Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,830
- 3
- 0
Judging by what you said in the illegal immigrant thread, you'll have no problem with being captured and tortured because you'll be on their soil illegally.
Judging by what you said in the illegal immigrant thread, you'll have no problem with being captured and tortured because you'll be on their soil illegally.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
If only people who supported it would have to pay for it, too. Maybe you guys can all move to another country. It will be newly created out of some western states and named United States of F**k You and your entire national manifesto can be to declare war and antagonize until you eat yourselves from within like a magotted undead.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
What choice would he have? The chances of our soldiers and agents being tortured by our current enemies, or potential enemies, are nearly 100% -- and those enemies are likely to do so without a second thought.
IOW, for much of the world, torture is the rule, not the exception.
Not that it justifies our doing the same, on any occasion; but it certainly makes your statement pretty ridiculous...
Imagine the number of enemies the US government would make in a day, should they decide to attack Iran.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Fallon isn't and never has been an obstacle to an attack on Iran. It's simply that he doesn't agree with Bush, and now that it's public, he had to be put down.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
You're right, the troops in those countries bordering Iran are having such an easy time of it that it should be no big deal to take on a nation with a population the size of of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Air superiority = No problem
Ground campaign = Tougher, but still a cinch
The aftermath = A waking nightmare
The only reason we have not attacked Iran is Oil. Everything boils down to Oil and Money and the World Economy. How much more do you want to pay for gas at the Pump?
Iran will attack the USA one way or another and sooner or later. It is just a matter of time. They have a goal of Muslims taking over the world. That is why they dont like Isreal and support the Hezbolah Terrorists. It is very plain and simple. Look at Muslim Extremism and follow the money. Iran has been playing this game for a long time to destablilize other countries while they claim they have done nothing wrong. They are so full of baloney.
We can sit back and wait for Muslim Extremists to take over or we can do something. Take your pick. The world is in big trouble if we do nothing.
Iran will attack the USA one way or another and sooner or later. It is just a matter of time. They have a goal of Muslims taking over the world. That is why they dont like Isreal and support the Hezbolah Terrorists. It is very plain and simple. Look at Muslim Extremism and follow the money. Iran has been playing this game for a long time to destablilize other countries while they claim they have done nothing wrong. They are so full of baloney.
We can sit back and wait for Muslim Extremists to take over or we can do something. Take your pick. The world is in big trouble if we do nothing.
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
To kinda misquote from Matt Taibbi,
I wouldn't trust anyone in the Bush admin to even tell me what fucking time it is....
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
False.
False.
No, this is why they don't like Israel. That, and the civilian body count Israel racks up.
In the last 50 years, if you want to compare who has done more to destabilize other countries, you would get one answer: USA...all the way.
Take over? AFAIK, hiding in some mountains between Pakistan and India, or running around Iraq because we removed Saddam (who hated extremists within his borders), I don't see them 'taking over' anything.
Wrong on all accounts. Your conspiracy theories rank right up there with Saddam sending ninja assassins across the Atlantic while we sleep.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
For the nutty comment of the century, piasabird stands out with---Iran will attack the USA one way or another and sooner or later.
Get a damn life, Iran has not engaged in a war of aggression for something like 3000 years. Its the damn USA that is waging wars of aggression against Iran. Like it or not,
Iran will no longer dance to the US tune and will have its own foreign policy based on Iranian interests. GWB already blew it when Iran extended the olive branch in 2002 and smarter US leadership can create a US Iranian alliance. But strangely enough, a US foreign policy of poking Iran with sharp sticks has not produced friendship.
If piasabird wants to see a war monger, a quick look in any mirror is suggested.
Then we have the TallBill take on the matter with---I never said that I supported an invasion of Iran. It's a terrible idea and logistically nearly impossible. But if somehow it did happen I'd take up arms and rejoin my brothers in the military. Something that neither of you would understand.
Which is simply a rehash of my country right or wrong with TallBill being rational enough to say we would be wrong. Which cuts both ways because many would join the Iranian side with the same my country right or wrong mantra. Which always ends up being a fine way to get a lot of good people killed regardless of which group of idiots end up winning.
Get a damn life, Iran has not engaged in a war of aggression for something like 3000 years. Its the damn USA that is waging wars of aggression against Iran. Like it or not,
Iran will no longer dance to the US tune and will have its own foreign policy based on Iranian interests. GWB already blew it when Iran extended the olive branch in 2002 and smarter US leadership can create a US Iranian alliance. But strangely enough, a US foreign policy of poking Iran with sharp sticks has not produced friendship.
If piasabird wants to see a war monger, a quick look in any mirror is suggested.
Then we have the TallBill take on the matter with---I never said that I supported an invasion of Iran. It's a terrible idea and logistically nearly impossible. But if somehow it did happen I'd take up arms and rejoin my brothers in the military. Something that neither of you would understand.
Which is simply a rehash of my country right or wrong with TallBill being rational enough to say we would be wrong. Which cuts both ways because many would join the Iranian side with the same my country right or wrong mantra. Which always ends up being a fine way to get a lot of good people killed regardless of which group of idiots end up winning.
TallBill
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2001
- 46,044
- 62
- 91
So every man that has ever fought in any war ever is an idiot? Wow, that's profound. My line of logic is that if men from our country have to fight and die in a war then I, as a fit and able bodied man, would be right there by their side. We killed a lot of good hearted German soldiers during WW2.
By the way Iran was engaged in a war with Iraq for about 8 years in the 80's.
I understand, Army brat here. And good for you for thinking that way (seriously).
I think the thing to remember here is that war (or low-intensity conflict, or whatever the term of the day is) is a nasty business, and that lots of good, innocent (in that they didn't start it) people die on both sides of a war.
IMO, if it is so important to this county that we go to war, you should think long and hard about whether it's necessary or not. And if you think that this country should go to war, you should be ready to go yourself, along with (depending on your ages of course) family and your kids. IF you aren't willing to send your kids to war, you shouldn't be supporting it.
That's what pathetic about the Iraq war now. I see many people that support it (and don't know anyone in the military), and when I say, good, I guess you will let your kids join the army to serve since it's important, I get a "ummm, I don't want them to go over there". Then I say that you really shouldn't be supporting it. (not saying everyone is like this, but it seems like a lot of people that I talk to are)
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The bottom line fact is that GWB and Cheney could start a preemptive war with Iran at any time.
And then use that as an excuse to suspend elections is 2008.
Maybe I am being paranoid over this possibility, but sadly, I cannot dismiss that fear as baseless. I am saddened to see somewhat like Fallon being removed, because he was one key military figure that might have been able to throw a monkey wrench into that absolutely frightening possibility.
And then use that as an excuse to suspend elections is 2008.
Maybe I am being paranoid over this possibility, but sadly, I cannot dismiss that fear as baseless. I am saddened to see somewhat like Fallon being removed, because he was one key military figure that might have been able to throw a monkey wrench into that absolutely frightening possibility.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
How could they end it, with Saddam starting new offensives in 1985 with fresh supplies and money from the US?
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
I think you can calm yourself about the possibility of US elections being suspended because of some preemptive attack on Iran. I am unaware of any basis in law available under that senario that would allow for the suspencion of an election.
Perhaps if we were majorly attacked at election time thus preventing people from voting. But that's the other way around.
As to Fallon preventing any such attack or war (2 different things. Israel bombed the Iraqi facility and we don't refer to that as a "war"), it's not his place. He can't do it. Long ago the Dems won the argument and such military decisions are in the hands of cilvilians now, where they belong IMO. Just because this particular senario fits your desires is a poor reason to advocate military authority trumping civilan, whether to start a war or prevent one, no matter.
That is Congresses call, I really can't envision a senario where GWB & Cheney calls for strikes on Iran without briefing at least some of Congress. If some know, they will all know. If that unbelievable senario were to transpire, you would quickly get the impeachment you want and mention so often.
Iran is a serious matter and it has been glossed over with so much Hillary vs Obama interest IMO. The next President may well go down in hisstory as presiding over the time when Iran went nuclear. Bonus points will not be awarded to that admin.
The Iran problem is complicated, and made hellishly more so by domestic politics and the upcoming election. One could see the Dems advantage in "allowing" GWB to strike preemptively; removes the threat from their admin and kills the Repubs in November. I don't think Repubs wanna do it for those very same reasons. GWB? I don't think he gives a sh!t about the politics of it (he'll never run for another office again), but I don't see him doing something so contrary to common political practice.
Fern
wow, i did a password reset and account unlock on this guys account when i worked at a certain helpdesk. taht wasa pretty trippy experience. kinda off topic but hearing his name again just remided me of that moment.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter