Cheney Pushes For Military Action Against Iran Before End Of Term

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Narmer
So. by your stupid logic, since Iraq, Pakistan, Georgia, and Russia are within range of Iran's missile, Iran poses a threat to those countries as well? Furthermore, since most nations missiles are within range of other nations, does that mean they pose a threat to them? This is by far the dumbest reason I've heard from anyone regarding threats. Sounds like you are trying to pick a fight.

Here's another analogy: Since I can travel anywhere in the world, does that mean I pose a threat to everyone I meet?
palehorse74 is using the same 5th-grade 'boogey-man' logic our military uses to indoctrinate their soldiers. How else do you get them to murder and maim tens of thousands of civilians in a sham war?

Yeah, his logic sounds very aggressive and dumb=bullying. I can't believe people have such dumb thoughts. By his analogy, we pose a threat to Canada and Mexico and vice-versa, therefore we shouldn't trust them.

Do you agree with Jpeyton's statement that our soldiers are brainwashed and are currently murdering 10's of thousands of civilians too?

Brainwashed is pretty subjective...but as to the rest...

Are you saying that the civilians that were killed were at the hands of the US military? From what I gathered from yours and mr. jpeytons posts is that you believe so.

Oh freaking PLEEEAASE!

Text

That's the only one of about 2 million google hits I'll waste my time linking. Did all the civ's die at US hands? Of course not. But a LOT did. It happens in a war...that's why it's so important not to have illegal and immoral ones. In case I'm being to obtuse...


NEWSFLASH: AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILL INNOCENT IRAQI'S, INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN. THEY HAVE ALSO TORTURED, KIDNAPPED, RAPED, HARASSED, AND COMMITTED ALL THE OTHER AGE-OLD WAR ATROCITIES. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN A WAR!!!!!
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Narmer
So. by your stupid logic, since Iraq, Pakistan, Georgia, and Russia are within range of Iran's missile, Iran poses a threat to those countries as well? Furthermore, since most nations missiles are within range of other nations, does that mean they pose a threat to them? This is by far the dumbest reason I've heard from anyone regarding threats. Sounds like you are trying to pick a fight.

Here's another analogy: Since I can travel anywhere in the world, does that mean I pose a threat to everyone I meet?
palehorse74 is using the same 5th-grade 'boogey-man' logic our military uses to indoctrinate their soldiers. How else do you get them to murder and maim tens of thousands of civilians in a sham war?

Yeah, his logic sounds very aggressive and dumb=bullying. I can't believe people have such dumb thoughts. By his analogy, we pose a threat to Canada and Mexico and vice-versa, therefore we shouldn't trust them.

Do you agree with Jpeyton's statement that our soldiers are brainwashed and are currently murdering 10's of thousands of civilians too?

Brainwashed is pretty subjective...but as to the rest...

Are you saying that the civilians that were killed were at the hands of the US military? From what I gathered from yours and mr. jpeytons posts is that you believe so.

Oh freaking PLEEEAASE!

Text

That's the only one of about 2 million google hits I'll waste my time linking. Did all the civ's die at US hands? Of course not. But a LOT did. It happens in a war...that's why it's so important not to have illegal and immoral ones. In case I'm being to obtuse...


NEWSFLASH: AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILL INNOCENT IRAQI'S

Yes, civilians die in war. Nobody will dispute that. But you and your pals are incinuating that a LOT of these civilians that were killed were being targeted by the military. That, even by your own sources that you linked is a lie.

In regards to a sample of Iraqi civilian deaths from jpeytons link:

"...although the researchers stressed that none was the result of what would have been considered misconduct."

Does that mean that there has been 0 civilian deaths from US misconduct? Of course not, there are always going to be a few bad apples and they need to be prosecuted. I feel that the vast majority of our servicemen are good people, who do not commit atrocities and that they are being unfairly labeled as murderes by you guys.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Narmer
So. by your stupid logic, since Iraq, Pakistan, Georgia, and Russia are within range of Iran's missile, Iran poses a threat to those countries as well? Furthermore, since most nations missiles are within range of other nations, does that mean they pose a threat to them? This is by far the dumbest reason I've heard from anyone regarding threats. Sounds like you are trying to pick a fight.

Here's another analogy: Since I can travel anywhere in the world, does that mean I pose a threat to everyone I meet?
palehorse74 is using the same 5th-grade 'boogey-man' logic our military uses to indoctrinate their soldiers. How else do you get them to murder and maim tens of thousands of civilians in a sham war?

Yeah, his logic sounds very aggressive and dumb=bullying. I can't believe people have such dumb thoughts. By his analogy, we pose a threat to Canada and Mexico and vice-versa, therefore we shouldn't trust them.

Do you agree with Jpeyton's statement that our soldiers are brainwashed and are currently murdering 10's of thousands of civilians too?

Brainwashed is pretty subjective...but as to the rest...

Are you saying that the civilians that were killed were at the hands of the US military? From what I gathered from yours and mr. jpeytons posts is that you believe so.

Oh freaking PLEEEAASE!

Text

That's the only one of about 2 million google hits I'll waste my time linking. Did all the civ's die at US hands? Of course not. But a LOT did. It happens in a war...that's why it's so important not to have illegal and immoral ones. In case I'm being to obtuse...


NEWSFLASH: AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILL INNOCENT IRAQI'S

Yes, civilians die in war. Nobody will dispute that. But you and your pals are incinuating that a LOT of these civilians that were killed were being targeted by the military. That, even by your own sources that you linked is a lie.

In regards to a sample of Iraqi civilian deaths from jpeytons link:

"...although the researchers stressed that none was the result of what would have been considered misconduct."

Does that mean that there has been 0 civilian deaths from US misconduct? Of course not, there are always going to be a few bad apples and they need to be prosecuted.

Ok, on that we mostly agree, though I believe that a lot of the abuses are more or less ordered (ie telling troops to treat EVERY male as an insurgent, etc).

However we have to take the civilian cost into account when we go to war...not talking about those killed by our direct actions, but the multitude who are killed simply as a result of the war. Again, this is why it's so important to never have an unjust/immoral war. America is responsible for the civilian deaths in Iraq...the government (because they ordered it), the people (because we refused to stop it), and the soldiers (because they agreed to participate in a false war).
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Narmer
So. by your stupid logic, since Iraq, Pakistan, Georgia, and Russia are within range of Iran's missile, Iran poses a threat to those countries as well? Furthermore, since most nations missiles are within range of other nations, does that mean they pose a threat to them? This is by far the dumbest reason I've heard from anyone regarding threats. Sounds like you are trying to pick a fight.

Here's another analogy: Since I can travel anywhere in the world, does that mean I pose a threat to everyone I meet?
palehorse74 is using the same 5th-grade 'boogey-man' logic our military uses to indoctrinate their soldiers. How else do you get them to murder and maim tens of thousands of civilians in a sham war?

Yeah, his logic sounds very aggressive and dumb=bullying. I can't believe people have such dumb thoughts. By his analogy, we pose a threat to Canada and Mexico and vice-versa, therefore we shouldn't trust them.

Do you agree with Jpeyton's statement that our soldiers are brainwashed and are currently murdering 10's of thousands of civilians too?

Brainwashed is pretty subjective...but as to the rest...

Are you saying that the civilians that were killed were at the hands of the US military? From what I gathered from yours and mr. jpeytons posts is that you believe so.

Oh freaking PLEEEAASE!

Text

That's the only one of about 2 million google hits I'll waste my time linking. Did all the civ's die at US hands? Of course not. But a LOT did. It happens in a war...that's why it's so important not to have illegal and immoral ones. In case I'm being to obtuse...


NEWSFLASH: AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILL INNOCENT IRAQI'S

Yes, civilians die in war. Nobody will dispute that. But you and your pals are incinuating that a LOT of these civilians that were killed were being targeted by the military. That, even by your own sources that you linked is a lie.

In regards to a sample of Iraqi civilian deaths from jpeytons link:

"...although the researchers stressed that none was the result of what would have been considered misconduct."

Does that mean that there has been 0 civilian deaths from US misconduct? Of course not, there are always going to be a few bad apples and they need to be prosecuted.

Ok, on that we mostly agree, though I believe that a lot of the abuses are more or less ordered (ie telling troops to treat EVERY male as an insurgent, etc).

However we have to take the civilian cost into account when we go to war...not talking about those killed by our direct actions, but the multitude who are killed simply as a result of the war. Again, this is why it's so important to never have an unjust/immoral war. America is responsible for the civilian deaths in Iraq...both the government (because they ordered it) and the people (because we refused to stop it).

Are civilians killed by terrorists in Iraq America's fault? Possibly yes, in an indirect way. But (not implying you) when people say or incinuate that the military is going on a civilian killing rampage, I feel that is not only unfair but also saddening at the same time.

 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Narmer
So. by your stupid logic, since Iraq, Pakistan, Georgia, and Russia are within range of Iran's missile, Iran poses a threat to those countries as well? Furthermore, since most nations missiles are within range of other nations, does that mean they pose a threat to them? This is by far the dumbest reason I've heard from anyone regarding threats. Sounds like you are trying to pick a fight.

Here's another analogy: Since I can travel anywhere in the world, does that mean I pose a threat to everyone I meet?
palehorse74 is using the same 5th-grade 'boogey-man' logic our military uses to indoctrinate their soldiers. How else do you get them to murder and maim tens of thousands of civilians in a sham war?

Yeah, his logic sounds very aggressive and dumb=bullying. I can't believe people have such dumb thoughts. By his analogy, we pose a threat to Canada and Mexico and vice-versa, therefore we shouldn't trust them.

Do you agree with Jpeyton's statement that our soldiers are brainwashed and are currently murdering 10's of thousands of civilians too?

Brainwashed is pretty subjective...but as to the rest...

Are you saying that the civilians that were killed were at the hands of the US military? From what I gathered from yours and mr. jpeytons posts is that you believe so.

Oh freaking PLEEEAASE!

Text

That's the only one of about 2 million google hits I'll waste my time linking. Did all the civ's die at US hands? Of course not. But a LOT did. It happens in a war...that's why it's so important not to have illegal and immoral ones. In case I'm being to obtuse...


NEWSFLASH: AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILL INNOCENT IRAQI'S

Yes, civilians die in war. Nobody will dispute that. But you and your pals are incinuating that a LOT of these civilians that were killed were being targeted by the military. That, even by your own sources that you linked is a lie.

In regards to a sample of Iraqi civilian deaths from jpeytons link:

"...although the researchers stressed that none was the result of what would have been considered misconduct."

Does that mean that there has been 0 civilian deaths from US misconduct? Of course not, there are always going to be a few bad apples and they need to be prosecuted.

Ok, on that we mostly agree, though I believe that a lot of the abuses are more or less ordered (ie telling troops to treat EVERY male as an insurgent, etc).

However we have to take the civilian cost into account when we go to war...not talking about those killed by our direct actions, but the multitude who are killed simply as a result of the war. Again, this is why it's so important to never have an unjust/immoral war. America is responsible for the civilian deaths in Iraq...both the government (because they ordered it) and the people (because we refused to stop it).

Are civilians killed by terrorists in Iraq America's fault? Possibly yes, in an indirect way. But (not implying you) when people say or incinuate that the military is going on a civilian killing rampage, I feel that is not only unfair but also saddening at the same time.

I can understand that, but I think it's more or less fair. If we hadn't gone in, it wouldn't have happened. Sure other things would have happened, but that's outside of the discussion. And history shows us that our military DOES commit these atrocities (in pretty much every conflict). Moreover it has shown us that it's very seldom a small group of psycho soldiers over the edge that do it...it's usually ordered directly, or at least not cared about by the upper echelon. What makes me sad is people not willing to admit truth, even when it's hard or harmful (and I'm not talking about you specifically - just people not admitting that our military does bad).
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Narmer
So. by your stupid logic, since Iraq, Pakistan, Georgia, and Russia are within range of Iran's missile, Iran poses a threat to those countries as well? Furthermore, since most nations missiles are within range of other nations, does that mean they pose a threat to them? This is by far the dumbest reason I've heard from anyone regarding threats. Sounds like you are trying to pick a fight.

Here's another analogy: Since I can travel anywhere in the world, does that mean I pose a threat to everyone I meet?
palehorse74 is using the same 5th-grade 'boogey-man' logic our military uses to indoctrinate their soldiers. How else do you get them to murder and maim tens of thousands of civilians in a sham war?

Yeah, his logic sounds very aggressive and dumb=bullying. I can't believe people have such dumb thoughts. By his analogy, we pose a threat to Canada and Mexico and vice-versa, therefore we shouldn't trust them.

Do you agree with Jpeyton's statement that our soldiers are brainwashed and are currently murdering 10's of thousands of civilians too?

Brainwashed is pretty subjective...but as to the rest...

Are you saying that the civilians that were killed were at the hands of the US military? From what I gathered from yours and mr. jpeytons posts is that you believe so.

Oh freaking PLEEEAASE!

Text

That's the only one of about 2 million google hits I'll waste my time linking. Did all the civ's die at US hands? Of course not. But a LOT did. It happens in a war...that's why it's so important not to have illegal and immoral ones. In case I'm being to obtuse...


NEWSFLASH: AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILL INNOCENT IRAQI'S

Yes, civilians die in war. Nobody will dispute that. But you and your pals are incinuating that a LOT of these civilians that were killed were being targeted by the military. That, even by your own sources that you linked is a lie.

In regards to a sample of Iraqi civilian deaths from jpeytons link:

"...although the researchers stressed that none was the result of what would have been considered misconduct."

Does that mean that there has been 0 civilian deaths from US misconduct? Of course not, there are always going to be a few bad apples and they need to be prosecuted.

Ok, on that we mostly agree, though I believe that a lot of the abuses are more or less ordered (ie telling troops to treat EVERY male as an insurgent, etc).

However we have to take the civilian cost into account when we go to war...not talking about those killed by our direct actions, but the multitude who are killed simply as a result of the war. Again, this is why it's so important to never have an unjust/immoral war. America is responsible for the civilian deaths in Iraq...both the government (because they ordered it) and the people (because we refused to stop it).

Are civilians killed by terrorists in Iraq America's fault? Possibly yes, in an indirect way. But (not implying you) when people say or incinuate that the military is going on a civilian killing rampage, I feel that is not only unfair but also saddening at the same time.

I can understand that, but I think it's more or less fair. If we hadn't gone in, it wouldn't have happened. Sure other things would have happened, but that's outside of the discussion. And history shows us that our military DOES commit these atrocities (in pretty much every conflict). Moreover it has shown us that it's very seldom a small group of psycho soldiers over the edge that do it...it's usually ordered directly, or at least not cared about by the upper echelon. What makes me sad is people not willing to admit truth, even when it's hard or harmful (and I'm not talking about you specifically - just people not admitting that our military does bad).

I dont think you will find anyone to disagree with the fact that our military has made mistakes, or any nations military for that matter. I will disagree for the most part with your argument that its not just a small-scale act by a few psychos. I believe that it is. Does that not mean that soldiers have never been ordered to commit an atrocity, of course not, but then I would lump those officers into the small group of psychos. I think the US army has a pretty good track record overall (im talking about ALL wars we have fought). Yes we have made mistakes, yes there are bad apples. But all-in-all, we generally show respect for our enemies (such as in WWI and WWII) by following the rules of war.

EX: Not shooting medics and taking prisoners upon surrender

Does that mean we have never shot a medic or a prisoner? Of course not, but for the most part we have conducted ourselves professionally.

I will admit that there have been crimes committed in Iraq. Abu Graihb and that women who was raped and murdered by a soldier come to mind. But these have been isolated incidents by a group of whackos, who were punished and so were their officers.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Narmer
So. by your stupid logic, since Iraq, Pakistan, Georgia, and Russia are within range of Iran's missile, Iran poses a threat to those countries as well? Furthermore, since most nations missiles are within range of other nations, does that mean they pose a threat to them? This is by far the dumbest reason I've heard from anyone regarding threats. Sounds like you are trying to pick a fight.

Here's another analogy: Since I can travel anywhere in the world, does that mean I pose a threat to everyone I meet?
palehorse74 is using the same 5th-grade 'boogey-man' logic our military uses to indoctrinate their soldiers. How else do you get them to murder and maim tens of thousands of civilians in a sham war?


wow...simply wow.
I know, I was stunned, too, when I learned the truth.

The fact that this is what you think of our soldiers who are willing to die for your freedoms is just sad really. Im not referring to the Iraq war, I am just saying in general.

**Edit**

Its also kind of ironic that I am enlisting to fight for your right to call me a brainwashed murderer, and also to parade my name (if I am to die) around on a T-shirt.


I think the sad thing is that they signed up to defend their country, but got sent off to attack someone else's.

I hope the same doesn't happen to you.

**This is a general question, not referring to any current wars we are now fighting**

Do you feel also saddened since our soldiers in WWII were sent off to attack someone else's country too?


Nah, that's a completely different scenario.

Are you going to feel ok with being sent to Iran? Hypothetically speaking of course.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Narmer
So. by your stupid logic, since Iraq, Pakistan, Georgia, and Russia are within range of Iran's missile, Iran poses a threat to those countries as well? Furthermore, since most nations missiles are within range of other nations, does that mean they pose a threat to them? This is by far the dumbest reason I've heard from anyone regarding threats. Sounds like you are trying to pick a fight.

Here's another analogy: Since I can travel anywhere in the world, does that mean I pose a threat to everyone I meet?
palehorse74 is using the same 5th-grade 'boogey-man' logic our military uses to indoctrinate their soldiers. How else do you get them to murder and maim tens of thousands of civilians in a sham war?


wow...simply wow.
I know, I was stunned, too, when I learned the truth.

The fact that this is what you think of our soldiers who are willing to die for your freedoms is just sad really. Im not referring to the Iraq war, I am just saying in general.

**Edit**

Its also kind of ironic that I am enlisting to fight for your right to call me a brainwashed murderer, and also to parade my name (if I am to die) around on a T-shirt.


I think the sad thing is that they signed up to defend their country, but got sent off to attack someone else's.

I hope the same doesn't happen to you.

**This is a general question, not referring to any current wars we are now fighting**

Do you feel also saddened since our soldiers in WWII were sent off to attack someone else's country too?


Nah, that's a completely different scenario.

Are you going to feel ok with being sent to Iran? Hypothetically speaking of course.

It would depend on the circumstances.
 

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
IDIOTS. We can't even stabilize Iraq and now we have Neocon clowns advocating invading Iran? Iran is more populous, more expansive, more armed, and more urban than Iraq. All of which translate into more of a debacle for American forces.

Bombing is another story, but the consequences of that could be just as dire. Iran could put some serious pressure and damage on Iraq and Arab states with missiles or terrist squads.

This blind bloodlust evident in some Americans is really disturbing. I guess that's what happens when opulent people who have never experienced war or hardship can let loose armies around the globe with no personal consequences.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: bamacre
Nah, that's a completely different scenario.

Are you going to feel ok with being sent to Iran? Hypothetically speaking of course.

It would depend on the circumstances.
Going off history, the circumstances would be several smoking guns leaked by The White House (yellow cake, mobile weapons labs, etc.), followed by some doom and gloom by our leadership (mushroom clouds, following us home).

Since we're always 100% right about these things, our War President will have only one possible option.

Deployment will come soon after.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
If we attacked Iran UNPROVOKED then I say they have the right to strike back at USA Citizens and Soil in ANY WAY they want to.. Who would disagree?
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Termagant
IDIOTS. We can't even stabilize Iraq and now we have Neocon clowns advocating invading Iran? Iran is more populous, more expansive, more armed, and more urban than Iraq. All of which translate into more of a debacle for American forces.

Bombing is another story, but the consequences of that could be just as dire. Iran could put some serious pressure and damage on Iraq and Arab states with missiles or terrist squads.

This blind bloodlust evident in some Americans is really disturbing. I guess that's what happens when opulent people who have never experienced war or hardship can let loose armies around the globe with no personal consequences.

Well said.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: palehorse74And those people will be left alone unless they actively take up arms against us.

see how this works?

Tell that to the Iraqis who haven't done anything yet still have their men dragged away in the middle of the night...
...by their own countrymen.

Many of whom are being armed and trained by the US. In particular Shiite death squads are heavily associated with the Iraqi police force.

It is utterly ridiculous to ignore the US role in the complete humanitarian disaster that is Iraq. There are reports that women, even children as young as six years of age, are having to prostitute themselves in refugee camps in Syria to survive. This is the result of the American war of choice.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: bamacre
Nah, that's a completely different scenario.

Are you going to feel ok with being sent to Iran? Hypothetically speaking of course.

It would depend on the circumstances.
Going off history, the circumstances would be several smoking guns leaked by The White House (yellow cake, mobile weapons labs, etc.), followed by some doom and gloom by our leadership (mushroom clouds, following us home).

Since we're always 100% right about these things, our War President will have only one possible option.

Deployment will come soon after.

Were you trying to ask me a question, or just rambling?
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
.

I edited my post with links to missile defense BTW, this one has a busted link and I added another.

1) Israel's missile defense system > U.S missile defense system

show me proof that Israels missile defense system is better than ours.

2) Israel's air force in the M.E is far better than the U.S air force in the M.E.

Far better? If they largely use US made aircraft, and have less pilots, how are they better.

"The Israeli Air Force (IAF; Hebrew: ???? ????? ?????, Zroa HaAvir VeHa?alal, "Air and Space Division", commonly known as ??? ?????? Hel HaAvir) is the air force of the Israel Defense Forces. The current Commander in Chief is Aluf Elyezer Shkedy. It has approximately 1000 aircraft."


F-22


"The F-22 is claimed by several sources to be the world?s most effective air-superiority fighter. Air Marshal Angus Houston, chief of the Australian Defence Force, and former head of the Royal Australian Air Force, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built."

Here is what Israel uses:

In the new millennium, the IAF bought the F-15I Ra'am (Thunder) and the F-16I Sufa (Storm)...variants of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets.

Oh noes...newer and better my a$$.

F-22 is an air superiority fighter like your quote says.... If we were to goto war with Iran we would be using primary f-16s, f-18s, f-15s, and Apaches to attack ground targets. All which Israel uses except the f-18s.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,440
5,426
136
Ah yes, more UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions are likely to be taken. It's about time we stood up to be counted. At the rate our RIGHTS and FREEDOMS are being taken away, pretty soon our "votes" to "elect" officials will mean nothing. Hmm, with career politicians and big money controlling America, perhaps it is already too late...
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: dahunan
Why wouldn't Iran have "insurgents" too

Iran knows that you do not defeat the US via conventional means. I say we look horribly defeated in Iraq and look like our country is run by an imbecile.

Only because we fight these wars with gloves on. In an all out war a single Ohio class sub could kill everyone in Iran but we don't fight like that. I really think these slow bleed wars we engage in is to enrich contractors rather than win or live in peace. I mean something as simple as employing whole town starvation or family responsibility after a IED is not even employed (see Philippines insurrection). Rather we go on more patrols, more Halibuton convoys, more reconstruction just to be blown up. rinse repeat and a few get rich at the end of the day.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: dahunan
If we attacked Iran UNPROVOKED then I say they have the right to strike back at USA Citizens and Soil in ANY WAY they want to.. Who would disagree?

As long as we can take the gloves off as well. Wouldn't be too many Iranians left if they turned our full might loose.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Zebo
I really think these slow bleed wars we engage in is to enrich contractors rather than win or live in peace.
Exactly. Why else declare a war on something as obscure as "terror", if not to create a perpetual state of war we can never win. From day one, Iraq has always been about enriching the military/industrial complex.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: dahunan
If we attacked Iran UNPROVOKED then I say they have the right to strike back at USA Citizens and Soil in ANY WAY they want to.. Who would disagree?

As long as we can take the gloves off as well. Wouldn't be too many Iranians left if they turned our full might loose.
It's a moot question because Iran doesn't have the capability to attack our homeland, nor are they pursuing it.

These threats against us are manufactured, just like Iraq was.