Summer 2008 War on Iran/Syria/Hizballah

[Plane]

Diplomacy....

can diplomacy work if the diplomat cant make an awfull threat?

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

Good thing no one is saying that, except apparently Xo

[Xavier_Onassis]

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."

[Christians4LessGvt]

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]

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

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?

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

i sincerely believe if we don't stop iran now
we could see armageddon in our lifetime

Dinner with Ahmanutjob

Gearing up to bomb the Mullahs (it's about time)

The Headline says it all

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.

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.

[Universe Prince]

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.

[fatman]

Don't hold your breath UP, your face will be as blue as your font.   

[Plane]

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.

[fatman]

Good post Plane.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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?"

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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 ?

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.