This is getting pathetic now, seriously

[Jhhnn]

The only psychopathic warmongers I've seen recently, RichardE, Antare Star, are in the US and Israeli govts, and among their foaming at the mouth supporters...

The Iranians claim their nuclear program is for power generation, and on-site UN inspectors haven't said anything to the contrary. Until they do, I'm certainly not prepared to believe those who lied us into a never-ending occupation of Iraq, nor should anybody who has enough common sense to pour piss out of a boot...

Nor would any rational person believe that the Bush Admin is serious about negotiation when they refuse to sit down, one on one, and talk it over with the Iranians, find some common ground, work it out. Instead, they rig the vote in the Security council, rather than working thru the general assembly, and make vague secret offers thru intermediaries... set pre-conditions designed to avoid actual negotiation...

This isn't about nukes, or unsubstantiated charges of iranian meddling in Iraq- it's about regime change, whether the average Iranian in the street wants it or not, and about Israeli exploitation of fearmongering and indoctrination of the american public to support of their "cause", such as it is...

You're being manipulated in ways that you barely comprehend, and have been your whole lives, even conditioned to enter denial when the facts are right in front of you. What sort of convoluted logic allows people to believe in known charlatans, liars, cheats and thieves? The kind you're using, obviously...

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
With Bush and Co being caught red handed on Iraq they can't and likely won't simply outright attack them.

Tell that to Hitler who attacked Poland over a phony Polish takeover of a German radio station the Germans phonied up to justify the attack.

Reality dictates that GWB&co can't attack Iran with boots on the ground----but is it just mere chance that we have three entire aircraft carrier strike groups just off the Iranian
coast right now?

WTF?

Did you even bother reading past my first sentence? Seriously please read the whole post before replying.

 

[Lemon law]

To Aelius---who is somewhat right and does get it---when you pointed out---Did you even bother reading past my first sentence? Seriously please read the whole post before replying.

For the record your post did point out that a gulf of tolkin type resolution may be a possibility regarding Iran--if and only if GWB&co as the little boys who cried wolf can somehow sell it to the American congress---and by extension also sell it to the larger world.

Maybe I wrongly assumed the admitted non-zero probability of that as something that could not be possibly sustained and something GWB&co. would not even try.----but for the record---I may have quoted you out of context. And I owe you an apology in that event.

But as a point---John Kerry---precisely the person who should have understood how damaging the Gulf of Tolkin resolution was to the Vietnam war---was one of the very idiots who voted for the same blank check for GWB in Iraq.---could our congress blow it again?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Lemon law
With Bush and Co being caught red handed on Iraq they can't and likely won't simply outright attack them.

Tell that to Hitler who attacked Poland over a phony Polish takeover of a German radio station the Germans phonied up to justify the attack.

Reality dictates that GWB&co can't attack Iran with boots on the ground----but is it just mere chance that we have three entire aircraft carrier strike groups just off the Iranian
coast right now?

Do you have a source for 3 carrier battle groups?

I know of two; the USS Eisenhower and Stennis. The Stennis departed San Diego Jan 20th.

For offensive air operations against Iran, we would need 3 and preferrably 4 carrier battle groups to conduct sustained operaitons.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Lemon law

The fact we have now concentrated around three air craft carrier strike groups off Iran is impossible to hide.

I can only hope GWB&co does not decide to bomb Iran.

But I have zero faith in them to do the rational---so anything is possible---under administration secrecy.--we will likely hear about it after they screw the pooch.---because they now know no one will buy their stinking thinking---so why try to sell it when they can act instead?

I just heard from a friend tonight that he has joined the battle group off Iran. 🙁

My friend is with the Constellation Battle Group

5th Fleet Welcomes Constellation Battle Group

 

[NoShangriLa]

I'm bracing on for the worst....hoping that the market doesn't get a harsh hit that I have to give up my house.

Warship raises U.S.-Iran tensions -- Hindu.com -- Thursday, Feb 22, 2007

US Sends 3rd Carrier Strike Group to Persian Gulf -- Scoop.co.nz -- Monday 19 February 2007

Neocons Baiting Iran With Second Strike Group -- Infowars.net -- Tuesday, January 23, 2007

US forces almost ready for Iran air strike, say sources -- Taipeitimes.com -- Sunday, Feb 11, 2007

Iran and U.S.: between the logic of sanctions and the logic of war -- en.rian.ru -- 26/ 01/ 2007

UK doubles naval presence in Persian Gulf -- Telegraph.co.uk -- 26/02/2007

Pentagon working on Iran attack plan -- msnbc.msn.com -- Feb 24, 2007

US has no intention of attacking Iran: Rice -- Rawstory.com -- Thursday February 22, 2007

3 Gulf states agree to IAF overflights en route to Iran -- haaretz.com -- 25/02/2007

ABC News: U.S. Developing Plan to Bomb Iran within 24 hours of Bush Command -- Wakeupfromyourslumber.com -- Sunday, February 25, 2007

 

[KurskKnyaz]

If Israel and the US would be coordinating a surprise attack you would not know about it.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: AntareStar

Generally speaking, I can say I agree with you. Iran has to be stopped. Iran is led by fanatic Muslims

...lets make a bet Iran will not be allowed to have nukes.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The only psychopathic warmongers I've seen recently, RichardE, Antare Star, are in the US and Israeli govts, and among their foaming at the mouth supporters...

The Iranians claim their nuclear program is for power generation, and on-site UN inspectors haven't said anything to the contrary. Until they do, I'm certainly not prepared to believe those who lied us into a never-ending occupation of Iraq, nor should anybody who has enough common sense to pour piss out of a boot...

Nor would any rational person believe that the Bush Admin is serious about negotiation when they refuse to sit down, one on one, and talk it over with the Iranians, find some common ground, work it out. Instead, they rig the vote in the Security council, rather than working thru the general assembly, and make vague secret offers thru intermediaries... set pre-conditions designed to avoid actual negotiation...

This isn't about nukes, or unsubstantiated charges of iranian meddling in Iraq- it's about regime change, whether the average Iranian in the street wants it or not, and about Israeli exploitation of fearmongering and indoctrination of the american public to support of their "cause", such as it is...

You're being manipulated in ways that you barely comprehend, and have been your whole lives, even conditioned to enter denial when the facts are right in front of you. What sort of convoluted logic allows people to believe in known charlatans, liars, cheats and thieves? The kind you're using, obviously...

Why would Iran run a clandestine nuclear development program under the military if all they wanted was nuclear energy?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Aelius---who is somewhat right and does get it---when you pointed out---Did you even bother reading past my first sentence? Seriously please read the whole post before replying.

For the record your post did point out that a gulf of tolkin type resolution may be a possibility regarding Iran--if and only if GWB&co as the little boys who cried wolf can somehow sell it to the American congress---and by extension also sell it to the larger world.

Maybe I wrongly assumed the admitted non-zero probability of that as something that could not be possibly sustained and something GWB&co. would not even try.----but for the record---I may have quoted you out of context. And I owe you an apology in that event.

But as a point---John Kerry---precisely the person who should have understood how damaging the Gulf of Tolkin resolution was to the Vietnam war---was one of the very idiots who voted for the same blank check for GWB in Iraq.---could our congress blow it again?

You may not have quoted me out of context. You did. Hey nobody likes being wrong or knee jerking but please don't assume I'm a complete moron. At least give me that much. At least you tried to appologize. Which by the way is not accepted. Try again.

 

[DrCrap]

I'm from Israel, and though I joke around every now and then with my replies, let me make it very simple for all of you debaters:
Iran will not be allowed to aquire nuclear weapons.
And no, I'm not related in any way to the govt. or have any inside info. but trust me, I know, probably better than the rest of you, on this matter at least.

I'm not going to start debating my claim, since its probably closer to being a fact than a claim. Iran's nuclear end will sooner or later be stopped one way or the other, and I truely hope it'll happen in a peacefull manner, though I have to say it doesn't look like the path Iran is choosing.

Israel is very powerfull, though I doubt we would like to go on this adventure on our own unless we have to. Thus my guess is, that since Bush knows Iran is just as big of a threat to the U.S as it is to Israel, a coordinated strike is very likely.

Enjoy flaming me...

 

[ericlp]

sh!t, when has israel ever gone in on it's own? It couldn't fight it's way out of a paper bag unless USA was supporting it. USA has armed israel to the hilt... Coordinated strike? You mean we will instruct israel when and where to fly and bomb them with our bombs. There is no coordinated anything. It's a bunch of crap.

I've said it before... and I'll say it again... I could give crap less about either country. They are not attacking us (USA)... They never will get a ballistic missile with nukes on board and even if they did we'd wipe em off the face of the planet...

It's time for the USA to stop being the world police man and let other countries figure it out. We are already strapped in @ Iraq.... We don't need another conflict. This is not gonna be another cake walk like Iraq was... Never the less, it should be interesting....

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Lemon law
With Bush and Co being caught red handed on Iraq they can't and likely won't simply outright attack them.

Tell that to Hitler who attacked Poland over a phony Polish takeover of a German radio station the Germans phonied up to justify the attack.

Reality dictates that GWB&co can't attack Iran with boots on the ground----but is it just mere chance that we have three entire aircraft carrier strike groups just off the Iranian
coast right now?

Do you have a source for 3 carrier battle groups?

I know of two; the USS Eisenhower and Stennis. The Stennis departed San Diego Jan 20th.

For offensive air operations against Iran, we would need 3 and preferrably 4 carrier battle groups to conduct sustained operaitons.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Lemon law

The fact we have now concentrated around three air craft carrier strike groups off Iran is impossible to hide.

I can only hope GWB&co does not decide to bomb Iran.

But I have zero faith in them to do the rational---so anything is possible---under administration secrecy.--we will likely hear about it after they screw the pooch.---because they now know no one will buy their stinking thinking---so why try to sell it when they can act instead?

I just heard from a friend tonight that he has joined the battle group off Iran. 🙁

My friend is with the Constellation Battle Group

5th Fleet Welcomes Constellation Battle Group

That link is 4 years old.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To dphantom----I was under the impression it was three---but you may be right and its a mere two---but your link is better than a year old.

To RichardE---when you state---I know you love to sympathize with everyone who wants to kill the west, I understand that. Perhaps you might want to step back before proclaiming Iran is acting rational. Trying to piss off a major world power who is still trying to assert its power as well as piss off your most lethal close enemy (Israel) is not the best way to go for peace. Sending your aid to help kill American soldiers in Iraq is not going to make the US and Israel open there arms to you.

I just point out that I sure don't sympathize with getting Americans killed---but your assertion that Iran is aiding the Iraqi insurgency is just not established---and flies in the face of logic. If Iran wanted to, it could funnel advanced weapons into the hands of Shia insurgents in large numbers---the resulting increase in US troops deaths would be huge---since that is not happening---there goes your assertion.---------but given that the GWB plan for Iraq is totally broken---we need a plan B to help stabilize Iraq---and Iran will be needed---and GWB&co. rhetoric will make bringing Iran along as an ally far more difficult-----------its your unsympathetic and irrational denial of reality--and your unwarranted support of GWB&co policy that will end up getting our troops killed.----and make obtaining a stable Iraq a far more difficult problem.

Get a clue---a neighbor in total civil war is not in Iran's interests.

That link was old and has been updated in my sig.

Latest I read from StratFor is 2 CBG's - Stennis and Eisenhower. Excludes any that may be in the Med. With current maintenance schedules, US Navy would be hard pressed to surge 4 that would be needed for sustained air campaign.

 

[Lemon law]

The Israeli air force could easily add up to that third carrier group---but that would require US permission for overflights of Iraqi air space. And really make the USA clearly complicit in Israeli actions.

As a historical footnote, during gulf war one GHB was insistent on declining the inclusion of Israel in any offensive operation regarding the coalition of the willing---because he assumed---and probably rightly so, that any Israeli inclusion would doom any Arab support.---and coalition of the willing would fall apart. And when Saddam started pegging scud missiles into Israel----GHB exerted a lot of pressure on Israel not to retaliate.

In terms of DrCrap, I certainly feel no desire to flame or vilify his honest assessment of the Israeli political mood-------but I will point out if Israel chooses to get involved, its likely to start a slow chain reaction process that will doom the nation of Israel in the long term. But I have no doubt that Israel can have an immediate short term success to point to---because they can have a role in hurting Iranian infrastructure. One would think that Israel would have learned its lesson from the recent incursions into Lebanon----15 years ago a pair of Israeli tanks could have driven through Lebanon all the way to the Syrian border unmolested---last fall Israel was hard pressed to go 20 miles in two weeks. Its not that Israel has gotten weaker--the Arabs simply have better technology and tactics than they had. But there I am simply rehashing old threads that made various predictions as of yet unresolved. And ignores that original subject of the thread which is how reliable are various newspapers that detail the possibility of such a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?

And all that can be said is that regarding that on a 20 question game setting is that newspapers are smaller than breadboxes and air craft carrier strike groups are much much much larger and more substantial than breadboxes. SO THE BOMBING OF IRAN IS AN IMMEDIATE POSSIBILITY.

And maybe another thread is needed on the likely short and long terms results of such an Iranian bombing.----with my side comment that as soon as neocons can come up with a rosy optimistic scenario of success---they tend to self-agree that their rosy predictions will certainly happen---with Iraq it was being greeted with flowers and candy----and sadly the rub is---their rosy scenario did not happen-------and now they have problems military might will not solve.---and have created many angry people determined to see they have perpetual problems.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Israeli air force could easily add up to that third carrier group---but that would require US permission for overflights of Iraqi air space. And really make the USA clearly complicit in Israeli actions.

As a historical footnote, during gulf war one GHB was insistent on declining the inclusion of Israel in any offensive operation regarding the coalition of the willing---because he assumed---and probably rightly so, that any Israeli inclusion would doom any Arab support.---and coalition of the willing would fall apart. And when Saddam started pegging scud missiles into Israel----GHB exerted a lot of pressure on Israel not to retaliate.

In terms of DrCrap, I certainly feel no desire to flame or vilify his honest assessment of the Israeli political mood-------but I will point out if Israel chooses to get involved, its likely to start a slow chain reaction process that will doom the nation of Israel in the long term. But I have no doubt that Israel can have an immediate short term success to point to---because they can have a role in hurting Iranian infrastructure. One would think that Israel would have learned its lesson from the recent incursions into Lebanon----15 years ago a pair of Israeli tanks could have driven through Lebanon all the way to the Syrian border unmolested---last fall Israel was hard pressed to go 20 miles in two weeks. Its not that Israel has gotten weaker--the Arabs simply have better technology and tactics than they had. But there I am simply rehashing old threads that made various predictions as of yet unresolved. And ignores that original subject of the thread which is how reliable are various newspapers that detail the possibility of such a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?

And all that can be said is that regarding that on a 20 question game setting is that newspapers are smaller than breadboxes and air craft carrier strike groups are much much much larger and more substantial than breadboxes. SO THE BOMBING OF IRAN IS AN IMMEDIATE POSSIBILITY.

And maybe another thread is needed on the likely short and long terms results of such an Iranian bombing.----with my side comment that as soon as neocons can come up with a rosy optimistic scenario of success---they tend to self-agree that their rosy predictions will certainly happen---with Iraq it was being greeted with flowers and candy----and sadly the rub is---their rosy scenario did not happen-------and now they have problems military might will not solve.---and have created many angry people determined to see they have perpetual problems.

It would be an interesting discussion on the outcome of an Iranian nuclear facility bombing.

I don;t think I would use the IAF as the 3rd carrier battle group. IAF not only needs an air corridor, they need refueling support. US won't provide the refueling. An air corridor could be made via Saudi Arabia, but US would still know. Saudi Arabia couldn;t do much to stop the overflight but it would sure make them mad.

No easy outcome to this if a bombing is made.

I will state I am a conservative (not neocon) who strongly supported the war and still do. But I have little faith in the ability of this admin to get us out the mess they have made of Iraq. And Dem's current cut and run won;t fly either.

 

[piasabird]

Apparently the US and the UN do not have enough backbone to back up the UN resolutions and deadlines. In fact everytime this is talked about in the press, the price of oil goes up. So we might as well just start bombing now. It is going to come down to some kind of a confrontation. The longer we wait, the more advantages Iran will have. If you wait too long we get into another cold war and another Nuclear standoff.

Peace can not be established through weakness. If we start moving in ships like air craft carriers, and make it look like we are going to attack as a show of force, I doubt it will do anything. Muslim dictatorships do not care if we threaten them. That just makes them bolder. The longer we wait the more time Iran has to buy up all the ammunition and guns it can get its hands on.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

This is what will happen:

The UN will agree that Iran poses a danger to the world and its nuclear program must be stopped.

The UN will sit around condemning Iran for its nuclear program and do do nothing to stop it.

Israel will stop Iran's nuclear program.

The UN will condemn Israel for stopping Iran's nuclear program.

Olmert will cry himself to sleep at night because the UN condemned him.

 

[Lemon law]

To Pisabird----your post leaves me almost sobbing in despair if you are in any way typical of the average
voter or decision maker in the US Gov.--lets take some selective quotes?

Pisabird quote 1-----Apparently the US and the UN do not have enough backbone to back up the UN resolutions and deadlines.------the fact is the larger world and the UN is not going to blindly follow GWB&co. given their prior mistake in Iraq---the UN is neither a US rubber stamp or perfect---but the UN is still the only game in town---a pre-emptive US strike on Iran will likely dissolve the UN.

Pisabird quote 2---In fact everytime this is talked about in the press, the price of oil goes up. So we might as well just start bombing now.-------------now there is the coldest and most foolish justification for war I ever heard.------have you ever stopped to consider what a pre-emtive Iranian strike will do to the price of oil?------speculators could drive the price of gas up to $20. a gallon in about five minutes!-----with no oil moving in the Persian gulf for years to come--------oil tankers are a little heavy to portage---and oil pipelines take decades to build.----meanwhile what does this do to various nations dependent on oil?

Pisabird quote 3-------Muslim dictatorships do not care if we threaten them. That just makes them bolder.--------its pretty clear you know nothing about Iranian governance---the President was democratically elected. And is proving to be a poor leader and a national embarrassment---but any US pre-emtive strike would greatly unify Iran just as 911 got the country this rallying around GWB.

Pisabird quote 4-------The longer we wait the more time Iran has to buy up all the ammunition and guns it can get its hands on. ---------Iran is no paper tiger like Iraq---they won't just fold up overnight.
And they are also some what embargo proof---just a few days ago their own homegrown space program showed they can launch a satellite with components they produced domestically---they have an abundance of modern weapons they are producing--------yes any US pre-emptive strike can hurt Iran---but short of nuking Iran on a massive scale---it will not be even close to a knockout blow----and you can bet both the USA and Israel will have to catch some counter punches for years to come.-----it can only cause the rest of the world to ally against the USA----and we as Americans are living in a glass house---if our economy is embargoed---we will be in a heap of trobs.

Maybe your pipedreams and the pipedreams of many neocons are filled with only pleasant outcomes and no downsides-----------others have more realistic nightmares---and then I pinch myself awake and contemplate what happened in Iraq---and realize its no mere nightmare---its chillingly real.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Piasbird said:

Peace can not be established through weakness.

If you look back at military history, you find a lot of leaders who put their faith in the idea that if you showed restraint or acted peaceful, that was "weak", and that the enemy would back down if you only stood up and looked brave. So many of history's greats...

Napoleon III, Edward II of England, Field Marshal Haig, Elphim Bey, Custer.

Losers, every one.

Sometimes it's called overconfidence, sometimes just stupidity, but it's a very clear pattern: The enemy, whoever it is, does NOT break and run just because you're marching bravely into their quagmire.

Complexity and uncertainty scare people and make them feel weak and vulnerable. Whoever can take those feelings away and make them feel protected and strong will earn their limitless allegiance.

Remember, as Bush said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."

complexity and uncertainty create some fear in everyone. That's just human psyche. But you are right that what distinguishes authoritarian followers from non-authoritarians is that the latter can endure that fear, live with it and accept it, while the former cannot and seek out means to eliminate it.