DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on April 25, 2008, 02:24:47 PM
-
Tehran & Damascus on Tenterhooks
Moscow Withholds Weapons and Nuclear Fuel from Iran and Syria
US defense secretary Robert Gates said Monday April 21 that he believes Iran is "hell bent" on acquiring nuclear weapons. He then warned that another war in the Middle East is "the last thing we need and, in fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels".
Gates was addressing the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.
But then he went on to say that he favors keeping the nuclear option against Iran on the table, "given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat" either directly or through proliferation.
That statement was the strongest refutation heard yet from the Bush administration of the judgment by the National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007 that Iran had given up its nuclear weapon program in 2003.
It was also the strongest affirmation that Washington had not discarded its military option. Gates' words were given substance by the signs that that US navy and air force might is again foregathering in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East for purposes that may cover action to terminate Iran's military nuclear plans.
Military sources report that the USS Harry S. Truman Strike Group has just taken up position in Persian Gulf waters. It consists of 12 warships led by the giant LSD-41 class USS Whidby Island landing craft, submarines and eight assault squadrons. The legend on their banner is: Give 'em Hell.
Another nuclear aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, will soon set out for the region from the South China Sea, along with two more US naval strike forces: the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Nimitz.
Braced for a summer 2008 war
The triple strike flotilla is only waiting for the new Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou to be sworn in on May 20 before departing for the Persian region to arrive late May, early June.
Middle East sources are looking at June or July or August at latest - as likely dates for potential military action, starting according to their scenario with a US attack on Iran?s nuclear facilities and followed by an Israeli attack on Hizballah in Lebanon and Syria.
Iranian sources also view the US military buildup as geared to the summer 2008 timeline. They draw their confirmation from three additional American military activities.
1. The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Adm. Gary Roughead, has just completed a tour of US Fifth Fleet installations at their Bahrain headquarters and bases in Oman and Kuwait, as well as the US warships anchored at United Arab Emirates ports. The US Naval Operations Chief also visited the Harry S. Truman.
To Tehran this tour looked suspiciously like an advance checkup of American Gulf forces' operational preparedness for an assault on Iran.
2. Both Iran and Syria are eyeing the USS Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group's movements in the big NATO Phoenix Express 2008 naval exercise in Souda Bay off Crete.
This group joined the exercise from its deployment opposite Lebanon and Syria and is destined to return there after it is over or head for the Persian Gulf.
3. The US secretary of the Navy Dr. Donald C. Winter paid a three-day working trip to Israel March 26-30.
Tehran took note of three occurrences in the course of that trip:
One: Dr. Winter held talks with the entire Israeli political and military leadership, working his way down from prime minister Ehud Olmert, defense minister Ehud Barak and chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi.
He spent a whole day inspecting Israel's assault Dolphin submarines, Israel's longest military arm opposite Iran which carry nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. It was the first time a foreign military figure was allowed access to Israel's long-range nuclear capability.
Moscow holds back advanced weaponry and nuclear fuel
Syria too is showing signs of stress.
On April 15, a week before Gates' remarks at West Point, a large Syrian military delegation arrived in Tula, the railway and highway hub of the Moscow industrial region's manufacturing center, to find out what had happened to the Pantsyr-S1 advanced self-propelled, short range missile air defense system on order from Russia.
Iran had made a down-payment of close to $1 billion dollars for the system's delivery to Syria during 2007 and 2008; part of the shipment was to be consigned to Iran through Syria.
The first 10 batteries were shipped to Syria in mid-August last year; six were transferred to Iran. However, military and intelligence sources disclose that, since then, the consignments have dried up. Although the Russians accepted Iranian and Syrian teams last year to train at their bases in operating the missile, they shipped no more missiles to Syria.
And the delegation returned to Damascus from Tula empty-handed.
Moscow also put on hold with no explanation the dispatch of SA-300 air defense missiles and the nuclear fuel rods promised Tehran for the $1 billion Russian built Bushehr nuclear reactor 400 kilometers southwest of Tehran.
The rods were promised on December 17, 2007 when Moscow announced after several delays that the first nuclear rods for fueling Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr had been dispatched. Atomstroyexport, the Russian nuclear power equipment and service export monopoly, promised Iran would receive 180 nuclear fuel rods in January-February 2008.
{source: e-mail}
-
ChristiansUnited4LessGvt is supposedly ignoring my posts, so would someone please ask him for me if he is looking forward to this war? Let him know I won't ask any other questions or say anything else about it.
-
I'm not sure anyone "wants" or "looks forward" to war, Prince. I can't speak for CU, but I know I'm no fan of it, though I do recognize when it becomes a necessary last resort, such as what Iraq was
-
I'm not sure anyone "wants" or "looks forward" to war, Prince.
In general, I would agree. And I don't want to say much about this because I said I wouldn't. This isn't a gotcha moment. I'm just curious.I can't ask him directly, so I'm hoping someone else will ask.
-
(http://www.reuters.com/resources/images/logo_reutersmedia.gif)
Ship hired by U.S. military fires warning shots in Gulf
Fri Apr 25, 2008
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A cargo ship hired by the U.S. military fired warning shots at boats suspected to be Iranian, the U.S. Navy said on Friday, underscoring tension in the Gulf as the Pentagon sharpened its warnings to Tehran.
According to American defense officials, the Westward Venture cargo ship chartered by the U.S. Defense Department was traveling in international waters when two unidentified small boats approached on Thursday.
After the boats failed to respond to radio queries and a warning flare, the cargo ship's onboard security team fired "a few bursts" of machine gun and rifle warning shots, according to Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet.
"The small boats left the area a short time later," she said by telephone. "They were able to avoid a serious incident by following the procedures that we use."
The news helped push oil prices up more than $3 to $119.50 a barrel -- within striking distance of the record $119.90 hit earlier this week -- as traders worried escalating tensions in the region could eventually disrupt crude shipments.
In Tehran, an Iranian navy source denied that any confrontation had occurred with a U.S. ship in the Gulf. But the source, quoted by a journalist for Iran's state-owned Arabic Al-Alam TV channel, said any shooting that may have occurred could have targeted a non-Iranian vessel.
U.S. defense officials said they suspected the boats were Iranian. "We don't have complete confirmation of that but we suspect it," one official said.
The incident was reported as America's top military officer charged Iran with increasing its support for Iraqi militias with weapons and training used to kill U.S. troops.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen said the United States would continue to rely on diplomatic and economic methods to encourage Iran to change, but stressed the Pentagon had military options.
"When I say I don't want to take any military options off the table, that certainly more than implies that we have military options," Mullen told reporters. "That kind of planning activity has been going on for a long time. I think it will go on for some time into the future."
Tensions in the region have risen this year. In January, the United States said Iranian boats aggressively approached three U.S. Navy battle ships, warning them they would explode in minutes.
In March, another U.S. military-chartered ship preparing to cross the Suez Canal fired warning shots at a small boat, killing an Egyptian on board.
(Reporting by Kristin Roberts and Andrew Gray, Editing by Chris Wilson)
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00939920080425?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00939920080425?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)
-
Perhaps nothing will come of all this preparation and saber rattleing , but it would be a bad thing for Syria and Iran to beleive that they can't be attacked.
-
(http://edwardhtse.googlepages.com/YahooNewsLogo.PNG/YahooNewsLogo-large.jpg)
US found date-stamped Iranian weapons in Iraq: report
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20080425/capt.cps.mzs43.250408130758.photo00.photo.default-355x512.jpg?x=238&y=345&sig=1GAP45kgAlfi2sv4.zSFkg--)
US soldiers from the 2nd Battallion 12th Field Artillery Regiment guard
shells and rockets found in the village of Mullah Eid, 8 kms south of Baquba in
February 2008. The US military says it has found Iranian-made mortars, rockets
and explosives in Iraq bearing recent date stamps, the Wall Street Journal reported.
(AFP/File/Patrick Baz)
Fri Apr 25, 8:51 AM ET
NEW YORK (AFP) - The US military says it has found Iranian-made mortars, rockets and
explosives in Iraq bearing recent date stamps, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
"You can see the manufacturing dates right on the armaments themselves," a senior commander
in Baghdad was quoted as saying. "These are very clearly weapons that were made in
the last month or so."
Iran denies supplying ammunition to Iraqi militants, or training them.
Earlier this week, a US general in Iraq said that the increasingly sophisticated attacks carried
out by Shiite extremists were evidence that they were getting extra aid from Iranian groups
in the country.
Major General Rick Lynch, commander of US forces in central Iraq, said rocket and mortar
attacks by Shiite extremists were "more effective than before."
He charged that this indicated a rise in Iranian help to the militants.
"We are seeing an increase in (Iranian) influence... the number of attacks that are directly
attributed to Iranian influence have indeed increased," Lynch said.
"The number of EFP (explosively formed penetrator) attacks have increased, the number of
Iranian rocket attacks have indeed increased, the amount of Iranian weapons I am finding
on the battlefield has increased. The amount of Shiite extremists who tie their training back
to Iran have indeed increased."
Lynch, whose area of operation in Iraq has a long stretch of border with Iran, also charged
that his troops have found large numbers of caches of weapons and ammunition bearing Iranian
markings.
Citing a recent example, the general said his troops found in one place "enough components for
1,100 EFPs directly traceable back to Iran."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080425/pl_afp/usiraqunrestiranweapons_080425125149 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080425/pl_afp/usiraqunrestiranweapons_080425125149)
-
(http://img.iht.com/images/v3/logo_all.gif)
Top U.S. military officer assails Iran's role in Iraq
By David Stout Published: April 25, 2008
WASHINGTON: The government of Iran continues to supply weapons and other support to extremists in Iraq, despite repeated promises to the contrary, and is increasingly complicit in the death of U.S. soldiers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Friday in a stark new assessment of Iranian influence.
The chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen, said he was "extremely concerned" about "the increasingly lethal and malign influence" by the government of Iran and the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, a special force that aids and encourages Islamic militants around the world. The Quds Forces in Iran were created during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and report directly to the leadership of Iran's theocratic government.
Pentagon concerns about Iranian influence in neighboring Iraq is nothing new, but the content and tone of Mullen's remarks left the impression that far from abating, the worries about Iran have intensified in recent months.
"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago," Mullen said. "It's plainly obvious they have not. Indeed, they seem to have gone the other way."
The discovery of weapons caches in Iraq, with devices bearing stamps that indicate they were manufactured quite recently, run contrary to the Iranian promises not to interfere in Iraq, the admiral said. He conceded that he had "no smoking gun" to prove direct involvement by the very highest echelons in Tehran, but he said he found it hard to believe that all the top leaders were ignorant of recent developments.
The Pentagon is sufficiently concerned about Iran's apparently deepening involvement in Iraq that it plans a briefing in the near future by General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, to publicize the caches of weapons, some of which are believed to have been used against U.S. troops in the recent fighting in Basra, in southern Iraq. Details of the weapons and the Pentagon's concerns over them were disclosed Friday in The Wall Street Journal.
"I believe recent events, especially the Basra operation, have revealed just how much and just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability," Mullen said.
Of particular concern to U.S. military commanders are explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, which the Pentagon says are being made in Iran and shipped to Shiite militants in Iraq, where they are used to deadly effect against U.S. forces trying to subdue extremist elements and bolster the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
Asked whether the new evidence of Iranian mischief in Iraq portends an U.S. military conflict with Iran, the admiral said, "I'm not going to add anything to what I've already said in that regard." For now, Mullen said, the best weapon against Iran is a combination of diplomatic and financial pressure by the United States and other nations alarmed by Iran's attitude.
Pentagon leaders have said they would not rule out military action against Iran. But it is not uncommon for U.S. civilian and military leaders to leave "all options on the table," in an often-used phrase, because to rule out military action in advance is seen as admitting a lack of resolve.
Mullen acknowledged that the U.S. military was being stretched thin by the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, he said, "it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability." As for Iranian motives, Mullen said he believed the leadership in Tehran hopes for a weak Iraq, so that Iran can increase its influence in the region.
Moreover, deep resentment remains in Iran toward the United States, which until the Iranian revolution in 1979 long supported the repressive regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a bulwark against Soviet influence in the Cold War. The current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has shown little indication of wanting better relations with Washington.
Mullen said Iranian influence in Iraq goes beyond shipment of weapons. "They continue to train Iraqis in Iran to come back and fight Americans and the coalition," he said. Reiterating earlier accusations, he asserted that Iranian leaders "continue to broadly support terrorists in other parts of the region," including the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas.
"And in fact, we're seeing some evidence that they're supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan," Mullen said.
Thom Shanker contributed reporting.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/25/mideast/military.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/25/mideast/military.php)
-
So, no one is going to ask him?
-
Yo, CU4, Prince would like to know if you are looking forward to this war between Isreal vs Iran/Syria/Hizballah?
-
Perhaps nothing will come of all this preparation and saber rattleing , but it would be a bad thing for Syria and Iran to beleive that they can't be attacked.
I can't imagine why they'd ever think they can't be attacked.
-
Perhaps nothing will come of all this preparation and saber rattleing , but it would be a bad thing for Syria and Iran to beleive that they can't be attacked.
I can't imagine why they'd ever think they can't be attacked.
The US is hamstrung with so many pacifists and people who grow war weary quickly that it is a paper tiger whose threats and diplomats can be ignored.
-
There is not going to be any war. Iran is not a threat, and a war would be just really stupid.
Pacifists have not managed to stop Juniorbush and Cheney from their previous lunacy. The problem is sanity and reason oppose another war.
-
There is not going to be any war. Iran is not a threat, and a war would be just really stupid.
Pacifists have not managed to stop Juniorbush and Cheney from their previous lunacy. The problem is sanity and reason oppose another war.
If Iran and Syria develop some sanity and reasoning ability there will be no war. If they do not they can cause a war whether we welcome the idea or not.
-
Plane: <<The US is hamstrung with so many pacifists and people who grow war weary quickly that it is a paper tiger whose threats and diplomats can be ignored.>>
Nonsense.
There are realists who can see there would be no good result in attacking a country who did not attack us.
If they did, I'm sure we would reinstate the draft very quickly.
-
Plane: <<The US is hamstrung with so many pacifists and people who grow war weary quickly that it is a paper tiger whose threats and diplomats can be ignored.>>
Nonsense.
There are realists who can see there would be no good result in attacking a country who did not attack us.
If they did, I'm sure we would reinstate the draft very quickly.
There is a diffrence between pacifisism and realism, there is no good reason to attack a country that means us no harm , the harm that another country means to cause us needs to evaluated carefully before any attack is proposed .
The Draft would be useless if we were attacked , I mean how would it help?
President James Carter attacked Iran , with just slightly too few vehicles , he had volenteers running out his ears but he needed two more helicopters to stage the raid he had planned.
There is no retroactive preparednedss , no way to deliver strength to the past. If there is an attack planned on Americans we have the response ready or we have nothing.
-
Neither Iran nor Syria has the motive nor the ability to do harm to the US, so attacking them would make about as much sense as attacking Nepal or Bolivia.
The draft would serve to turn pretty much everyone of draft age against the government and its foolish wars, as happened in Vietnam.
The Iran Hostage Crisis was the fault of Henry Kissinger and Jimmy Carter for listening to him. It would never have happened has Carter not sucked mightily up to the nasty little Shah.
At most all this silly talk of yet another war is truculent posturing by the US to counter the equally truculent posturing of Iran, Syria, and Israel. Everyone in the Middle East does this, and it's all blather.
There will be no new war. There certainly won't be a draft.
-
Neither Iran nor Syria has the motive nor the ability to do harm to the US, so attacking them would make about as much sense as attacking Nepal or Bolivia.
Tell this to Carter or the hostages kidnapped for 444 days , Iran is prone to crazyness and reprobate behavior.
The draft would serve to turn pretty much everyone of draft age against the government and its foolish wars, as happened in Vietnam.
In the case being discussed , this would be a draft after a pearl harbor or 9-11 sort of incident , the people would turn on the government even when the people were under attack? I think that we will not have the time to institute a draft to any good effect so late , you seem to be saying that even under attack Americans won't organise a defense .
The Iran Hostage Crisis was the fault of Henry Kissinger and Jimmy Carter for listening to him. It would never have happened has Carter not sucked mightily up to the nasty little Shah.
I absolutely reject this premise , these crimes should be blamed on the criminals that committed them , I don't give a fig that they felt insulted and I also reject the notion that the Ayatollah instituted any improvements above the standard of the Shah.
At most all this silly talk of yet another war is truculent posturing by the US to counter the equally truculent posturing of Iran, Syria, and Israel. Everyone in the Middle East does this, and it's all blather.
I hope so. But better to have an extinguisher for a fire that never breaks out than to have no extinguisher when a fire does break out.
There will be no new war. There certainly won't be a draft.
It will be nice if you are right and humanity has changed its ancient ways. I agree that the Draft is useless though for diffrent reasons.
-
>>Pacifists have not managed to stop Juniorbush and Cheney ...<<
Pacifists can be pacifists only if people are willing to fight to protect them. Otherwise they'd just be dead. Which would be better for us all in the long run.
-
>>Pacifists have not managed to stop Juniorbush and Cheney ...<<
Pacifists can be pacifists only if people are willing to fight to protect them. Otherwise they'd just be dead. Which would be better for us all in the long run.
I think Pacifists are very rightious and effective, In Iranian prisons.
-
>>I think Pacifists are very rightious and effective, In Iranian prisons.<<
:D
-
The people who held the hostages are not running Iran now.
Iranians were ticked off at the US for deliberately destroying the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in the 1950's, and replacing it with the nasty little Shah. The US manipulated Iran for over 25 years through the Shah.
The point is not whether the Ayatollah was better or worse than the Shah. Iran is not run by the Ayatollah now, and has no motive for starting a war with the US.
Ahmedinejad is simply using the dislike that the Iranian people have for Israel to bolster his own support, but he does not have the power to start a war. Iran has helped the US in both Iran and Afghanistan from time to time.
US pacifists are nowhere near Iranian prisons.
-
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/graphics/branding/tcuk_400x82_normal.gif)
Destroy Iran's nukes to save our cities
By Alasdair Palmer
27/04/2008
One of the most terrifying possibilities the world faces is that al-Qa'eda, or some other Islamist group, gets hold of a nuclear bomb. Islamist terrorists are certainly trying to obtain one: Osama bin Laden has issued a document entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam", which insists it is "the duty" of Muslims to acquire a nuclear bomb in order to use "as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God".
Con Coughlin: The real reason the Syrian base was destroyed
The Foreign Office's senior counter-terrorist official has "no doubt at all" that Islamist terrorists are actively seeking a nuclear device. "There are people" he adds dryly, "for whom exploding a nuclear bomb in a city would be a triumph for the cause."
A 10 kiloton nuclear bomb would be a relatively small one by today's standards, but a 10 kiloton explosion in a city would mean that, from the centre of the blast for a distance of one third of a mile, every structure above ground level would be obliterated and every person would be killed instantly.
For the next third of a mile, the city would look like the weird moonscape which Berlin had become by the end of World War Two, after almost a year of Allied bombing raids.
And for a third of mile beyond that circle of hell, buildings and people would burn, both with flames and the effects of radiation.
To consider that outcome is to realise that it must be prevented. But how? Deterrence - the threat that if you detonate a nuclear bomb in our country, we will retaliate in kind on yours - has so far prevented nuclear war between nations. The only time nuclear bombs have been used, it was against a country without the capacity to retaliate.
Deterrence, however, depends on your enemy having cities and a population that can be threatened with obliteration.
The problem is that terrorist organisations have neither. They are simply groups of individuals with no responsibility for, and no control over, a state or its population.
Deterrence breaks down as a consequence. If they could get hold of a nuclear bomb, Islamist terrorists would have every incentive to use it to cause as much destruction as possible in an "enemy" country such as Britain or America - and there's no threat we can brandish to stop them.
Which means that the over-arching aim of the civilised world must be to ensure that they cannot get hold of a nuclear bomb, because that is the only way we can protect ourselves against nuclear terrorism.
The most powerful argument against allowing nuclear proliferation is that the more countries that have the bomb, the more likely it is that one will end up in the hands of terrorists.
Nuclear bombs are still, mercifully, beyond the capacity of terrorist groups to engineer for themselves: a terrorist organisation would have to get one from a government.
When the governments trying to acquire the technology for making nuclear bombs are known to train and supply Islamist terrorist groups - as Syria and Iran, for example, certainly do - the importance of preventing them obtaining the capacity to make such bombs is overwhelming.
That is why the Israelis destroyed Syria's "not for peaceful means" nuclear facility last September, and why the rest of the world acquiesced in the destruction, which broke international law and had no United Nations resolution.
It is also why the US continues to send signals to Iran that it will not oppose, indeed might even join in, any attempt by Israel to hit Iran's fledgling nuclear facilities: sending precisely that signal must have been at least part of the point of last week's very public announcement that the Israeli raid on Syria's putative nuclear bomb factory had been successful.
Governments can perhaps be deterred from leaking nuclear weapons to terrorist groups by the thought of what the Americans would do to them if there were a nuclear explosion in an American city and the construction of the fatal bomb could be traced back to, say, Iran or Syria.
The Americans have not been shy about letting those governments know what would happen. As one US official put it to me: "We would totally obliterate the country responsible" - a phrase echoed by Hillary Clinton when she said the US would "totally obliterate" Iran if that country was responsible for a nuclear attack even on Israel, never mind America.
Governments, however, are not always able to control all their members. Some members of the Iranian administration might not be deterred by the prospect of nuclear armageddon (indeed, some seem to welcome it). Which means that the only way to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists it to keep them out of the hands of national governments who might give them to terrorists.
If Iran builds a nuclear bomb factory, you can be sure that Israel will try to destroy it. You can also be sure that, when it happens, the rest of the world will not object.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/27/do2705.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/27/do2705.xml)
-
Yes, by all means let's invade Iran so that we can watch gas hit $9 a gallon. Heck, maybe even $10. Of course, at that price the military will need most of the domestic production to run the war machine, so get your gas ration card.
No doubt this will help an economy quickly sinking into a morass of debt with a falling dollar. I mean, all of those high oil prices have helped the economy, right?
I'm sure that it is well worth it to grind this country to an economic halt to take on Iran. Looking past the economic aspect, I'm sure that we can squander our already thin military resources in an Iranian campaign. Hopefully we can mismanage this thing as badly as we did with Iraq for the first three or four years. I think that Lanya has this one correct, we'd have to instate a draft for the manpower. No doubt that will help the economy as well, removing all of those able bodied fellows from the work force.
No doubt CU4, who seems to want this war so damned much, will be first in line at the recruiting office.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Yes, by all means let's invade Iran so that we can watch gas hit $9 a gallon. Heck, maybe even $10. Of course, at that price the military will need most of the domestic production to run the war machine, so get your gas ration card.
No doubt this will help an economy quickly sinking into a morass of debt with a falling dollar. I mean, all of those high oil prices have helped the economy, right?
I'm sure that it is well worth it to grind this country to an economic halt to take on Iran. Looking past the economic aspect, I'm sure that we can squander our already thin military resources in an Iranian campaign. Hopefully we can mismanage this thing as badly as we did with Iraq for the first three or four years. I think that Lanya has this one correct, we'd have to instate a draft for the manpower. No doubt that will help the economy as well, removing all of those able bodied fellows from the work force.
No doubt CU4, who seems to want this war so damned much, will be first in line at the recruiting office.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Iran should be allowed to develop atomic wepons so that the price of gas will remain reasonable?
-
Is the economic destabilization of this nation worth stopping Iran from developing a technology that in all honesty, they will develop if they really want it?
-
I notice that you deftly sidestepped the military issue. With ration cards and a draft, how long do you think that the people of this nation will support an invasion of Iran? This isn't WWII with a clearly defined enemy, it's a backward nation that has a lot of oil wealth led by a religious monopoly. With most petroleum production going to military resources, farmers will have to rely more on migrant labor for crop harvest. Is it unrealistic to see agriculture production falling in such a scenario?
The pre-emptive doctrine is a poor one. It was faulty with the Communist threat, detente and triangulation proved to be more effective than warfare in neutralizing the domino theory. Why would I think that it would prove better in this case?
-
Communism was wrestled down as strangled to death , lucky that Communism helped to strangle itself.
They want us dead , me and you included .
Now their problem is how to get us to sit still while they do what it takes to get it done.
Lately it seems that Iranian patriots make vague threatening statements or boat maneuvers that raise the price of oil on the spot market , increaseing the resorces availible to the government.
I suggest that they have few uses for a small number of atomic bombs , but they are building a tremendouus plant for bomb building they are going to need a lot of these bombs to fight us and they seem to be prepareing to do just that.
They are not patient though , they are killing americans in Iraq already , if that isn't an act of war what is?
I further suggest this course of action - close the straight of hormouz to all ship traffic that doesn't carry a badge issued by American ship inspectors , no Iranian oil gets out , no dollors or Euros or rice gets in , we can put up with $30 gas longer than they can deal with $50 rice , and the US Navy can close the straight better than anyone elese could. We would not want to occupy the territory or take the oil , we would want them to break down the Atomic bomb building plants and hand them over the way Quaddifi did.
Of course we can instead wait till they do what they promise each other every day in their twenty minutes hate "Death to America" after they have exploded a few bombs in a few of our citys we will obliterate them just as future President Hillary Clinton promises , no liveing thing left within their borders at all.
What makes the second idea preferable I don't see.
-
They are not patient though , they are killing americans in Iraq already , if that isn't an act of war what is?
From my understanding, and feel free to correct it if I'm wrong, but what you have are Iranians leaving Iran to fight in Iraq, with the supposed backing of the Iranian government. Are these regular Iranian soldiers, or are they individuals who take it upon themselves? Because if they're not regular Iranian soldiers, then to say that their fighting is an act of war would be the same as saying that Spain could have declared war on the US because of the Abraham Lincoln brigade in the Spanish Civil War, or the South could have declared war on Ireland for the involvement of Irish brigades in our Civil War. At least that's my thinking on the matter.
I further suggest this course of action - close the straight of hormouz to all ship traffic that doesn't carry a badge issued by American ship inspectors , no Iranian oil gets out , no dollors or Euros or rice gets in , we can put up with $30 gas longer than they can deal with $50 rice , and the US Navy can close the straight better than anyone elese could. We would not want to occupy the territory or take the oil , we would want them to break down the Atomic bomb building plants and hand them over the way Quaddifi did.
I would support this course of action, and I think most Americans would find it preferable to a land invasion of Iran. There are two problems to be addressed with this proposal though.
First, the humanitarian crisis that it is nearly certain to cause. Secondly, selling the idea to the Europeans, whose cooperation would be necessary.
If those could be worked out, I'd support a blockade.
-
They are not patient though , they are killing americans in Iraq already , if that isn't an act of war what is?
From my understanding, and feel free to correct it if I'm wrong, but what you have are Iranians leaving Iran to fight in Iraq, with the supposed backing of the Iranian government. Are these regular Iranian soldiers, or are they individuals who take it upon themselves? Because if they're not regular Iranian soldiers, then to say that their fighting is an act of war would be the same as saying that Spain could have declared war on the US because of the Abraham Lincoln brigade in the Spanish Civil War, or the South could have declared war on Ireland for the involvement of Irish brigades in our Civil War. At least that's my thinking on the matter.
I further suggest this course of action - close the straight of hormouz to all ship traffic that doesn't carry a badge issued by American ship inspectors , no Iranian oil gets out , no dollors or Euros or rice gets in , we can put up with $30 gas longer than they can deal with $50 rice , and the US Navy can close the straight better than anyone elese could. We would not want to occupy the territory or take the oil , we would want them to break down the Atomic bomb building plants and hand them over the way Quaddifi did.
I would support this course of action, and I think most Americans would find it preferable to a land invasion of Iran. There are two problems to be addressed with this proposal though.
First, the humanitarian crisis that it is nearly certain to cause. Secondly, selling the idea to the Europeans, whose cooperation would be necessary.
If those could be worked out, I'd support a blockade.
I can work out the European co-operation . Ignore them , they don't carry the strength that Iran does , if they want to stay out of it let them. Middle east Oil makes lots of diffrence in Europe so they would be the most vunerable , so if we are going to do it anyway they might as well help and try to make it short.
The Humanitarian crisis is the point of the exercise , they can give in immediately and no one will loose weight , Pride demands though that they see a lot of dieing before they admit that they are not able to defeat us , there would be smuggleing overland supplys so that their wealthy and powerfull would get fed , most of the dead would be those already marginal .
The best outcome would be upriseing of outraged populace , makeing the threat realistic seeming might be enough to do , the perception of a realistic threat might preclude the need to lift a finger on our part.
-
Diplomacy....
can diplomacy work if the diplomat cant make an awfull threat?
-
Iran cannot be blockaded successfully, Look at a map. Iran is not an island. It has borders with Russia, Azerbaijan and, Turkey. Anything tat can't be floated in could be trucked in.
he US does not have the capability to murder everyone in Iran, That is nonsense, no matter who says it.
-
Good thing no one is saying that, except apparently Xo
-
Good thing no one is saying that, except apparently Xo
==========================
Plane previously said:
"Of course we can instead wait till they do what they promise each other every day in their twenty minutes hate "Death to America" after they have exploded a few bombs in a few of our citys we will obliterate them just as future President Hillary Clinton promises , no liveing thing left within their borders at all."
Which I assume would include not only extermination of every one of the 77,000,000 human inhabitants of Iran, but also all their dogs, sheep, cattle, camels and insects.
I have not actually heard Hillary say this, but perhaps Plane did. But the point is that I did not say this originally, as alleged.
I think it would be a really terrible idea.
There will be no war against Iran unless Juniorbush really flies off his nut.
It would tend to make a GOP victory a wee bit harder, I think.
Hitler got really bad press for wiping out a mere 6 million Jews, and assorted Poles, Russians, Gypsies and such. Imagine how the US would look if we actually did wipe out "every living thing in Iran."
-
fatman are in incapable of an honest debate?
preferring to demonize those that come to a different conclusion than you do?
either you did not read the article from the UK Telegraph or you disagree with the data
but instead of disagreeing you feel the need to imply "I want war"
you want to pretend I am some crazy "nuke them all" cowboy
when in reality I honestly ( like the article) see Iran as a real threat to the survival of the United States
Hillary Clinton talked recently about "obliterating Iran"
whether gas goes to $9 is not really relevant to a question of US cities being incinerated is it?
Obviously you don't come to the same conclusion
but i certainly don't try to imply that because you don't want to settle the score with Iran
that you "want the US bombed" or you prefer US Cities being incinerated rather that $9 gas.
thats the difference
can you honestly see that difference?
i can accept that you arrive at a different conclusion
ok fine we disagree
but you (and others) seem to need to demonize those that arrive at a different conclusion
somehow like if someone comes to a different conclusion on a threat, well they must "love war"
it's a chicken shit way of responding
paint the opponent as "crazy" rather than dealing with facts
-
fatman are in incapable of an honest debate?
CU4, are you incapable of an intelligent debate?
preferring to demonize those that come to a different conclusion than you do?
::) Oh boy, there you go again.
but instead of disagreeing you feel the need to imply "I want war"
you want to pretend I am some crazy "nuke them all" cowboy
yeah lets stick our head in the sand
yeah lets cut & run in Iraq like LANYA, XO, and other Libs want
lets let Iran have Iraq
lets not bomb Iran
Head in Sand (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5996.0)
Yes and when the last election was held the election was basically about Iraq and President Bush
got the most votes of any US President in history. Yes the buck stops at his desk and hopefully
he will attack Iran before his term runs out.[/b]
Re: When? (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5863.msg57964#msg57964)
For example, I want to bomb Iran.
Most of the world seems to want to negotiate with the Mullahs.
I don't.
No surprise Hugo Chavez wants Hillary or Obama (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5840.msg57438#msg57438)
i sincerely believe if we don't stop iran now
we could see armageddon in our lifetime
Dinner with Ahmanutjob (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=4080.msg37250#msg37250)
Gearing up to bomb the Mullahs (it's about time)
The Headline says it all (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=4641.0)
What am I supposed to think? A spade is a spade. The italics are YOUR words, not my words or the words of an article. They are what YOU have said in the past. You say that you want to bomb Iran, and then get offended when I say that you say that you want to bomb Iran. That's horseshit. As Prince so eloquently replied to you in a post some months ago, I hope that you'll forgive my mischaracterization of you wanting a war with Iran as a characterization of you, well, wanting a war with Iran.
This is just a handful of the three pages of crap relating to your posts of Iran that I found through the search function. You've been advocating war with Iran since September 2007 at least, so get down off your high horse.
The full list is here. (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?action=search2)
when in reality I honestly ( like the article) see Iran as a real threat to the survival of the United States
Most intelligent people don't. That's not to say that some do. Plane answered my post with a reasonable alternative. You choose not to do this, but only to keep spouting the same line over and over. I think a war with a military stretched too thin and an economic crisis of massive proportion at home is a recipe for disaster. Did you never hear McArthur's quote about a land war in Asia?
Hillary Clinton talked recently about "obliterating Iran
And this has what to do with the topic at hand? Are you basing your argument that we should go to war with Iran because Hillary Clinton said so?
whether gas goes to $9 is not really relevant to a question of US cities being incinerated is it?
Which is more likely? You need to balance your principles with reality.
Obviously you don't come to the same conclusion
Ya think?
but i certainly don't try to imply that because you don't want to settle the score with Iran
that you "want the US bombed" or you prefer US Cities being incinerated rather that $9 gas.
It may not apply to me, but isn't this exactly what you did to XO and Lanya with this comment: yeah lets stick our head in the sand
yeah lets cut & run in Iraq like LANYA, XO, and other Libs want
lets let Iran have Iraq
lets not bomb Iran ?????? Get off your high horse already CU4, you do it as well as anyone. The cut and run thing is tiresome, and bullshit. You cry about someone "demonizing" you when they disagree, but you feel completely free to do the same to people who disagree with you. And I won't even bother asking how I've supposedly demonized you, because I already know that I won't get an answer, only a deflection. I disagree with other conservatives in this forum frequently, I wonder if Plane or sirs feel that I demonize them?
thats the difference
can you honestly see that difference?
No, I can't. It looks the exact same to me.
but you (and others) seem to need to demonize those that arrive at a different conclusion
somehow like if someone comes to a different conclusion on a threat, well they must "love war"
Please point out where I said that you love war. I tend to choose my words carefully, it is not my fault if you want to read something into what I've said that I, in fact, did not say. I meant to infer that you desire war with Iran, desire and love are different things. Furthermore, even if I were to postulate the opinion that you believe that I do, how is that any different in the way that you paint the liberal faction in this forum as "cut and run"? So, as I've said a couple of times before, get off of it already.
it's a chicken shit way of responding
paint the opponent as "crazy" rather than dealing with facts
LOLOLOLOL. Now that's a laugh! Can you not see your own hypocrisy? You better make an appointment with your eye doctor, you'll need to get that beam removed from your eye.
-
No doubt CU4, who seems to want this war so damned much, will be first in line at the recruiting office.
but instead of disagreeing you feel the need to imply "I want war"
you want to pretend I am some crazy "nuke them all" cowboy
when in reality I honestly ( like the article) see Iran as a real threat to the survival of the United States
Hillary Clinton talked recently about "obliterating Iran"
whether gas goes to $9 is not really relevant to a question of US cities being incinerated is it?
[...]
but you (and others) seem to need to demonize those that arrive at a different conclusion
somehow like if someone comes to a different conclusion on a threat, well they must "love war"
it's a chicken shit way of responding
paint the opponent as "crazy" rather than dealing with facts
I think worth noting is that Fatman said "want this war" which ChristiansUnited4LessGvt has turned into "want war" and then "love war".
Suppose someone posted articles about the "war on poverty", articles about actions taken by government to expand and run anti-poverty programs like food stamps (or cards or whatever they use now) and Welfare, articles about the supposed evils of capitalism. Suppose also this same someone also made comments about how people are under threat of starvation and poverty, comments about the bad economy and perhaps even comments about the supposed evils of capitalism. Would it or would it not be a reasonable conclusion to make that the someone wanted government run anti-poverty programs and perhaps wanted the government to do more? Seems to me that conclusion would be a reasonable one to make.
Given ChristiansUnited4LessGvt's comments about seeing Iran as a threat and and the (supposed) question of of U.S. cities being incinerated, coupled with his posts about a supposedly soon to come war with Iran, that ChristiansUnited4LessGvt does in fact want a war with Iran seems an obvious and reasonable conclusion. And suggesting that he wants this war is not the same as suggesting he loves war. So rather than ChristiansUnited4LessGvt questioning whether Fatman is capable of an honest debate, seems to me ChristiansUnited4LessGvt needs to consider whether ChristiansUnited4LessGvt is engaging in honest debate.
-
Don't hold your breath UP, your face will be as blue as your font. :o
-
I have not actually heard Hillary say this, but perhaps Plane did. But the point is that I did not say this originally, as alleged.
I think it would be a really terrible idea.
Why? If an Iranian Bomb were to obliterate an American City President Hillary would do exactly as president Trueman would have done.
It isn't a terrible idea , it is the very idea that contained Communism while Communism built enough Atomic bombs to put two or three on every state capitol and major town in the US (about 3000). We used to call it MAD one of the most appropriate abbrieviations there ever was.
When Iran has developed a bomb and delivery system they will probly do just as the Soviet Union did and build plenty hopeing to cow us , they realise of course that we have lots of easily cowed citisens , they need to know that we have plenty of impossible to intimidate citizens , their plan will not work better for them than the same plan worked for Stalin.
-
Good post Plane.
-
fatman
again you miss the point
my point wasn't that I don't want to bomb Iran, I do, like yesterday, today, as soon as possible
but clearly you need to imply that I must "like war" or "enjoy war" if I support such a policy
thats like implying a father that punishes a son "enjoys inflicting pain".
nothing in any of the quotes of mine is incorrect or demonizing
by the way thank you for finding them
i am so proud of all those words
they will most certainly play out in the near future
and you are not denying you want to "cut and run" in Iraq are you?
i honestly think you, Lanya and others ignore a real threat
i believe you, Lanya, ect, underestimate a "cut & run" in Iraq
i am not sure exactly why, i tend to think it is naiveness or
avoidence of pain today, many put off a cavity and it turns into a root canal
but also with some it could be the wish "to end the US having the upper hand in the world".
Fatman would you do anything to prevent Iran from manufacturing and stockpiling nuclear weapons?
Or do you fall into the equatement category "we have them so why cant the Mullahs?"
(http://bjornlee.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/cheerleader.jpg)
-
Why? If an Iranian Bomb were to obliterate an American City President Hillary would do exactly as president Trueman would have done.
It isn't a terrible idea , it is the very idea that contained Communism while Communism built enough Atomic bombs to put two or three on every state capitol and major town in the US (about 3000). We used to call it MAD one of the most appropriate abbrieviations there ever was.
==========================================
I was not stating that the US should not retaliate if attacked. I think that Less Christians proposed is to bomb Iran before it does anything. Iran does not have the bomb, and does not have any way of reaching the US with any bomb delivery device, so this is like shooting some paraplegic dude down the street who occasionally says bad things about you and has indicated that he plans to buy a gun.
It would be a really dumb idea to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. We might need their oil, but we would certainly prefer that it not be radioactive oil.
-
Why? If an Iranian Bomb were to obliterate an American City President Hillary would do exactly as president Trueman would have done.
It isn't a terrible idea , it is the very idea that contained Communism while Communism built enough Atomic bombs to put two or three on every state capitol and major town in the US (about 3000). We used to call it MAD one of the most appropriate abbrieviations there ever was.
==========================================
I was not stating that the US should not retaliate if attacked. I think that Less Christians proposed is to bomb Iran before it does anything. Iran does not have the bomb, and does not have any way of reaching the US with any bomb delivery device, so this is like shooting some paraplegic dude down the street who occasionally says bad things about you and has indicated that he plans to buy a gun.
It would be a really dumb idea to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. We might need their oil, but we would certainly prefer that it not be radioactive oil.
There would be no problem with the oil picking up radiation , it is mostly deep underground where it could pick up no fallout. The troubble would be who would we pay for it ?
I do not like the idea of waiting for Iran to build a bomb and then waiting for them to use it on us and permitting no action against this idea untill it is so immanent that it is past.
This is like watching an enemy build a gallows , letting him rope your neck and tie your hands but not wanting to do anything about it because you arn't standing on the trapdoor yet.
What indeed must an enemy do to invoke our fury? Is there a number of us killed minimum ?
-
my point wasn't that I don't want to bomb Iran, I do, like yesterday, today, as soon as possible
but clearly you need to imply that I must "like war" or "enjoy war" if I support such a policy
So, in other words, ChristiansUnited4LessGvt is not going to engage in honest debate.
-
I do not like the idea of waiting for Iran to build a bomb and then waiting for them to use it on us and permitting no action against this idea untill it is so immanent that it is past.
This is like watching an enemy build a gallows , letting him rope your neck and tie your hands but not wanting to do anything about it because you arn't standing on the trapdoor yet.
===============================================
O, please.
Think about what you are saying. The USSR and the PRC both had real nuclear weapons, pointed at the US for dozens of years. There were 300,000,000 Soviets and three times as many Chinese, and it turns out that a preemptive strike in the 1940's or 1950's against them would have been a really BAD idea.
What is it about 77,000,000 Iranians that have no bomb and no way to deliver one that makes you such a quivering mass of nervous jelly?
The really goofy Muslims that want to convert everyone are Saudi Wahhabbi Sunnis, not Iranian Shiites. I don;t think the Iranians are evangelizing Shia anywhere.
Our friend LessChristians never participates in honest debate. He posts wacko articles and blathers about how great a war would be. Perhaps it would do him well if we were to station a dozen or so veterans with PTSD in his living room.
-
This is like watching an enemy build a gallows , letting him rope your neck and tie your hands but not wanting to do anything about it because you arn't standing on the trapdoor yet.
No, it isn't. It's more like arguing that your neighbor is going to purchase a firearm and because you don't like your neighbor, your neighbor should be attacked and punished and prevented from owning a firearm because of what he might do in the future. Your reasons for that might or might not be sound, but to expect everyone to believe what you suspect the neighbor might do in the future as a foregone conclusion of exactly what will happen is not reasonable. The desire to prevent the neighbor from buying a firearm is even more unreasonable if you have a number of firearms yourself that you insist might be used at any time against your neighbor to make him comply with your wishes.
-
I do not like the idea of waiting for Iran to build a bomb and then waiting for them to use it on us and permitting no action against this idea untill it is so immanent that it is past. This is like watching an enemy build a gallows , letting him rope your neck and tie your hands but not wanting to do anything about it because you arn't standing on the trapdoor yet.
Exactly Plane.
-
uh fatman you can forget the $9 gas
(http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-11-03images/NYSun_logo.gif)
Gas May Soon Cost a Sawbuck
Big New Shock at the Pump Forecast by Two Analysts
By DAN DORFMAN, Special to the Sun | April 28, 2008
Get ready for another economic shock of major proportions ? a virtual doubling of prices at the
gas pump to as much as $10 a gallon.
A customer pumps gas in Los Angeles, where self-serve regular gasoline exceeds 4 dollars a gallon.That?s the message from a couple of analytical energy industry trackers, both of whom, based on the surging oil prices, see considerably more pain at the pump than most drivers realize.
Gasoline nationally is in an accelerated upswing, having jumped to $3.58 a gallon from $3.50 in just the past week. In some parts of the country, including New York City and the West Coast, gas is already sporting a price tag above $4 a gallon. There was a pray-in at a Chevron station in San Francisco on Friday led by a minister asking God for cheaper gas, and an Arco gas station in San Mateo, Calif., has already raised its price to a sky-high $4.62.
In Manhattan, at a Mobil gas station at York Avenue and East 61st Street, premium gas is now $4.03 a gallon. Two days ago, it was $3.96. Why such a high price? ?Blame the people at STOPEC (he meant OPEC) and the oil companies,? an attendant there told me.
These increases are taking place before the all-important summer driving season, signaling even higher prices ahead.
That?s also the outlook of the Automobile Association of America. ?As long as the price of crude oil stays above $100 a barrel, drivers will be forced to pay more and more at the gas pump,? a AAA spokesman, Troy Green, said.
Oil recently hit an all-time high of nearly $120 a barrel, more than double its early 2007 price of about $50 a barrel. It closed Friday at $118.52.
The forecasts calling for a jump to between $7 and $10 a gallon are based on the view that the price of crude is on its way to $200 in two to three years.
Translating this price into dollars and cents at the gas pump, one of our forecasters, the chairman of Houston-based Dune Energy, Alan Gaines, sees gas rising to $7?$8 a gallon. The other, a commodities tracker at Weiss Research in Jupiter, Fla., Sean Brodrick, projects a range of $8 to $10 a gallon.
While $7?$10 a gallon would be ground-breaking in America, these prices would not be trendsetting internationally. For example, European drivers are already shelling out $9 a gallon (which includes a $2-a-gallon tax).
Canadians are also being hit with rising gas prices. They are paying the American-dollar equivalent of $4.92 a gallon, and they?re being told to brace themselves for prices above $5.65 a gallon this summer.
Early last year, with a barrel of oil trading in the low $50s and gasoline nationally selling in a range of $2.30 to $2.50 a gallon, Mr. Gaines ? in an impressive display of crystal ball gazing ? accurately predicted oil was $100-bound and that gasoline would follow suit by reaching $4 a gallon.
His latest prediction of $200 oil is open to question, since it would undoubtedly create considerable global economic distress. Further, just about every energy expert I talk to cautions me to expect a sizable pullback in oil prices, maybe to between $50 and $70 a barrel, especially if there?s a global economic slowdown.
While Mr. Gaines thinks there could be a temporary decline in the oil price, he?s convinced an overall uptrend is unstoppable. In fact, he thinks his $200 forecast could be conservative, and that perhaps $250 could be reached. His reasoning: a combination of shrinking supply and increasing demand, especially from China, India, and America.
Mr. Brodrick?s $200 oil forecast is largely predicated on a combination of pretty flat supply and rip-roaring demand. Other key catalysts include surging demand in China and India, where auto sales are booming, and major supply disruptions in Nigeria and also in Mexico, our second-largest source of oil imports, where oil production has fallen off a cliff.
More factors include the ever-present danger of additional supply disruptions from volatile countries in the Middle East that are not our allies, and the unwillingness of SUV-loving Americans to trim their unquenchable thirst for foreign oil. Likewise, for the first time, emerging markets this year will use more oil than America.
To Mr. Brodrick, it all adds up to an ongoing energy bull market. His favorite plays are the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund ; United States Natural Gas Fund LP; Apache Corp.; Occidental Petroleum; Anadarko Petroleum, and Schlumberger.
http://www.nysun.com/news/business/gas-price-may-soon-cost-sawbuck (http://www.nysun.com/news/business/gas-price-may-soon-cost-sawbuck)
-
Think about what you are saying. The USSR and the PRC both had real nuclear weapons, pointed at the US for dozens of years. There were 300,000,000 Soviets and three times as many Chinese, and it turns out that a preemptive strike in the 1940's or 1950's against them would have been a really BAD idea.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Why?
Wouldn't this have had the potential of saveing us decades of Cold war , and several hot wars?
We didn't know at the time how poorly the USSR was set up to fight , their impressive showing against the Natzi invaders probly impressed us too much .
A few Atomic Bombs might have been very effective in the early Fiftys before they had an effective delivery , we just didn't know it.
-
wow
actually i dont think i agree with that plane
the soviets were for the most part rational people
the odds of them launching nukes or giving nukes to someone to hit us was not high
i dont really think we should have pre-emptively struck the USSR with nukes
but to me the radical Islamic world is very, very, very different type of threat than the Soviets were
-
but to me the radical Islamic world is very, very, very different type of threat than the Soviets were
============================
They are much, much MUCH weaker, and less competent, and who the Hell is the 'radical Islamic World"? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Do you even know? You should know that Iran and the radical Muslims disagree on everything except Israel.
It is always best to avoid war. There has never been a good war or a bad peace.
-
"They are much, much MUCH weaker, and less competent"
Yes and no.
Obviously as a traditional military yes Iran/Islamics are much weaker.
But with the Soviets if they attacked they knew we would target their cities
However with radical Islam they want the ability to set off nuclear devices/germ warfare/ect in our cities
and we wouldn't know who and where to strike back at
that is a very scary thing
and a very powerful weapon and not at all "MUCH weaker"
they want to destroy the United States
It's their well stated and often stated goal
"Death To America" isn't really ambiguous
"Wiping Israel off the map" isn't really ambiguous
They hate the United States, they hate the Western World, they hate democracy, they hate freedom, they hate infidels
they hated infidels before George Bush and they will hate infidels after George Bush, you'll see, I assure you
so if within a decade 15 dirty nukes are set off in American cities
cities left uninhabitable, trillions in costs
who do we strike back at?
i think a stealth enemy can be more scary
and XO i do worry about these issues whether you, Fatman, and others don't
"It is always best to avoid war. There has never been a good war or a bad peace"
Agreed XO, like Sherman said on June 19, 1879, "War is hell" and he added "There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell."
Sherman also uttered words that with a few minor changes represent almost my exact feelings towards the IslamoNazis:
"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war.[...] I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for anything. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter."
-
wow
actually i dont think i agree with that plane
the soviets were for the most part rational people
the odds of them launching nukes or giving nukes to someone to hit us was not high
i dont really think we should have pre-emptively struck the USSR with nukes
but to me the radical Islamic world is very, very, very different type of threat than the Soviets were
I could be wrong I suppose , but untill 1968 or so the Sovies didn't have a realistic means of delivering more than a few bombs, we fell for a lot of bluff most of that time and allowed half of Europe to be swallowed into mysery.
-
This is like watching an enemy build a gallows , letting him rope your neck and tie your hands but not wanting to do anything about it because you arn't standing on the trapdoor yet.
No, it isn't. It's more like arguing that your neighbor is going to purchase a firearm and because you don't like your neighbor, your neighbor should be attacked and punished and prevented from owning a firearm because of what he might do in the future. Your reasons for that might or might not be sound, but to expect everyone to believe what you suspect the neighbor might do in the future as a foregone conclusion of exactly what will happen is not reasonable. The desire to prevent the neighbor from buying a firearm is even more unreasonable if you have a number of firearms yourself that you insist might be used at any time against your neighbor to make him comply with your wishes.
You have a Neighbor that gathers his family and freinds for twenty minutes every day to chant death to you?
The firearm vs gallows diffrence in metaphore , which is closer to an a-bomb snuck into the back yard?
-
and allowed half of Europe to be swallowed into mysery.
==========================================
The Soviets, who bore the majority of suffering in the war against the Nazis, saved countless lives by invading the Eastern European nations rather than forcing the Allies to do this. The US did not "allow half of Europe to be swallowed in misery". What happened was the US took as much of Europe as it could handle under the Marshall Plan, and the Western nations were far more advanced in education and development, richer in resources, and less damaged by the war than the Eastern ones. The US did not have the resources to drive the Soviets out or even to develop the Eastern nations if the Soviets had voluntarily withdrawn, wich they surely would not have done. Churchill was as intent on the destruction of Communism as Hitler. The British people, of course were not, and threw him out as soon as the war was over and he became annoying to the average working stiff.
-
You have a Neighbor that gathers his family and freinds for twenty minutes every day to chant death to you?
No, but I might if constantly meddled in my neighbor's affairs and bombed his backyard.
The firearm vs gallows diffrence in metaphore , which is closer to an a-bomb snuck into the back yard?
Given that we already have plenty of nuclear bombs with which we could probably make the Middle East unlivable many times over, I'm gonna have to go with the firearm metaphor.
-
allowed half of Europe to be swallowed into mysery.
Are you kidding? We didn't allow it. We helped make it happen.
-
fatman
again you miss the point
my point wasn't that I don't want to bomb Iran, I do, like yesterday, today, as soon as possible
but clearly you need to imply that I must "like war" or "enjoy war" if I support such a policy
thats like implying a father that punishes a son "enjoys inflicting pain".
nothing in any of the quotes of mine is incorrect or demonizing
by the way thank you for finding them
i am so proud of all those words
they will most certainly play out in the near future
and you are not denying you want to "cut and run" in Iraq are you?
i honestly think you, Lanya and others ignore a real threat
i believe you, Lanya, ect, underestimate a "cut & run" in Iraq
i am not sure exactly why, i tend to think it is naiveness or
avoidence of pain today, many put off a cavity and it turns into a root canal
but also with some it could be the wish "to end the US having the upper hand in the world".
Fatman would you do anything to prevent Iran from manufacturing and stockpiling nuclear weapons?
Or do you fall into the equatement category "we have them so why cant the Mullahs?"
(http://bjornlee.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/cheerleader.jpg)
I'm not going to argue this with you. You're unwilling to apply a scintilla of intelligence or thought to your posts, you want to argue that I implied something I didn't. How many times have we gone down this road? It is not my fault that you are unable to read for context. I have neither the time nor the inclination to indulge your silly and peevish behavior, so by all means feel free to not respond to my posts and ignore them like you do to UP.
And also, the cheerleader pictures are a wee bit immature. Grow up, you're not 10, at least I don't think you are.
-
And also, the cheerleader pictures are a wee bit immature.
Hey now, I thought the photo was the most, er, attractive part of his post. (Yes, I know what he meant, but still...)
-
and allowed half of Europe to be swallowed into mysery.
==========================================
The Soviets, who bore the majority of suffering in the war against the Nazis, saved countless lives by invading the Eastern European nations rather than forcing the Allies to do this. The US did not "allow half of Europe to be swallowed in misery". What happened was the US took as much of Europe as it could handle under the Marshall Plan, and the Western nations were far more advanced in education and development, richer in resources, and less damaged by the war than the Eastern ones. The US did not have the resources to drive the Soviets out or even to develop the Eastern nations if the Soviets had voluntarily withdrawn, wich they surely would not have done. Churchill was as intent on the destruction of Communism as Hitler. The British people, of course were not, and threw him out as soon as the war was over and he became annoying to the average working stiff.
Do you really think Chechoslovacia was more miserable with NATZI occupation than it was with Soviet domination? They were saved from Hitlerites the way that a tiger might save a deer ,from a wolf .
-
Hey now, I thought the photo was the most, er, attractive part of his post. (Yes, I know what he meant, but still...)
In all fairness, I can understand what you meant, but being a gay man, it just doesn't do much for me. ;D
-
I think that this is not a perfect world. The US could not take Czechoslovakia away from the USSR without incurring the deaths of many Americans, being as Slovakia borders on the USSR itself. I think the US did all it could with the Marshall Plan to help a large part of Europe recover from the war. There was not a choice of rescuing the Czechs or not.
-
Analysis:
CIA chief confirms Syrian reactor could produce fuel for "1-2 weapons" not bombs
April 29, 2008, 12:34 PM (GMT+02:00)
DEBKAfile's military sources note that the CIA director Michael Hayden said: "In the course of a year
after they got full up they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons." Speaking
to reporters after a speech at Georgetown University, Hayden did not say "bombs" - but "weapons."
This would appear to confirm the conclusion of US and Israel that Syria was on the way
to producing radioactive "dirty bombs" not a nuclear bomb - at the facility which
Israel destroyed last September.
(OH NOT TO WORRY LETS NOT BOMB ANYONE & ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THEM ::) )
Its product, radiological dispersal devices (RDD) - which cause more disruption than destruction -
would have been made available to terrorist groups for use against Israel, used
by Syria itself or if Iran so decided, against American or other targets.
Israeli air force commander Maj. Gen. Eliezer Shkedy warned in a CBS interview Sunday,
April 27, that Iran?s schemes are a danger not only to Israel, but to the world.
Last week, US officials disclosed that the covert nuclear reactor Syria had been building
with North Korean assistance was modeled on the shuttered North Korean reactor at
Yongbyon, which produced a small amount of plutonium. This disclosure turned the heat
not only on Damascus but also on Pyongyang to make good on its denuclearization pledge
and come clean on its nuclear ties with Syria. Washington wants North Korea on record
as promising to refrain from similar acts of proliferation in the future.
Monday also, the US opened a new front against Iran and Syria when its UN ambassador
Zalmay Khalilzad accused them at the Security Council of destabilizing Iraq. He urged them
to stop the flow of weapons and foreign fighters to their embattled neighbor. The Iranian
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps known as the al Qods Brigade continues to arm, train and
fund illegal armed groups in Iraq, the US ambassador charged. "This lethal aid poses a
significant threat to Iraqi and multinational forces and the stability and sovereignty of Iraq."
Khalilzad pointed out that Syria is the only entry point for ?90 percent of all known foreign
terrorists in Iraq, adding "we know that al Qaeda terrorist facilitators continue to operate
inside Syria."
DEBKAfile's sources at UN headquarters stress the exceptional severity of the US ambassador's
charges against Syria, with the potential of laying the ground for US military or other reprisal.
http://debka.com/index.php (http://debka.com/index.php)
-
Israel thinks it is somehow useful to the world. DEBKA is a propaganda organization.
Israel seems to be a bit of a danger to the world, actually. I don't think that 9-11 would have ever happened had not Israel been grabbing territory from the Palestinians and treating them like sh*t for the past 50 years.
Sirhan Sirhan would be an accountant and would never have thought about shooting RFK. Lebanon would have avoided two terrible civil wars.
-
"DEBKA is a propaganda organization"
So now it's the source?
Debka bad, US Bad, Terror supporting Syria making dirty nukes deserves no mention.
It isn't about terror supporting Syria making nukes, it's about Debka?
Are you denying the US CIA Chief made the statements about Syria and nukes?
Is the Associated Press a propaganda organization too?
(http://www.ap.org/media/images/logo.gif)
Hayden: Syrian site could have produced fuel for 2 weapons
By PAMELA HESS ? 11 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) ? CIA Director Michael Hayden said Monday that the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in September would have produced enough plutonium for one or two bombs within a year of becoming operational.
U.S. intelligence and administration officials publicly disclosed last week their assessment that Syria was building a covert nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance. They said it was modeled on the shuttered North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, which produced a small amount of plutonium. The Syrian site, they said, was within weeks or months of being operational.
"In the course of a year after they got full up they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons," Hayden told reporters after a speech at Georgetown University.
Almost all reactors produce plutonium, even those dedicated to peaceful purposes, according to David Albright, president of the nonprofit Institute for Science and International Security. Albright analyzed commercial satellite imagery of the bombed facility last fall and surmised then it was a nuclear reactor.
Neither the United States nor Israel told the International Atomic Energy Agency about the Syrian site until last week, about a year after they obtained what they considered to be decisive intelligence: dozens of photographs from a handheld camera that showed both the interior and exterior of the mysterious compound in Syria's eastern desert.
From the CIA's perspective, that intelligence was not the United States' to share with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Hayden said.
"We've made it clear we did not have complete control over the totality of the information because obviously it was the result of a team effort," he said. "One has to respect the origin of the information in terms of how it is used."
The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency chastised the United States on Friday for withholding information on the alleged Syrian reactor. One of the IAEA's missions is to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, and it depends on member states for information.
A senior administration official told reporters last week that the United States kept the information secret after the Israeli strike because it feared revealing it might provoke Syria to strike back at Israel.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwu1N6NdbI7MThXmiNHyFH-ZMHygD90B8VU00 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwu1N6NdbI7MThXmiNHyFH-ZMHygD90B8VU00)
-
Did the US have to start a war to deal with Syria's alleged reactor?
And yet, there you are, drooling to start a war.
-
"Did the US have to start a war to deal with Syria's alleged reactor?"
Uh? You lost me.
Israel bombed the Syrian nuke factory, not the US
"And yet, there you are, drooling to start a war"
I am "drooling" to see the United States defeat the enemy (Iran)
with air power which it has the full capability to do.
-
Hey now, I thought the photo was the most, er, attractive part of his post. (Yes, I know what he meant, but still...)
In all fairness, I can understand what you meant, but being a gay man, it just doesn't do much for me. ;D
(http://www.depresident.com/gallery/overflow/George_Bush_as_Cheerleader.jpg)
http://www.depresident.com/gallery/viewphoto.asp?file=overflow.asp&dir=/gallery/overflow/&viewphoto=George_Bush_as_Cheerleader.jpg&page=1
-
Vintage, but not bad Plane! Thanks
-
"Did the US have to start a war to deal with Syria's alleged reactor?"
Uh? You lost me.
Israel bombed the Syrian nuke factory, not the US
"And yet, there you are, drooling to start a war"
I am "drooling" to see the United States defeat the enemy (Iran)
with air power which it has the full capability to do.
Short-term thinking is what made Afghanistan a problem. Short-term thinking is not a solution in Iran today.
Destroying Iran's nuclear site with bombs will only force them to separate it and bury it deeper into their mountains the second time around (that's what Pakistan did). It will absolutely not prevent them from building anything, only delay it in the short-term. What it will do is turn the Iranian people towards supporting both the construction of nuclear arms as a deterrent AND cause more of the people to support the right-wing clerics and politicians who have an erosion of support from the people currently.
Once you start dropping bombs on their soil, killing their people, destroying their buildings, then you'll see them rally around the clerics and politicians who have been telling them this whole time that the United States and western Europeans are their enemies. They'll point to the damage, to the child or woman who has been blown to hell by our bombs and say, "look, I tried to tell you all, but none of you would listen!!" That is exactly how a militant regime survives and even thrives.
Shit. Buildings can be rebuilt. The centrifuge technology they're using is from the 1960's. It will be rebuilt. Next time, it will be built in much more hidden and deeper locations. What cannot be rebuilt is our relationship with the Iranian people once you start letting those bombs fly with enthusiasm (or even without) like Dr. Strangelove. Do that, and you've guaranteed more decades of war down the road.
-
I agree, JS, attacking Iran would be counterproductive. And it is very unlikely to happen, for which we should all be grateful.
-
destroying an enemy is the answer
they dont rebuild anything unless told if they are destroyed
we have the capability of destroying Iran from the air
we can destroy their infrastructure from the air
as soon as they rebuild, if needed we would redestroy if they were "uncooperative"
we can "stair step" it
and give them the opportunity to say "I give"
but because "they'll get mad"
is not enough reason to not destroy the enemy
we set the rules not them
the rules aren't
if you dont bomb us we build nukes, if you bomb us we get really angry and rebuild
no we dont accept those "JS rules" and will destroy you if you continue to be uncooperative and spread terror
luckily General Sherman was not ruled by JS logic
"The South will get really mad if we burn and destroy Atlanta and destroy them"
baloney
the enemies we completely destroyed faired better than the ones we wussed out before finishing
The Confederacy, Japan & Germany were destroyed
Today they are wealthy models of modern life
-
(http://www.exploreli.com/images/nynews/logo-windoids.gif)
Gates says 2nd carrier in Gulf is "reminder" to Iran
By LOLITA C. BALDOR | Associated Press Writer
8:07 PM EDT, April 29, 2008
MEXICO CITY - Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the latest move to add a second U.S. aircraft carrier
in the Persian Gulf could serve as a "reminder" to Iran. But he says it's not an escalation of force.
Gates is insisting that the U.S. is not laying the groundwork for a strike against Tehran.
But he says Iran is giving the Taliban in Afghanistan a continuing flow of support.
Gates spoke to reporters in Mexico City after meeting with Mexican leaders. His comments come as U.S. officials
continue to complain that Iran is increasing its efforts to supply weapons and training to militants in Iraq.
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-gates-iran,0,4217641.story (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-gates-iran,0,4217641.story)
-
I agree, JS, attacking Iran would be counterproductive. And it is very unlikely to happen, for which we should all be grateful.
Didn't something simular happen in Syria recently?
The response was a rapid Syrian move to cover up the evidence that anything had happened at all.
The Iranian people need to be in controll of the Iranian government , but till they are what we do to the government we can truely claim is not done to the people.
-
>>Israel thinks it is somehow useful to the world.<<
Certainly much more useful than the Muslim countries surrounding it. What exactly does Jordon produce? Syria? I mean other than suicide bombers and rocks? Israel is far more productive and and technologically advanced than it's Muslim neighbors and is particularly useful when it's killing terrorists by the truck load.
-
Israel is far more productive and and technologically advanced than it's Muslim neighbors and is particularly useful when it's killing terrorists by the truck load.
===========================================================
How about when it is killing innocent civilians by the even bigger truckload? They TRY ot to murder the little ones, but Jeez, it just can't be helped.
Not even the most annoying rightwing government in Europe kills children, for any reason, or troops off to go berserk on off on murderous raids.
Remember, we have Condi Rice, the diplomatic genius, to blame for Hamas winning control of Gaza. The same incompetent "National Security Adviser" who brought us from no foreign terrorism incidents at all to the present moment, where we get our shampoo and nail clippers confiscated.
The thing is that Israel always claims it has a special pass to grab land and build colonies (ie settlements) , chop down centuries old olive groves belonging to Arabs, and such. God gave it these rights. It deserves these rights because it it so modern.
Jordan and Syria claim no such extra privileges. Neither does any other country, because they would be laughed off the stage of any act in town. The last country to claim crap like this, superiority by divine racial mandate, was Botha's South Africa, the one that had the magical ingredient, apartheid. Just like Israel. Zionism is the right for Jews to live in Israel, grab Palestinian land, and treat every non-Jew pretty much the way that they were treated in Europe--poorly, but with God's special blessing.
-
destroying an enemy is the answer
they dont rebuild anything unless told if they are destroyed
we have the capability of destroying Iran from the air
we can destroy their infrastructure from the air
as soon as they rebuild, if needed we would redestroy if they were "uncooperative"
we can "stair step" it
and give them the opportunity to say "I give"
but because "they'll get mad"
is not enough reason to not destroy the enemy
we set the rules not them
the rules aren't
if you dont bomb us we build nukes, if you bomb us we get really angry and rebuild
no we dont accept those "JS rules" and will destroy you if you continue to be uncooperative and spread terror
luckily General Sherman was not ruled by JS logic
"The South will get really mad if we burn and destroy Atlanta and destroy them"
baloney
the enemies we completely destroyed faired better than the ones we wussed out before finishing
The Confederacy, Japan & Germany were destroyed
Today they are wealthy models of modern life
1. Learn history:
General Sherman would also have a quote for you. He wasn't very fond of armchair warriors.
"We" did not completely destroy Germany or Japan. In fact, we placed former Nazis into key positions due to our fear of the Soviets, who followed Sherman's precept far more than the United States. In general, Germans weren't afraid of the United States - it was the Red Army that scared them.
Atlanta was not destroyed. That is an historical myth. About 30% of it was burned, it was primarily the industry and storehouses and that cut to the heart of Southern productivity.
2. It is not "JS rules" it is reality. We don't live in a childish world of "destroying Iran through the air" and "we set the rules, not them." The only way that we set the rules is for us to occupy their country. Iran knows for a fact that we cannot possibly accomplish that. Iraq is a training exercise compared to Iran. The terrain is far more difficult and the military more experienced in guerilla warfare (they taught the Hezbollah fighters).
3. We aren't a powerful Empire, no matter how much you and others think we can lay down law and dictate terms to any nation we damn well please. The truth is that we are not that strong. If you want an Empire then I suggest you start rallying for one. Otherwise you need to join the real world where diplomacy takes place and the ramifications of war are profound. You're still thinking short-term, and again that is the reason we're in the current crap we're in. If we give the Iranian people a chance they will retake their government from the hardliners. If you bomb them, the militants will become all the more popular.
Hopefully our leaders are smarter than you.
-
Hopefully our leaders are smarter than you.
=================================
Before Juniorbush, we could count on our leaders being smarter than guys like LessChristians. He claims to be for less government, but war always makes governments bigger: more military, more expenses, more lobbyists craving weapons money, more veterans to patch up, bury and keep relatively happy.
But Juniorbush proven that the president is not necessarily as smart as your average Weimariner.
-
1. Learn history:
Yeah sure.
General Sherman would also have a quote for you. He wasn't very fond of armchair warriors.
JS in a political policy disscussion it is really such a distraction
and waste of time to make the discusssion of public policy merits a personal one.
We are discusssing public policy not our personal lives. It would be like if
we were discusssing free health care for the poor and the person against it
kept saying to Nancy Pelosi "well Ms. Pelosi I dont think we should enact
this policy because you personally have not spent time administering health
care to the needy". Whether Pelosi has personally administered healthcare
has no real relevance as to whether it is good policy any more than discussing
military foriegn policy as being of greater or lesser value because I personally
am flying the B1 bomber.
"We" did not completely destroy Germany or Japan.
Come on JS quit playing worthless semantic games.
I thought we had an understanding about that?
My point is my point and whether we or we with help of allies "destroyed"
or "completely destroyed" Germany/Japan doesn't change the point.
In fact, we placed former Nazis into key positions due to our fear of the Soviets, who followed Sherman's precept far more than the United States. In general, Germans weren't afraid of the United States - it was the Red Army that scared them. Atlanta was not destroyed. That is an historical myth. About 30% of it was burned, it was primarily the industry and storehouses and that cut to the heart of Southern productivity.
More dribble non-sense distraction crap talk that has nothing to do with my point.
Such a waste of time.
Orally it would be ok, because you could dismiss it so easily,
but so time consuming to type.
Can we not accept even the most basic obvious so to move the discussion
as long as something does not alter the underlying major point?
The North "destroyed" the Confederacy.
Of course "destroyed" is a relative term.
When I wrecked my car, I told someone it was "destroyed".
Of course they could have pulled a "JS" and said "but was it completely destroyed?"
"You cant say the car is "destroyed" if the cigarette lighter and radio still works!" ::)
Such a waste of time defining the obvious.
When we destroy Iran from air I would not object to placing behaving Iranians in key positions.
I dont care if the Germans "feared us" or the Iranians "fear us".
This isn't about ego or fear.
It's about forcing behavior change, just like it was with the Confederacy, Japan, and Germany.
We have the power to do that and I think we should.
The bottom line to this entire discussion between you and I is
You think the cost is too high, I think the cost of waiting is higher.
You seem to want to imply I am dumb or someone that is not serious,
armchair warrior, takes war lightly, ect. It's an insult, but not unexpected.
You and your ilk have trouble accepting that someone honestly comes to
a different conclusion after looking at a situation. It can't be an intelligent
conclusion, it must be "armchair" "dont know history" or "I hope they are
smarter than you (implying dumbness). Look at my bottomline statement
above, I just accept you have a different conclusion, but I dont
question your sincerity, IQ, maturity, or manhood. JS you are actually
better than the tactics you use.
2. It is not "JS rules" it is reality.
No it is not reality at all.
You like to set up the dynamic where the "US loses" either way.
We either must accept Iran Nukes/Iran Meddling or catch hell for attacking them.
The US doesn't have to play by those rules. Why? Because we dont have to. Thats reality.
I do not accept those rules for our country and would play by my different rules.
We don't live in a childish world of "destroying Iran through the air" and "we set the rules,
not them." The only way that we set the rules is for us to occupy their country.
100% wrong.
We dont want or need to occupy Iran.
Any more than we wanted or need to occupy Yugoslavia.
We just want changed bahavior.
Iran knows for a fact that we cannot possibly accomplish that.
I know for a fact we can. See below. It's not complicated.
I know I know you'll have no answer to the military strategy and will cling to the
"what would the world think"?
Thats funny because you are among the bunch that already says the world doesnt like us,
but I guess you'll be so desperate you'll just say "well they wont like us more". Cry me a river!
Rough outline:
Give diplomacy one last chance.
Inform Iran the rules have changed and there will be no more tolerance for their behavior and meddling.
Zero tolerance for arming Iraqi terrorist/militias that kill American troops
Zero tolerance for building nukes.
Zero tolerance for sending arms/support/training to Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas/and others
Give them a deadline. 3 months, 6 months, whatever.
To start tell Iran that "X behavior must stop"
It doesnt even have to be everything at first
Just give them one item like "no more support for Hezbollah"
if they do not change the behaviour after repeated warnings and the deadline
then finally and reluctantly an air bombing and cruise missle campaign would target an Iranian military base.
Iran at any point would have the power to "call off the dogs" and
stop the bombing with an agreement to drastically change the behaviour.
The behaviour change wouldn't be the end of the world.
It wouldnt be like we would take them over.
They would become a trade partner and accepted nation of good will.
We dont want them or anything they have.
We want behaviour change.
After the first bombing of a military base
Then start over, same process.
Give them a deadline and opportunity to change.
If they do not, target the next Iranian military base.
Then give diplomacy a chance again.
Start process again.
Give deadline, and opportunity to change.
If Iran does not respond bomb the next Iranian military facility.
Over the course of time if they do not respond to the measured requests
slowly all of their military bases, airfields, naval ships, military facilities would
be destroyed from the air.
With a military in chaos and all military infrastructure being destroyed the
Iranians would have much less time and money to meddle in foriegn affairs
and be consumed internally with a government regime trying to survive while
the military that protects the regime's survival is being destroyed from the air.
This type carrot and stick air campaign could go on as long as needed.
After destroying all military bases and infrastructure, you could move on to
ships, ports, nuclear facilities, weapons factories, and see if the regime
is ready to behave. If not just continue on to other high value targets.
If they try to rebuild the destroyed facilities just send in more stealth bombers
and do it all over again. They will soon realize their situation is hopeless.
They cant place an effective entire military underground.
They will be in survival mode not offensive mode any more.
Iraq is a training exercise compared to Iran.
Not any where near the same goals or tactics.
As different as A-Z.
See above.
The terrain is far more difficult and the military more experienced in guerilla warfare (they taught the Hezbollah fighters).
See above.
Terrain means basically nothing in an air destruction war.
Guerilla warfare would have ZERO VALUE.
ZERO!
Again you are trying to set the rules of a game that favors the enemy.
I do not and would not accept those rules.
3. We aren't a powerful Empire, no matter how much you and others think we can lay down law and dictate terms to any nation we damn well please. The truth is that we are not that strong.
I agree we and no one else ever is powerful enough to occupy every country.
But we dont need or want to do that.
We dont want to run Iran, we dont run Germany, we dont run Japan
we want changed behaviour.
We are strong enough to get the behviour changed.
See above.
There is no reason we can not carry out the destruction from the air policy to change behaviour.
If you want an Empire then I suggest you start rallying for one.
I dont want an empire, I dont want anything Iran has.
Like that dump has anything we want? Oil. We dont need their oil.
Those morons can hardly even refine their own oil.
They need help building almost everything.
"Oh can you build us a nuclear facility, we're too dumb to do it ourselves"
All I want is for Iran to behave.
And believe me they would if I were in charge.
Very very quickly they would behave.
Otherwise you need to join the real world where diplomacy takes place and the ramifications of war are profound.
Oh quit your condescending preaching pretending I dont realize the ramifications of war, as if you do and I dont. I have already in this very post quoted Sherman's feeling about War being "HELL". Do you understand
"HELL"? Those are my feelings exactly. War is HELL. War is horrible. So is getting a leg amputated, but sometimes
as a last resort it is necessary.
You're still thinking short-term,
No I am thinking very long term.
and again that is the reason we're in the current crap we're in.
No, pandering is the reason we are in the current crap.
We brought Milosevic to his knees from the air and need to the same to Syria and Iran.
It's going to happen.
If we give the Iranian people a chance they will retake their government from the hardliners.
JS I wish that would happen.
It's really too bad the students in Iran can't overcome the MullahNazis.
maybe we coulda waited out Hitler being overthrowwn too. NOT
We cant keep hoping while they nuclear arm and will supply the Islamist too.
Sure it would be preferable if the IslamoNazis were overthrown.
But at some point it must be dealt with and not just keep "hoping it will go away".
If you bomb them, the militants will become all the more popular.
General Sherman if you burn Atlanta it's gonna make them even madder!
Hopefully our leaders are smarter than you.
More personal shots?
Yeah letting the the Iranians get nukes is real smart.
You wouldnt have bombed the Syrian nuke factory.
Is that smart?
Yeah talk talk talk talk
Oh please Syria dont build nukes.
Oh please Syria/Iran dont pass nukes to Hezbollah and Hamas.
Oh boo whoo please, we can destroy you but wont, so we beg
::)
-
>>How about when it is killing innocent civilians by the even bigger truckload?<<
Get a bigger truck?
-
(http://www.news.com/i/bto/20071128/msnLogo_border.gif)
Hamas serving as Iran's "proxy warriors," Rice says
Agence France-Presse - 4/30/2008 4:55 AM GMT
(http://stbjp.msn.com/i/AD/7013A856E8CAE3DD8A94ECB586A.jpg)
Palestinian Hamas militants are serving as the "proxy warriors" for an Iran bent on destroying Israel and destabilizing the Middle East, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said here.
In a speech Tuesday to the American Jewish Committee in Washington that underscored growing US concerns about Tehran, Rice mentioned Iran as not just a threat in the Palestinian territories, but also in Lebanon, Iraq and even in Afghanistan.
Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said after talks with Rice on Monday that an Iran-led radical front in the Middle East is becoming more powerful and weaknesses in it need to be found.
Rice vowed to pursue US efforts to isolate Hamas which she said refused to renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist and respect all previous Palestinian agreements with Israel.
"But perhaps of deepest concern, the leaders of Hamas are increasingly serving as the proxy warriors of an Iranian regime that is destabilizing the region, seeking a nuclear capability and proclaiming its desire to destroy Israel," Rice told the group's annual meeting.
She did not elaborate.
Iran is one of the most vocal backers of the Islamic Resistance Movement and pledged millions of dollars in 2006 to help a Hamas government through a funding drought caused by Western aid cuts.
But Tehran has always insisted its support for Palestinian militant groups is moral in nature and does not extend to arming or training fighters.
Hamas seized power in the Gaza Strip in June last year after ousting forces loyal to Palestinian Authority president Mahmud Abbas's Fatah faction, which remains in power in the West Bank.
Fatah and Hamas had served in a national unity government after Hamas won elections in 2006.
The United States backs the Palestinian Authority in new peace negotiations with Israel that were launched last November, and denounces Hamas as a terrorist organization.
Rice called for international support for the Palestinian Authority, which she said had "the will to fight terrorism" and "the desire to govern effectively" but did not yet have the means.
She echoed remarks by President George W. Bush who said Tuesday he was still hopeful of a Middle East peace deal before he left office in January but warned that Hamas could "undermine" the effort.
Rice also vowed that Washington would continue to tighten controls on Iran's alleged misuse of the international financial system for terrorism and weapons proliferation.
The US Treasury last October slapped sanctions on Iran's elite Quds Force, accused by the US of being a supporter of terrorism, as well as the country's Revolutionary Guards, said to be a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.
"We made designations for instance of the Quds Force, we made designations of the Revolutionary Guard," Rice recalled. "You can believe that we're going to continue to make designations."
In her speech, Rice spoke of a new "belt of extremism" that ranges from Hamas, to the Lebanese Shiite Muslim movement Hezbollah in Lebanon to radicals in Iraq and "radicals even increasingly in places like Afghanistan."
It is "supported overwhelmingly by Iran and to a certain extent Syria, but particularly Iran, gives this conflict a regional dimension it has not had before," Rice said.
Critics say the US-led invasion of Iraq that overthrew Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab, has emboldened non-Arab Iran and its Shiite Muslim allies throughout the region.
http://news.my.msn.com/topstories/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1365599 (http://news.my.msn.com/topstories/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1365599)
-
JS in a political policy disscussion it is really such a distraction
and waste of time to make the discusssion of public policy merits a personal one.
We are discusssing public policy not our personal lives. It would be like if
we were discusssing free health care for the poor and the person against it
kept saying to Nancy Pelosi "well Ms. Pelosi I dont think we should enact
this policy because you personally have not spent time administering health
care to the needy". Whether Pelosi has personally administered healthcare
has no real relevance as to whether it is good policy any more than discussing
military foriegn policy as being of greater or lesser value because I personally
am flying the B1 bomber.
Blah, blah, blah. You brough General Sherman into this conversation my friend, not me. I'm just telling you what he'd think of someone like you pandering for war. He made some of his harshest remarks for those who did exactly that. Don't jump on me and get defensive if you dislike it. I am just telling you what Sherman thought of those who talked up warfare and you'd be a prime example as with the posts I've read from you on this board.
Come on JS quit playing worthless semantic games.
I thought we had an understanding about that?
My point is my point and whether we or we with help of allies "destroyed"
or "completely destroyed" Germany/Japan doesn't change the point.
It goes far beyond semantics to history itself. That very thing you sarcastically poked fun at above. You are comparing a war with Iran to World War II with Germany and Japan. Yet, in reality and in your own words it would be nothing like World War II in either theater.
More dribble non-sense distraction crap talk that has nothing to do with my point.
Such a waste of time.
Orally it would be ok, because you could dismiss it so easily,
but so time consuming to type.
Can we not accept even the most basic obvious so to move the discussion
as long as something does not alter the underlying major point?
The North "destroyed" the Confederacy.
Of course "destroyed" is a relative term.
When I wrecked my car, I told someone it was "destroyed".
Of course they could have pulled a "JS" and said "but was it completely destroyed?"
"You cant say the car is "destroyed" if the cigarette lighter and radio still works!" ::)
Such a waste of time defining the obvious.
When we destroy Iran from air I would not object to placing behaving Iranians in key positions.
I dont care if the Germans "feared us" or the Iranians "fear us".
This isn't about ego or fear.
It's about forcing behavior change, just like it was with the Confederacy, Japan, and Germany.
We have the power to do that and I think we should.
The bottom line to this entire discussion between you and I is
You think the cost is too high, I think the cost of waiting is higher.
You seem to want to imply I am dumb or someone that is not serious,
armchair warrior, takes war lightly, ect. It's an insult, but not unexpected.
You and your ilk have trouble accepting that someone honestly comes to
a different conclusion after looking at a situation. It can't be an intelligent
conclusion, it must be "armchair" "dont know history" or "I hope they are
smarter than you (implying dumbness). Look at my bottomline statement
above, I just accept you have a different conclusion, but I dont
question your sincerity, IQ, maturity, or manhood. JS you are actually
better than the tactics you use.
On the contrary, you make several insults throughout this and your previous post.
No it is not reality at all.
You like to set up the dynamic where the "US loses" either way.
We either must accept Iran Nukes/Iran Meddling or catch hell for attacking them.
The US doesn't have to play by those rules. Why? Because we dont have to. Thats reality.
I do not accept those rules for our country and would play by my different rules.
We don't live in a childish world of "destroying Iran through the air" and "we set the rules,
not them." The only way that we set the rules is for us to occupy their country.
100% wrong.
We dont want or need to occupy Iran.
Any more than we wanted or need to occupy Yugoslavia.
We just want changed bahavior.
This is probably the most interesting statement you make and certainly the most telling. You like to set up the dynamic where the "US loses" either way. That one sentence betrays your thinking right away into exactly what I'd said. And behold, in the very next sentence you explain it in the very terms that are the precise problem.
Do you see it?
False dichotomy. You limit the situation with Iran to only two possible paths. One is complete capitulation and the other is "complete destruction." A or B, black or white. My point is not to attack you personally, as I have no idea who you are. My point is that it is childish (or sophomoric if you prefer a less harsh term) to place US Foreign Affairs into binary language. Surely you can think of other possibilities? With people like Condi Rice, an eminent scholar, surely we aren't limited to two choices and nothing more. I refuse to believe that.
I know for a fact we can. See below. It's not complicated.
I know I know you'll have no answer to the military strategy and will cling to the
"what would the world think"?
Thats funny because you are among the bunch that already says the world doesnt like us,
but I guess you'll be so desperate you'll just say "well they wont like us more". Cry me a river!
Wow. You've already come up with a scripted answer for me. How kind. Why do I bother thinking of a post for myself?
Terrain means basically nothing in an air destruction war.
LOL
Guerilla warfare would have ZERO VALUE.
ZERO!
LOL
Again you are trying to set the rules of a game that favors the enemy.
I do not and would not accept those rules.
I don't "favor" anyone. I don't consider the people of Iran to be my enemy. If anything I favor the working people of Iran and the United States who should not have to die in anyone's pointless battle. What I am telling you is that there are likely to be solutions that don't require military force.
I agree we and no one else ever is powerful enough to occupy every country.
But we dont need or want to do that.
We dont want to run Iran, we dont run Germany, we dont run Japan
we want changed behaviour.
We are strong enough to get the behviour changed.
See above.
There is no reason we can not carry out the destruction from the air policy to change behaviour.
Of course we did run Germany and Japan. If you don't want to learn the history then quit bringing them up as parallels. We even tried to run Iraq. Who are we to dictate behavior to Iran? Why should they listen to us?
I dont want an empire, I dont want anything Iran has.
Like that dump has anything we want? Oil. We dont need their oil.
Those morons can hardly even refine their own oil.
They need help building almost everything.
"Oh can you build us a nuclear facility, we're too dumb to do it ourselves"
All I want is for Iran to behave.
And believe me they would if I were in charge.
Very very quickly they would behave.
What morons are you speaking of? Do you find the people of Iran to be less intelligent than Americans?
Oh quit your condescending preaching pretending I dont realize the ramifications of war, as if you do and I dont. I have already in this very post quoted Sherman's feeling about War being "HELL". Do you understand
"HELL"? Those are my feelings exactly. War is HELL. War is horrible. So is getting a leg amputated, but sometimes
as a last resort it is necessary.
You don't seem to be bothered enough to even think twice about using violence as a quick solution. ChristiansUnited indeed.
No, pandering is the reason we are in the current crap.
Ah, it won't be long until Neville Chamberlain is mentioned. Action, Action, Action!!!
JS I wish that would happen.
It's really too bad the students in Iran can't overcome the MullahNazis.
maybe we coulda waited out Hitler being overthrowwn too. NOT
We cant keep hoping while they nuclear arm and will supply the Islamist too.
Sure it would be preferable if the IslamoNazis were overthrown.
But at some point it must be dealt with and not just keep "hoping it will go away".
Calling them "MullahNazis" is unlikely too help. Ah, there's the Hitler reference...nice. Of course, Iran is nothing like Nazi Germany, but don't let that stop you. Notice that I never suggested "hoping it will go away." I'm simply saying that war is not the answer. Militarism was one of Hitler's greatest tools. The notion that violence can be used for good was a very popular idea with the Nazis and Hitler, himself.
General Sherman if you burn Atlanta it's gonna make them even madder!
Again, no historical context. Sherman was in a war and purposefully wanted Southern civilians to taste the effects of the Civil War. It was a demoralising campaign. The South had no military left in Georgia to combat him (they sent old men and young kids to fight him). Sherman had an overwhelming force that terrified the locals. Air war has never been proven succesful at accomplishing the same task. There were numerous atrocities even after the NATO forces went into Bosnia and Kosovo for peacekeeping. The air war did nothing to prevent them. We can start discussing those if you like.
More personal shots?
Yeah letting the the Iranians get nukes is real smart.
You wouldnt have bombed the Syrian nuke factory.
Is that smart?
Yeah talk talk talk talk
Oh please Syria dont build nukes.
Oh please Syria/Iran dont pass nukes to Hezbollah and Hamas.
Oh boo whoo please, we can destroy you but wont, so we beg
::)
Ah, the recourse of the warmonger. Those who are against war must either be unpatriotic or pansies.
Listen, I'm plenty comfortable with who I am and my bollocks are plenty large enough that I don't need a two-seater sports car for an extension, let alone the little display above won't cause me any shame. It is easy to sit back in bourgeoisie comforts and monger war. As Iraq has shown, it is a hell of a lot tougher to fight the damned things.
-
Air war has never been proven succesful at accomplishing the same task.
Yes in Kosevo it worked perfectly.
It brought Milo to his knees.
It brought an outlaw regime to it's knees with very very very few lost American lives.
Regime change happened.
Behavior changed without alot of ground troops.
It basically happpened from the air.
Thats all I want in Iran.
I dont want Iran.
I want behavior change.
You saying earlier "Iran knows for a fact that we cannot possibly accomplish that"
is clearly just wrong. There is no doubt that for all practical purpose the United States can
destroy the Iranian military from the air. We can carpet bomb their airfields, their bases,
sink their ships, destroy their ports, and if needed use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy
underground facilities.
I know you cant stand it, but we can dictate to Iran because we can.
And we can do it without much loss of American life.
We have the power.
Now I admit we may not have the will because of the Left, but we do have the power.
I know it drives you crazy to know we have the power and can do it from the air.
You would love for there to be a bigger cost so your way would be the only way.
But thats not reality.
Soon we will confront the Mullahs, that you wanna "hope" are overthrown.
There were numerous atrocities even after the NATO forces went into Bosnia and Kosovo for peacekeeping.
Not sure of your point.
There is always some cost to war, even a successful Clinton air war in Kosevo/Yugo
But to say " we dont have the capabilty to do it" is plainly wrong.
First you say "we cant do it"
Now it's "well there could be some atrocities afterwards".
Wow talk about a U-turn in logic, changing the bar.
The air war did nothing to prevent them. We can start discussing those if you like.
What does that have to do with my premise?
I said we can do it.
I dont say no lives would be lost
It would be crazy to imply we will destroy the Iranian military from the air and no problems would exist on the ground afterward.
But we wouldn't be there on the ground
we wouldn't be there peace-keeping
that would not be our goal
and Iran could "call off the dogs" at any moment they choose
our goal is changing Iran's behaviour
and keeping Iran busy at home with a plate of problems to deal with
too busy to meddle in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and many other places
when your own house is burning down, helping someone else becomes alot less important
-
It goes far beyond semantics to history itself. That very thing you sarcastically poked fun at above.
You are comparing a war with Iran to World War II with Germany and Japan. Yet, in reality and in
your own words it would be nothing like World War II in either theater.
Come on JS. It is semantics in the context I am using it.
Yes I am comparing a war with Iran with WWII, but only in certain aspects.
No it would not be like WWII in many aspects, naval, ground invasions, ect
But IMO it would be like WWII as far as destroying an enemy to force behavior change with a great result
-
False dichotomy.
Like I said, not in my opinion.
I think we have reached that point with Iran.
You limit the situation with Iran to only two possible paths. One is complete capitulation and the other is "complete destruction." A or B, black or white. My point is not to attack you personally, as I have no idea who you are. My point is that it is childish (or sophomoric if you prefer a less harsh term) to place US Foreign Affairs into binary language. Surely you can think of other possibilities? With people like Condi Rice, an eminent scholar, surely we aren't limited to two choices and nothing more. I refuse to believe that.
You refuse to believe that? Ok
I have provided my solution.
What are your other great "choices" to prevent Iran from having nukes
and then putting them on rockets that can hit NY?
"Hope" that they wont?
I dont wanna rely on "hope".
I wanna rely on "it can not happen because they dont have the power to do it"
Talk, talk, talk, talk? Thats not working thus far. So what secret do you have?
Specifically whats your plan? I laid mine out.
What are your other great "choices" to prevent Iran from passing nukes to terror groups
that might strike the US from the dark where we might not know who hit us?
-
You don't seem to be bothered enough to even think twice about using violence as a quick solution.
Quick?
come on JS be honest
i know thats the typical response, imply i am a quick draw love war rightwinger
but you can't just invent stuff from thin air
did you not read my plan?
i stated we ask Iran to change
we give them plenty of time
i said warn them
"give them 3 months, 6 months, whatever"
the ball would be in their court
we start with just one request not the whole enchilada
it's not like they would be agreeing to a "take-over"
just an adjustment in behaviour
we wouldn't plunder their resources
they can keep their resources
they can keep their culture
we dont want to conquer Iran
we dont want Iran
just give up their quest for nukes and helping terrorist
my plan is anything but "quick on violence"
my plan is stairstepped to give them every opportunity to change just a couple of things
-
"What morons are you speaking of? Do you find the people of Iran to be less intelligent than Americans?"
The morons are the people that are keeping the Iranian people from reaching their potential.
Americans are no smarter than any other people.
I think certain cultures have unique characteristics.
I think the American culture could be one of the best at innovation.
I think the Japanese culture isn't as good at innovation but may be better at building a better wheel.
But are Americans "smarter". No, I think not.
The difference is Americans are more free to reach for their dreams.
Thats why more people immigrate to the United States than any other nation on earth.
They know they have a better chance to reach their potential here.
Its a tragedy that people all over the globe are basically held in failed control freak systems
that produce miserable results.
No, I think with freedom, people from all over the globe would show they can have great success
once set free, just like the Japanese, South Koreans, Germans, and others have done.
-
"What I am telling you is that there are likely to be solutions that don't require military force"
Please do tell me?
Enlighten the many that have tried and failed.
Expose your exact plan, I have explained mine.
-
Yes in Kosevo it worked perfectly.
It brought Milo to his knees.
It brought an outlaw regime to it's knees with very very very few lost American lives.
Regime change happened.
Behavior changed without alot of ground troops.
It basically happpened from the air.
Thats all I want in Iran.
I dont want Iran.
I want behavior change.
It worked in Kosovo or Bosnia? Then why were there massacres AFTER the war? AFTER "Milo" stepped down? I suggest you look into it before prematurely declaring success. Milosevic was not an "outlaw" regime. He was elected and popularly so.
You saying earlier "Iran knows for a fact that we cannot possibly accomplish that"
is clearly just wrong. There is no doubt that for all practical purpose the United States can
destroy the Iranian military from the air. We can carpet bomb their airfields, their bases,
sink their ships, destroy their ports, and if needed use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy
underground facilities.
We will not use nuclear weapons on Iran, tactical or otherwise. We like to throw that around to scare folks, but it won't happen. You've fallen in love with the Air Force lie. A lot of people have. It doesn't change the fact that if you bomb Iran, especially as much as you're talking about here, you've made numerous enemies for decades. All of those military structures can be rebuilt. The rift you'll have created between Shi'a Islam and America will not be so easily repaired. Lest you forget, we're still in a war in Iraq where 3/5 of the population is Shi'a Islam.
I know you cant stand it, but we can dictate to Iran because we can.
And we can do it without much loss of American life.
We have the power.
Now I admit we may not have the will because of the Left, but we do have the power.
I know it drives you crazy to know we have the power and can do it from the air.
You would love for there to be a bigger cost so your way would be the only way.
But thats not reality.
Soon we will confront the Mullahs, that you wanna "hope" are overthrown.
Do not tell me what I want or do not want like a petulent child.
The days of the US "dictating because we can" have come and gone with the Cold War. As I said earlier, if you wish to dictate through military might then you need to support an explicit Empire. Why? Because you're going to need a lot more soldiers and a lot larger military budget. You also need to convince Americans that Imperial ambitions are necessary. Iran is not Grenada.
What does that have to do with my premise?
I said we can do it.
I dont say no lives would be lost
It would be crazy to imply we will destroy the Iranian military from the air and no problems would exist on the ground afterward.
But we wouldn't be there on the ground
we wouldn't be there peace-keeping
that would not be our goal
and Iran could "call off the dogs" at any moment they choose
our goal is changing Iran's behaviour
and keeping Iran busy at home with a plate of problems to deal with
too busy to meddle in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and many other places
when your own house is burning down, helping someone else becomes alot less important
It was an objective of the war with Serbia. You're beginning to make me wonder if this conversation is worth having if you keep using historical parallels and then question them after the fact.
You refuse to believe that? Ok
I have provided my solution.
What are your other great "choices" to prevent Iran from having nukes
and then putting them on rockets that can hit NY?
"Hope" that they wont?
I dont wanna rely on "hope".
I wanna rely on "it can not happen because they dont have the power to do it"
Talk, talk, talk, talk? Thats not working thus far. So what secret do you have?
Specifically whats your plan? I laid mine out.
What are your other great "choices" to prevent Iran from passing nukes to terror groups
that might strike the US from the dark where we might not know who hit us?
I have never said "hope" in this entire conversation, yet YOU keep bringing it up.
What other choices are there? To accomplish what exactly? You've laid out a plan to bomb Iran into the stone age, but haven't said anything about objectives other than Iran hasn't been "behaving" up to your standards.
What precise criteria does Iran have to meet before you decide to act violently towards her people?
-
Its a tragedy that people all over the globe are basically held in failed control freak systems
that produce miserable results.
No, I think with freedom, people from all over the globe would show they can have great success
once set free, just like the Japanese, South Koreans, Germans, and others have done.
Why does it take freedom? What proof have you of this?
The Germans were among the most innovative people on this planet before WW2 and they had never had a democratic government. South Koreans were not "free" until the 1990's. The Chinese produce innovations under a very harsh government. Soviet chemists were among the world's best. What makes you certain there is a link between freedom and innovation?
-
The Germans were among the most innovative people on this planet before WW2 and they had never had a democratic government.
The Reichstag?
-
Blah, blah, blah. You brough General Sherman into this conversation my friend, not me. I'm just telling you what he'd think of someone like you pandering for war. He made some of his harshest remarks for those who did exactly that. Don't jump on me and get defensive if you dislike it. I am just telling you what Sherman thought of those who talked up warfare and you'd be a prime example as with the posts I've read from you on this board.
As long as it wasn't me that brought it up.
In our Country... one class of men makes war and leaves another to fight it out.
.....................................................
He belonged to that army known as invincible in peace, invisible in war.
...............
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.
..............
I intend to make Georgia howl.
...............................
I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy.
.................................................
My aim then was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
............................................
This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.
.............................................
If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.
William Tecumseh Sherman
And on another subject...There will soon come an armed contest between capital and labor. They will oppose each other, not with words and arguments, but with shot and shell, gun-powder and cannon. The better classes are tired of the insane howling of the lower strata and they mean to stop them.
William Tecumseh Sherman
I think the quote most apt to this discussion is this one...War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say give them all they want.
I choose this as apt bcause we can't quit while our opponents aren't yet quit.
-
The Germans were among the most innovative people on this planet before WW2 and they had never had a democratic government.
The Reichstag?
Do you really want to make the argument that the Weimar Republic was a bastion of freedom? I suppose it technically fits the definition of "democratic" but the junkers still retained much of the power and when they did not, it was largely ineffective.
Besides, the great scientists that the Soviets and Americans grabbed up after the war mostly matured during Nazism. The gasoline powered car was invented under the first Reich. Microphone, cathode ray tube, diesel engine, sypillis treatment, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Aspirin, Anthrax, DDT (threw that one in for Prince), four stroke engine, Decaf coffee, Zeppelin, Syphillis test, pregnancy test, the first programmable computer - all invented under non-democratic German regimes.
I'm not hyping the Germans as most cultures have impressive lists of inventions and such lists are not the be all and end all of any cultural achievement anyway.
My point is that freedom = innovation is often claimed, but is it historical fact? Or just accepted because we want to believe it to be so?
-
My point is that freedom = innovation is often claimed, but is it historical fact? Or just accepted because we want to believe it to be so?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
People were certainly free to innovate. The main reason why Germans excelled in this period was that German education was a meritocracy. He who did not learn was not given a degree.
The US did not have a very good educational system, particularly in the sciences where these innovations took place, until after Carnegie contributed money and a drive to excel in education, folowing the German , NOT the British model. Carnegie was a genius who was a Scot and a commoner, and he despised the Brits for their elitism, and rightfully so.
The British had an educational system where rich twits abounded, were granted "gentlemen's C" diplomas, and went into business by hiring poorer, but smarter and better educated classmates.
The more elite US universities still have "legacy" students who can graduate and remain as ignorant as they had been previously in high school. They have to know more than the nothing required at Oxford and Cambridge in the times of Queen Victoria and King Edward, but they are not much more useful.