would do? |
|
Taptrick |
Or perhaps the US could restrain, let Iran committ a hostile act towards Israel, let Isarael retaliate, let the Mideast get involved, let Europe jump in, let the UN think they have a role to play in it with cheap white tanks, let China and Russia jump in...and we could sit back and watch until everyone asks us to get involved. Soemthing to consider. I'm in the USAF and honestly I think something major has to happen within the next 5 - 30 years. Radical Islam in intent to be the only religion and a conflict is bound to occur to settle the issue. What we have now is not that conflict....yet. Even if Iran is resolved, radical Islam has to either become more educated and passive or conflict with already established society. I would prefer it be after I retire in 6 years but we shall see.
|
|
Starbuck |
here's what i would have done:
october 12 2001: finalized plans for the toppling of the taliban in afghanistan. sent in the planes and troops (100,000 or so, whatever was necessary to get the job done of getting bin laden).
early 2002: ordered US marines into the tora bora region and nailed bin laden's ass to the wall.
march 2003: NOT invaded iraq.
march 2006 or earlier: began intense negotiations with the chinese and russians to put serious pressure on iraq. talk to vlad and jiangie about military options. see where it goes.
|
|
JerryT |
Have any of you brainiacs considered whether the US used nukes or not, there is going to be a release of atomic engery?. If the sites are destroyed, with bunker busters, you're still going to have radiation. Not much difference in using low yield nukes to destroy the sites. This seems obvious to me. Heck, the US could use low yield nukes and deny they did and there wouldn't be much reason to doubt it. These are nuclear sites after all.
And for the diplomacy advocates, wouldn't step one be to get the Iranian president to recognize Israel's right to exist and to quit saying they will be destroyed in one storm?
Or we could just use the Starbuck semantical approach and break his statement's down, one by one, word by word, and we would see that he didn't really threaten Israel at all. He's an OK guy under this approach. Of course, I don't think Hitler ever threatened the jews in Mein Kampf. Not directly anyway. |
|
Taptrick |
...so let's just sit back and let Europe, china, Russia, and the UN solve this. They are sure to do a fine job. Let's watch.
|
|
Starbuck |
jerry...buddy...show me where i said ahmeninajad is a good guy. tell me where i said he didn't threaten israel. and while you're at it, please tell me what tele was talking about when he said we should use nukes, then claimed he didn't say we should use nukes. |
|
JerryT |
quote: Starbuck wrote:
here's what i would have done:
october 12 2001: finalized plans for the toppling of the taliban in afghanistan. sent in the planes and troops (100,000 or so, whatever was necessary to get the job done of getting bin laden).
early 2002: ordered US marines into the tora bora region and nailed bin laden's ass to the wall.
march 2003: NOT invaded iraq.
march 2006 or earlier: began intense negotiations with the chinese and russians to put serious pressure on iraq. talk to vlad and jiangie about military options. see where it goes.
That your plan for Iraq or Iran? Three of those actions have nothing to do with Iran. Just you taking another chance to criticize Bush. The last point, I guess, is a typo. I guess you meant "Iran". And what makes you think that is not or has not been done? Do you think such talks would be public record? And what is your contigency plan should such talks fail? And do you acknowledge the fact that China and Russia have their own agenda in Iran and are not likely, under any scenario, to take military action? Or is that why you chose that option? Because you suspect China or Russia would never be on board and you loath military action? And why would you place such emphasis on China and Russia's opinion anyway? Have they demonstrated, at all, any more ability to act outside of their own self-interests than that US has?
NEWSFLASH: China and Russia both refuse to back sanctions of Iran.
So you have a plan. A very short-sighted one that places the Iranian nuclear question in the hands of the chinese and the russians. The two greatest offenders of human rights of the last century. Your plan is noted on the record. And I am on record as saying it's a dumb plan. One that could have been thought up by a crack addict undergoing detox.
[Edited by JerryT] |
|
JerryT |
quote: Starbuck wrote:
jerry...buddy...show me where i said ahmeninajad is a good guy. tell me where i said he didn't threaten israel. and while you're at it, please tell me what tele was talking about when he said we should use nukes, then claimed he didn't say we should use nukes.
You didn't. Show me where I said you did. I simply said taking your strict semantical approach to his statements, one would not find a direct threat. Isn't that true? |
|
telecaster |
quote: JerryT wrote:
You didn't. Show me where I said you did. I simply said taking your strict semantical approach to his statements, one would not find a direct threat. Isn't that true?
Great. He goes on to tell us with history on his side what he WOULD have done in regards to a entire different country and issue, not what he would do now in regards to Iran.
Scary
|
|
Some Guy |
could someone just give me the jist of this thread |
|
rasputin56 |
quote: Riffhard wrote:
Well as to your first point. Those people in Washington do indeed have contingency plans. Nobody could argue that the taking of Baghdad was one of the most sucessful military campaigns ever acheived. It was. Now the holding of Baghdad is another story completely. However,with regards to Iran we are looking at a massive airstrikes as oppossed to a ground attack. There is no desire to occupy Iran. Just to remove the nuclear threat,and the madman who has threatened to unleash Allah's wrath.
For your second point. I can only assume that you are refering to Bush when you talk about others with visions of Armegeddon dancing in their heads. That is preposterous Raspy,and you know it! Yes,Bush is a Christain,but that is not a bad thing! Regardless of what you may think. If anything Bush would rather prevent the "end times",as oppossed to hasten them. Plus in Iran you are dealing with a population that is madeup of mostly people 30 and younger. This is true of the entire Middle East for that matter. These kids have been inundated with thoughts of the rise of Islam by imams for generations now. They have been brainwashed to the point of delusion. The same could never be said of most Americans,Israelis,or Europeans(other than the radical muslims which have infiltrated that Continent),about our own religious beliefs. It's true that most of the younger Iranian generation is pro Western culture,but the radicals are in control.
Contrary to what you believe,Bush does not want to start a war in the name of Jesus. If he wanted some kind of religious showdown he sure as hell would not continually refer to the Muslim faith as a "peaceful religion". Their history has not bourne out this whole "peace" talk,but I digress. The only madman that we need to concentrate on is threating to unleash a nuclear Armegeddon on his region,and thus,drag the rest of us infidels into the fray. We had better damn well find a way to stop him before he gets that capability. Bitching about Bush isn't going to deter this whackjob from persuing nukes. On that you can make bank!
Riffy
Hey, I don't know if he is or isn't. All I can see is that the so-called Religious Right (which is neither) has an unprecedented influence within this Administration. One of the more poplular beliefs of some of these sects are hastening the Rapture and Armageddon. I guess that whole "Left Behind" series is so popular merely for it's brilliant contribution to American Literature? To deny the possibility that any of these people has any influence over policy would be irresponsible. Are they as bad as this Iranian wacko? No but their motives may be towards the same goals, as well.
And just in case anyone hasn't been paying attention for the past 26 years, Iran has been trying to obtain nuclear weapons and threatening the annihalation of Israel and the US. This is not new and maybe Dubya should've been paying a little more attention to Iran (which most of the world has considered more of a threat for years, even before this nutjob) instead of trying to prove to Mommy that he's a bigger man than Poppy. While he's been playing "war time President" both Iran and North Korea have become more dangerous. As for North Korea, didn't W. refuse numerous times to get involved and instead deferred to China and Russia to solve the problem?
[Edited by rasputin56] |
|
JerryT |
quote: Some Guy wrote:
could someone just give me the jist of this thread
Yes. What to do with Iran is the question. Some folks are saying what they would do. Some are simply using this as an opportunity to criticize Bush. And some are just taking soundbites from people's posts as an opportinuty to criticize other posters. |
|
lotsajizz |
quote: Riffhard wrote:
Nobody would deny that Hitler was certifiably insane.
Dangerously wrong---evil does NOT always = insanity , the lesson and importance of Hitler is that evil does not always come foaming out at the mouth, sometimes it comes wearing a suit and pushing an agenda that millions agree with
Not one of Hitler's physicians ever opined that he was insane. He was evil. Understand the difference....
|
|
telecaster |
quote: Starbuck wrote:
tele...buddy...you're talking complete nonsense.
again, here is the quote where you say we (the US) should use nukes to take out iran's nuclear facilities:
let's do a sentence by sentence analysis, shall we?
SENTENCE ONE: "The only, only way to take out those nuke sites is with massive air strikes from B-2 bombers with bunker busters...Or nukes."
-from this sentence, the reader will infer that, a) iran's nuclear sites can be taken out only by air strikes by B2 bombers carrying bunker busters, OR, b) by the use of nuclear weapons.
SENTENCE TWO: "And the only, only country that has B-2 bombers is the US."
-from this sentence, the reader will infer that the US is the only country that has the military capability to take out such bunkers because we possess the airpower necessary to carry out the task.
SENTENCE THREE: "Israel can't even take out those sites if they wanted."
-aha! here's the kicker! from this sentence, you say that israel does not have the capacity to do the task; therefore, it has to be up to the US.
i have spelled it out for you! i don't think anyone can deny that the above quotation says directly that you believe the US should use nukes to resolve the situation. just out of curiosity, do me a favor: show me where you believe i have misquoted you, and be specific, using the quote you made above about bunker busters and nukes.
irregardical, whether it be the US or israel, you are still advocating the use of nukes to end the conflict. diplomacy won't work. we must bomb them into submission, thereby killing millions and starting world war III.
tele...buddy...you're talking complete nonsense.
again, here is the quote where you say we (the US) should use nukes to take out iran's nuclear facilities:
"let's do a sentence by sentence analysis, shall we?"
Sure. As long as you stop lying. Show me where I used the word "we". You keep repeating that and it simply is a lie. Please tell me you don't teach English.
When you quote somebody try and make sure you put in quotations what the person actually said, not what you, as the reader infered or felt.
SENTENCE ONE: "The only, only way to take out those nuke sites is with massive air strikes from B-2 bombers with
bunker busters...Or nukes."
"-from this sentence, the reader will infer that, a) iran's nuclear sites can be taken out only by air strikes by B2 bombers carrying bunker busters, OR, b) by the use of nuclear weapons."
Correct. And Israel has the nukes and they are the ones being threatened to be "wiped off the map".
Our B-2's are the only plane that can safely carry the bunker buster into Iran. Any of our planes or Isreal's could drop a nuke, no problem so your B-2 scenerio just went down the crapper
SENTENCE TWO: "And the only, only country that has B-2 bombers is the US."
"from this sentence, the reader will infer that the US is the only country that has the military capability to take out such bunkers because we possess the airpower necessary to carry out the task."
True. Outside of Israel using nukes. The F-16's and F-15's
we gave Israel are not of much use for underground bunkers.
But they can carry nukes
SENTENCE THREE: "Israel can't even take out those sites if they wanted."
"-aha! here's the kicker! from this sentence, you say that israel does not have the capacity to do the task; therefore, it has to be up to the US."
Wrong. Israel can and will do it. Sadly the only option they have is to use nukes to do it. See above
"i have spelled it out for you! i don't think anyone can deny that the above quotation says directly that you believe the US should use nukes to resolve the situation. just out of curiosity, do me a favor: show me where you believe i have misquoted you, and be specific, using the quote you made above about bunker busters and nukes.
"irregardical, whether it be the US or israel, you are still advocating the use of nukes to end the conflict. diplomacy won't work. we must bomb them into submission, thereby killing millions and starting world war III."
Another lie. If I was advocating using nukes I would say
"we need to use nukes or Israel does need to use nukes"
Of course I never said that. Not even close.
And what would YOU do Bucky?
Not about Iraq but Iran?
|
|
JerryT |
quote: rasputin56 wrote:
Hey, I don't know if he is or isn't. All I can see is that the so-called Religious Right (which is neither) has an unprecedented influence within this Administration. One of the more poplular beliefs of some of these sects are hastening the Rapture and Armageddon.
What?!!! So you don't know, but you say it anyway? "Unprecedented influence"? What influence? Cite something. Are you saying that in the history of the US, the Bush administration is more influenced by religion than any other? And you mean that? Really? And what religious sect believes that the "hastening" of armageddon is a good idea? And demonstrate to me how that is a "popular" belief. And then show how that sect is influencing Bush. And before you go into all that, tell us all exactly who the religious right is. I think you're just making stuff up. Are you? |
|
lotsajizz |
I wish he was....this sinister plot is indeed in place...
|
|
JerryT |
quote: lotsajizz wrote:
Not one of Hitler's physicians ever opined that he was insane. He was evil. Understand the difference....
Yeah. You got him there. Of course, none of those physicians were dumb enough to subject him to the tests necesary to determine sanity. Nor would they ever even suggest that while he was living. More than one has said, after his death, that he was mentally ill. And mental illness ran in his family. |
|
rasputin56 |
quote: JerryT wrote:
What?!!! So you don't know, but you say it anyway? "Unprecedented influence"? What influence? Cite something. Are you saying that in the history of the US, the Bush administration is more influenced by religion than any other? And you mean that? Really? And what religious sect believes that the "hastening" of armageddon is a good idea? And demonstrate to me how that is a "popular" belief. And then show how that sect is influencing Bush. And before you go into all that, tell us all exactly who the religious right is. I think you're just making stuff up. Are you?
Yes, yes I am. There is no "Religous Right" and this mythical group of religous leaders do not have any influence in the Republican Party. I bet if you did a simple google search for any of the terms you would find nothing. I'm just talking out of my ass and am just posting these things to hone my fiction writing skills. |
|
JerryT |
quote: rasputin56 wrote:
Yes, yes I am. There is no "Religous Right" and this mythical group of religous leaders do not have any influence in the Republican Party. I bet if you did a simple google search for any of the terms you would find nothing. I'm just talking out of my ass and am just posting these things to hone my fiction writing skills.
Well then use google and answer my questions. Can you do that? Or are you just going to keep pretending you know something? See because if any of what you imply were true, then you got a heck of a story. You should sell that. You know, these armageddonists whispering in Bush's ear.
[Edited by JerryT] |
|
rasputin56 |
No, really, it's all made up. I've got some character names already thought up. I've been thinking of Robertson, Falwell, LaHaye, Perkins, Bauer and Dobson just for starters. It's progessing nicely. |
|
JerryT |
I didn't think you could answer the questions. Actually, I knew you couldn't. That's why I asked them. Just to show you how full of crap you are. |
|
rasputin56 |
As I said, there is no Religious Right. Those names were merely fictitious, too. Rapture? Cool Blondie song. I just thought of a new wacky phrase, too. Christian Zionism. I've got a million of them.
How's that biblical saying go? Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he can eat for a lifetime?
[Edited by rasputin56] |
|
JerryT |
Hey Mr. Brilliance. I didn't ask you if there were a "religious right". That is not one of the questions I asked. Nor did I deny it existed. Answer the specific questions I asked you. We are all waiting. Your credibility hangs in the balance.
Give a man a thread, he posts for a day, teach a man how to post, he can post for a lifetime
[Edited by JerryT] |
|
rasputin56 |
So is there a "Religious Right" or not? I'd be curious to know because my whole thesis would be up in smoke without it. How's Harriet Myers doing these days? I would've thought Alberto Gonzales would've made a great SC Justice, how come he's not? Why did Dubya rush from Crawford to DC in the middle of the night to sign a bill when he couldn't be dragged out there when OBL was threatening an imminent attack or when New Orleans was under water?
|
|
lotsajizz |
quote: JerryT wrote:
Answer the specific questions I asked you. We are all waiting. Your credibility hangs in the balance.
[Edited by JerryT]
while yours never was.....
|
|