Prepping started for Iran war [Archive]

Gilsch

11-09-2004, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by dmz
Besides, France, Gremany, Russia, China and Kofi don't have oil-for-food bribes riding on this -- so we will actually have their cooperation; war shouldn't be necessary. maybe we could get the vp and Halliburton to show them how bribing is done. Halliburton could also show them how to do business with countries under sanctions through subsidiaries aswell.

Heck, Rummy could also show them how to play dumb when a company he sits on the board of sells systems and equipment for light water nuclear reactors to axis of evil country members like North Korea.

Akumulator

11-09-2004, 12:30 AM

I also don't believe that it'll happen. But as far as preparation for a war... well, the hardest part is done. The troops are already there. If they successfully wrap up Iraq within a year or two, elections take place and a sense of order and a self sustaining government takes hold.... they could easily move across the border.

dmz

11-09-2004, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Gilsch
maybe we could get the vp and Halliburton to show them how bribing is done. Halliburton could also show them how to do business with countries under sanctions through subsidiaries aswell.

Heck, Rummy could also show them how to play dumb when a company he sits on the board of sells systems and equipment for light water nuclear reactors to axis of evil country members like North Korea.

Halliburton doesn't have a vote on the UN security council.

I'll need you to cite chapter and verse on those.

Gilsch

11-09-2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by dmz
Halliburton doesn't have a vote on the UN security council. Didn't need anyone's "permission" to go around the sanctions did it? I'll need you to cite chapter and verse on those. You mean Limbaugh didn't talk about that today? You had no clue did you?

I think you're smart enough to find links on your own. Here's a hint: there's a story about the Nigerian "bribes"(or "payments that may have been made") that came out just today.

dmz

11-09-2004, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Gilsch
Didn't need anyone's "permission" to go around the sanctions did it? You mean Limbaugh didn't talk about that today? You had no clue did you?

I think you're smart enough to find links on your own. Here's a hint: there's a story about the Nigerian "bribes"(or "payments that may have been made") that came out just today.

No, I'm not "smart enough" to find those links. I disagree, so I'm stupid -- how refreshing.

In any event, it will not diminish the fact that the oil-for-food corruption surrounding Iraq wont be involved in any Iran decision.

Gilsch

11-09-2004, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by dmz
No, I'm not "smart enough" to find those links. I disagree, so I'm stupid --
Props to you for your honesty. :D

"God helps those who help themselves".

Powerdoc

11-09-2004, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Sure we can. We're doing it right now. Right...this...very...second. Just now. At this moment.

Real war. Afghanistan do not count.

Akumulator

11-09-2004, 01:33 AM

I'd also like to add that Iraq, now as our ally, would serve as the base and staging point for any assault on Iran. So many troops, armaments and supplies are already there. Certainly it's plausible and honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at this point if it did happen within the next four years. Think of this... if it takes 3 or close to 4 years to get this fully prepared and get Iraq's shit together that would bring us to the next election. Another war time election. I don't doubt for a second that someone high up isn't thinking about some of this shit. Only time will tell if it happens. Like Segovius said, the rhetoric has started and that's the seed that's planted in the minds of the people. The earlier this is put into people's minds that we have to do it, the easier it is for the government to implement it.

[/drunken post]

tonton

11-09-2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Real war. Afghanistan do not count.

There's the War on Islam and the War against the lower and middle classes.

applenut

11-09-2004, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Dra...
...aft

:(

Draft what?

I don't understand the fear of a draft. It is not bodies that the military is in need of. There is no shortage, nor will there be. Even at the current casualty rate, it is no where near severe enough to even consider a draft as a possibility.

11-09-2004, 03:05 AM

Anytime there is a war in this country, there is going to be rumblings of a draft. That is just how it is.

bunge

11-09-2004, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by applenut
I don't understand the fear of a draft. It is not bodies that the military is in need of. There is no shortage, nor will there be. Even at the current casualty rate, it is no where near severe enough to even consider a draft as a possibility.

Prior to the Iraq war, the military wanted 450,000 troops. Rumsfeld wanted far less. The compromise was around 140,000.

By all accounts we don't have enough troops in Iraq to control it.

segovius

11-12-2004, 11:06 AM

Looks like the Iran attack will be sooner rather than later:

Counterterror specialists look for "chatter" in Islamic extremist circles preceding an attack. There is a lot of chatter going on today in Washington - only this time, it is about an American attack on Iran.

In seminars and hallways, there is eager anticipation of an airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Sure, the talk goes, we may not get all those buried nuclear labs. But a few waves of cruise missiles and bombers will set Iran's program back several years, enough time to pursue regime change in Tehran.

Article (http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/10128787.htm)

MarcUK

11-12-2004, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by segovius
Looks like the Iran attack will be sooner rather than later:

That would be a great idea to motivate 100,000 pissed of Iranians over the border to fight with the insurgents in Iraq.

applenut

11-12-2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by bunge
Prior to the Iraq war, the military wanted 450,000 troops. Rumsfeld wanted far less. The compromise was around 140,000.

By all accounts we don't have enough troops in Iraq to control it.

not having enough troops in Iraq is completely different from not having enough troops and requiring a draft.

there is no shortage of troops. the only shortage would be self-imposed.

sammi jo

11-12-2004, 02:31 PM

A war against Iran would be a totally different proposition to Iraq. First Iran is far larger in surface area, second, the mostly mountainous terrain is far tougher to move an invading force across, thirdly, Iran's military is more disciplined and better equipped than the ragtag remains of Saddam Hussein's army when the Iraq war started, fourth, land access to Iran to an invading ground force would be via Iraq only (Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan would be untenable launch points).

If the US was to attack Iran, it would be a "shock and awe" campaign, similar to how the Iraq war started, but on a far larger scale, with the first targets being Iranian Airforce bases. An air campaign would probably be launched from the recently constructed bases in Iraq, from ships in the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, and possibly Israeli airbases as well. Heavy conventional bombs and limited yield 'bunker busting" nuclear weapons would be the weapons of choice, similar to what was used in northen Afghanistan in late 2001. As a last resort, larger nuclear weapons could be deployed against major urban centers where heavy industry and military support systems are concentrated. Ground forces would go in to secure vital facilities once the air war was 'complete', and ground resistance had been reduced to near zero from the intensity of the bombing campaign.

This I feel is more realistic than the more classic ground campaigns of the Gulf War and the ongoing Iraq war. The USA doesn't need to occupy Iran, and practically cannot...it is too large.

Just my 2cents

segovius

11-12-2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
If the US was to attack Iran, it would be a "shock and awe" campaign, similar to how the Iraq war started, but on a far larger scale, with the first targets being Iranian Airforce bases. An air campaign would probably be launched from the recently constructed bases in Iraq, from ships in the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, and possibly Israeli airbases as well.

It would have to be ships that played the major role of such a campaign and they are highly vulnerable to the SSN22 'Sunburn' missile which is an awesome weapon.

It has a range of 100 miles at a speed of more than Mach 2 and can complete highly complex manoevers to elude radar on the fly. It was specifically developed to beat the US radar system and even the Phalanx defense is useless against it (unless it has precise co-ordinates which the Sunburn is programmed to avoid). One could take out a destroyer or other ship of comparable size.

There is an even more advanced missile - the Yakhonts - which Iran most likely has. It has a far greater range and speed and is optimised to take out aircraft carriers. It can actually tell which of a flotilla of ships is a carrier and lock in on it from a range of 200 miles.

Frank777

11-12-2004, 04:48 PM

I still think this discussion is insane.

Nobody's going to back an invasion of Iran, especially with Iraq being such a powder keg and the US low on available troops. The neo-cons may be detached from reality, but the Christian right, libertarians and the moderates like Powell and McCain will not stand for such nonsense in a second term. Pat Robertson's attack on Bush sent a good signal of that. There would likely be a battle in the halls of the White House and Congress that sends Cheney back to his undisclosed location.

I think the most realistic assessment says that an Israeli air strike would be far more likely.

segovius

11-18-2004, 03:23 AM

They're using the old Dissidents in Exile (http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1100757376149460.xml) routine again now.

Hey - it worked in Iraq. Why change a winning formula ?

giant

11-18-2004, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
It won't be a war in Iran.
Morale side apart, even the US can't afford two wars simultaneously.
Note also that I don't know many democracy ready to commit suicide by entering in the war against all the muslim world.
Yeah, but there were a whole lot of things we thought were too insane to be possible until the bush admin did them and got away with them. Now, with addition of all of the changes in the admin during the past couple weeks, we don't know what to expect.

segovius

11-18-2004, 03:48 AM

I think we do know excactly what to expect.

They're telling us every day. If people can't see or hear it then that's a different story. They're telling us - literally.

'Democracy' and 'Freedom' will be spread by whatever means necessary (except to Saudi). And that means militarily in the case of certain 'super-evil' States.

In the UK there is even a new term for it 'Liberal Imperialism'.

Blair recently outlined the theory (curiously after just meeting Bush - presumably to get his instructions) in London:

"Democracy is the meeting point for Europe and America. I am not - repeat not - advocating a series of military solutions to achieve it. But I am saying that, patiently and plainly, Europe and America should be working together to bring the democratic human and political rights we take for granted to the world denied them."

Officials declined to speculate on which countries might be targeted under Mr Blair's proposed doctrine, which has been described as "liberal imperialism". They stressed that he was "not advocating a military solution to every problem".

Note that little word 'every'.

Powerdoc

11-18-2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by giant
Yeah, but there were a whole lot of things we thought were too insane to be possible until the bush admin did them and got away with them. Now, with addition of all of the changes in the admin during the past couple weeks, we don't know what to expect.

I think that many republicans politicians will admit secretly that the Iraq war did not help them in the last elections. Without this war, the election would have been a cakewalk.

The Bush admin is discovereging the complexity of the islam world, and even acoording to my agenda, they commited an error with Iraq, I dont think that they will be fool enough to repeat this error.

The Iraq war created a huge shift among occidental countries, and I think that both USA and many countries are interested to regain good relationships.

giant

11-18-2004, 01:24 PM

I'd love to agree with you, but segovius is absolutely right. No one believed that the Bush admin was going to go through with most of this stuff it has done and is planning to do. During the 2000 campaign most people believed that there was no way a bush admin could be anything but moderate, even though Bush and his future advisors all were proposing radical changes on everything from social security to the structure of the US military. Now we know better.

I'm not saying that I know at this point what they plan to do with Iran, but I have no illusions about the fact that the Bush admin is willing to totally blow off allies and engage in conflicts it can't sustain using justifications that don't stand up to scrutiny at all.

And right now it's clear the administration is removing opposition, no matter how slight, from itself and the intelligence community, so there is even more of a chance for abuse in the future.

Powerdoc

11-18-2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by giant
I'd love to agree with you, but segovius is absolutely right. No one believed that the Bush admin was going to go through with most of this stuff it has done and is planning to do. During the 2000 campaign most people believed that there was no way a bush admin could be anything but moderate, even though Bush and his future advisors all were proposing radical changes on everything from social security to the structure of the US military. Now we know better.

I'm not saying that I know at this point what they plan to do with Iran, but I have no illusions about the fact that the Bush admin is willing to totally blow off allies and engage in conflicts it can't sustain using justifications that don't stand up to scrutiny at all.

And right now it's clear the administration is removing opposition, no matter how slight, from itself and the intelligence community, so there is even more of a chance for abuse in the future.

If what you say is true, it will mean that Bush is truly insane.
Let's expect it's not the case ....

Gene Clean

11-18-2004, 05:28 PM

Iran is a tough cookie. It doesn't look anything like the guerillas in Iraq, and has more than AK-47's and RPG's. I'd like to see Rummy, Condy, Georgi and Wolfovitwy, and lets not forget the architect of Iraqi war Cheney grab arms and go and fight and 'spread freedom'.

Especially the funny trio Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz. Those are the true heroes of todays world, and the true masters of the darkest corners of history.

BRussell

11-18-2004, 05:33 PM

Check out this blog post from The Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005176.php):
You know, I'm more than willing to believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a very bad thing indeed. But take a look at what's been going on just in the past few weeks:

The Israelis have made it clear that they believe Iran is fast becoming an imminent threat that justifies preemptive attack.

There's a multinational effort underway to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium. The Europeans think they've reached a solid agreement, but the United States remains skeptical.

An exile group is loudly claiming that the Iranians are lying and there's a secret enrichment facility the Europeans don't know about.

Liberal hawk Kenneth Pollack has a big new book out telling us how dangerous Iran is.
(The url above includes links to sources showing what's been going on.)

New

11-18-2004, 05:38 PM

The only reasonable thing to do from an iranian-regime-point-of-view would be to get those nuke pretty darn fast...

Aries 1B

11-18-2004, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by New
The only reasonable thing to do from an iranian-regime-point-of-view would be to get those nuke pretty darn fast...

...while maintaining public order:

http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/001327.html

Poor kid.

Does this kind of stuff earn the government the allegiance of the Iranian People?

Poor kid.

Aries 1B

PS: New, this post is not an attack. I'm just saddened by the murder of this kid.

giant

11-19-2004, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Aries 1B
http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/001327.html

Hmmmm.... Very strange site, indeed. It was just registered in september under domains by proxy (to hide ID) and I don't see any indication of who's doing the site on the home page at all. Just scanning the page I see it borrows a story from Voice of America and has at least one pro-israeli, anti-semitism article.

segovius

11-19-2004, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by giant
Hmmmm.... Very strange site, indeed. It was just registered in september under domains by proxy (to hide ID) and I don't see any indication of who's doing the site on the home page at all. Just scanning the page I see it borrows a story from Voice of America and has at least one pro-israeli, anti-semitism article.

Looks like it's part of the program.

I shall dig into this a bit. Meanwhile, where did you find it and how Aries 1B ?

segovius

11-19-2004, 05:09 AM

Ok - the site is a partner of the Radio Network KRSI: Radio Sedaye.

If you click the link on the IranPress page you will go to the KRSI homepage and see the nice photo of Bush with the congratulations message ! Nice touch !

Actually this is a very clever site - it is designed to look like it is Iranian made, typically Iranian webwork in fact, But in reality KRSI broadcasts from Los Angeles.

But wait, there's more....

With a touch of under-statement - "we are trying something a little out of the ordinary today" - one of America's most influential neo-conservative lobby groups this week started broadcasting a live radio chat-show out of its Washington headquarters and into Iran, featuring interviews with opposition activists in both countries.

The teaming-up of the well-funded and well-connected American Enterprise Institute (AEI) with Los Angeles-based Radio Sedaye Iran (Voice of Iran) marks a new step in the efforts of the US right to influence regime change in the Islamic republic.

Exactly the same MO as they used in Iraq. 'Influential ex-pats' who are essentially Americans touted as 'pro-democracy' opposition (think Chalabi) and a constant drip-drip of misleading and false propaganda.

Who can doubt this is prepping now ?

Financial Times article from whence quote above derives (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=4229&fcategory_desc=Project%20for%20a%20New%20American% 20Century)

New

11-19-2004, 05:28 AM

Just to make things clear:

Stuff like this happens in iran. The iranian regime is certainly not my favourite. These things happen in many muslim countries.

- And many christian. :wow:

But your site is not an independent source. Try Amnesty. I bet they have a whole section on iran.

Regarding the war. It's not happening. Not right now anyway. If elections in iraq free up some US forces. - Then the situation is different.

giant

11-19-2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by segovius
Ok - the site is a partner of the Radio Network KRSI: Radio Sedaye.

If you click the link on the IranPress page you will go to the KRSI homepage and see the nice photo of Bush with the congratulations message ! Nice touch !

Actually this is a very clever site - it is designed to look like it is Iranian made, typically Iranian webwork in fact, But in reality KRSI broadcasts from Los Angeles.

But wait, there's more....
With a touch of under-statement - "we are trying something a little out of the ordinary today" - one of America's most influential neo-conservative lobby groups this week started broadcasting a live radio chat-show out of its Washington headquarters and into Iran, featuring interviews with opposition activists in both countries.

The teaming-up of the well-funded and well-connected American Enterprise Institute (AEI) with Los Angeles-based Radio Sedaye Iran (Voice of Iran) marks a new step in the efforts of the US right to influence regime change in the Islamic republic.
Exactly the same MO as they used in Iraq. 'Influential ex-pats' who are essentially Americans touted as 'pro-democracy' opposition (think Chalabi) and a constant drip-drip of misleading and false propaganda.

Who can doubt this is prepping now ?

Financial Times article from whence quote above derives (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=4229&fcategory_desc=Project%20for%20a%20New%20American% 20Century)
Thanks, that's exactly what I figured. AEI backed propaganda. You are absolutely right that it's the same MO.

Aries 1B

11-19-2004, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Looks like it's part of the program.

I shall dig into this a bit. Meanwhile, where did you find it and how Aries 1B ?

Honestly, I don't remember. That page struck me as 'less than spontaneous' as well. Sad story about the boy, though. That story, if true, if representative of conditions in Iran and if a source of outrage to Iranians in the Street (which would tell about their value system - of which I know nothing about), tells me that Regime Change in Iran could, perhaps, be brought about from Within. With Discrete Assistance.

If, if, and if...

Aries 1B

tonton

11-19-2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Aries 1B
Honestly, I don't remember. That page struck me as 'less than spontaneous' as well. Sad story about the boy, though. That story, if true, if representative of conditions in Iran and if a source of outrage to Iranians in the Street (which would tell about their value system - of which I know nothing about), tells me that Regime Change in Iran could, perhaps, be brought about from Within. With Discrete Assistance.

If, if, and if...

Aries 1B

I could name five nations right now with way worse human rights abuses than Iran. Community level human rights violations are in no way a reason to invade Iran, rather than say Pakistan, India, Indonesia, China, North Korea, and any number of African nations, who all have a far worse, well documented history of human rights abuse, both at the community and government level. Using human rights as an excuse to invade Iran (or Iraq, for that matter) is hiding the true motivation for action.

By the way, Afghanistan is producing more opium than ever in the country's history (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4022217.stm). The war on drugs has apparently been abandoned by the very conservatives that launched it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? When do we start "terrorist attacks" that kill innocent civilians? Oh, yeah, we already do that, too (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/17/1524239)!

Way to get those foreigners on our side, George!

My dick is far better at gaining moral high ground than the neocons are. And they talk about values?

Carson O'Genic

11-20-2004, 12:38 AM

The US doesn't have the troops to go into Iran. They have to show (and actually have) success in Iraq before moving on. That, unfortuneatly IMHO will not happen very soon. Now if they can hand over Iraq and the troops are in the region already, then its time to start worrying big time.

midwinter

11-20-2004, 12:41 AM

rageous

11-20-2004, 01:00 AM

The US has plenty of troops to go into Iran. They're already stationed on either side of it. As we've seen it doesn't take many men on the ground to waste a country. It just takes a shitload to not ruin it. We apppear to be rather understaffed for that sort of mission.

giant

11-20-2004, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Aries 1B
That story, if true, if representative...
You need to reevaluate what you think you know if you are getting info from deceptive AEI-backed propaganda efforts.

I look forward to never, ever, ever hearing any BS about the 'liberal media' from you again, seeing as though you have no honest interest in critically assessing your information sources.

giant

11-20-2004, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by rageous
As we've seen it doesn't take many men on the ground to waste a country.
a country, but not any country.

midwinter

11-20-2004, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by rageous
The US has plenty of troops to go into Iran. They're already stationed on either side of it. As we've seen it doesn't take many men on the ground to waste a country. It just takes a shitload to not ruin it. We apppear to be rather understaffed for that sort of mission.

Bingo. Ding ding ding.

Iraq is not about Iraq. Afghanistan is not about Afghanistan. They are about the entirety of the ME, world peace, communication, stability, peak oil...and Iran is the next step.

rageous

11-20-2004, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by giant
a country, but not any country.

Well that's specifically when I said "a" and not "any"

Aries 1B

11-20-2004, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by giant
You need to reevaluate what you think you know if you are getting info from deceptive AEI-backed propaganda efforts.

I look forward to never, ever, ever hearing any BS about the 'liberal media' from you again, seeing as though you have no honest interest in critically assessing your information sources.

Life's full of disappointment: Kerry on the junkheap, CBS/NYTimes credibility in tatters, and I'm going to continue to post whatever The Guidelines allow.

Aries 1B

giant

11-21-2004, 02:11 AM

:wow: You're proud of being openly dishonest and hypocritical.

It never ceases to amaze me how die-hard bush supporters have completely abandoned logic and honesty. It's actually really scary, and in many ways that go far beyond Iran.

tonton

11-21-2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by giant
It never ceases to amaze me how die-hard bush supporters have completely abandoned logic and honesty.

In all honesty, and this will last for the rest of my life, it ceased to amaze me on November 3, 2004. I will never again underestimate the stupidity.

New

11-21-2004, 02:20 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1356189,00.html

I particularly surprised by the willingness of Powell to issue official statements based on nothing once again...

segovius

11-21-2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by New
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1356189,00.html

I particularly surprised by the willingness of Powell to issue official statements based on nothing once again...

It's a sign it's moving quickly - very quickly.

They had hoped to get Iran on the nuclear issue over time with a slow build-up to prep the mind of the public but the EU/Iran deal blew it out of the water.

They need to go soon.

Note all this 'evidence' is all from the last few days but the EU deal specifically agreed that it would come into effect MONDAY - they aren't even giving it a chance.

You'd think they'd be glad - but no - they WANT all out war.

Military action being reviewed (http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=289258&lang=e&dir=news)

Bush steps up Iran rhetoric (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_21-11-2004_pg7_44)

And if that isn't enough Bush is also giving the macho John Wayne routine to the North Koreans.

Something will go off soon. And it won't just be the morons who voted for this that have to pay the price of the insanity.

Frank777

11-22-2004, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by tonton
In all honesty, and this will last for the rest of my life, it ceased to amaze me on November 3, 2004. I will never again underestimate the stupidity.

Calling the people you disagree with stupid is a major reason the Democrats lost on November 4th.

As for the topic, I haven't been follow this too closely, and Canadian media aren't hyping Iran as much as the U.S. media is (by what I see in this thread, anyway.)

But I remain unconvinced that the U.S. is seriously looking at fighting a war on two major fronts at the same time. Even those who haven't served in the military are aware of those dangers, and I really don't see that Bush has the political room to push another war through.

giant

11-22-2004, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by Frank777
Calling the people you disagree with stupid is a major reason the Democrats lost on November 4th.
Bullshit. Total, 100% bullshit. Republicans first made Asshole Radio mainstream in the US, then moved the tactic to the internet, the most well-known example being Free Republic.

The simple cold, hard fact is that the republican victim act, like the fantasy of republican fiscal responsibility, is nothing but an overt lie.

segovius

11-22-2004, 09:52 AM

We got a time frame now: within six months. (http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=427)

And more from Sunday's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1356189,00.html):

Pentagon hawks have begun discussing military action against Iran to neutralise its nuclear weapons threat, including possible strikes on leadership, political and security targets..

Bring em on....:no:

talksense101

11-22-2004, 12:02 PM

What if Russia backs Iran along with other nations that get their oil supply from it? Will we go in for all out war? What if one of those missiles hit American soil?

segovius

11-22-2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by talksense101
What if Russia backs Iran along with other nations that get their oil supply from it? Will we go in for all out war? What if one of those missiles hit American soil?

The threat of Russia or China backing Iran is a very real one.

Also, the US will be going it alone in any event. There's no way they can get a coalition together - only Toady will want to go along but even he won't be able to persuade the UK public and his own party this time.

steve666

11-22-2004, 10:03 PM

However they figure out how to do it Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
A country whose Congress chants 'Death to America' is a target for our military.
Unlike Iraq, Iran is a legitimate target.
I would hope for covert action, but action is necessary.

steve666

11-22-2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
The US doesn't have the troops to go into Iran. They have to show (and actually have) success in Iraq before moving on. That, unfortuneatly IMHO will not happen very soon. Now if they can hand over Iraq and the troops are in the region already, then its time to start worrying big time.

We have plenty of troops wasting time and money in Europe and Asia. Personally Id rather see them on our borders stopping illegal aliens, but there are enough to do the job if need be.

Its Bush's fault that he allowed it to get this far. His buddy Putin helped Iran build their nuclear reactors. Now Putin says he's also concerned about Irans nuclear intentions. A brilliant statesman.:no:

segovius

11-23-2004, 03:47 AM

Stop threatening people and they won't feel they need protection.

Bush is heading for his Waterloo and unfortunately he's taking America with him.

As ever they will be the ones who have to pick up the tab - and this one will be a bank-breaker.

Can't stop it now, The people have spoken.

segovius

11-23-2004, 04:48 AM

For those of the 'US cannot fight on two fronts' school of denial - Check this out (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/11/22/hawks_push_deep_cuts_in_forces_in_iraq/) - looks like the hawks are pushing for massive troop reductions in Iraq:

Those arguing for immediate troop reductions include key Pentagon advisers, prominent neoconservatives, and some of the fiercest supporters of the Iraq invasion among Washington's policy elite.

Gee- I can't imagine why the warheads would want that - I mean what will they do with all those troops ?

Harald

11-23-2004, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by steve666
Its Bush's fault that he allowed it to get this far. His buddy Putin helped Iran build their nuclear reactors. Now Putin says he's also concerned about Irans nuclear intentions. A brilliant statesman.:no:

While your sentiments about Bush are surprising, don't forget that America sold Saddam WMD precusor chemicals, and then got concerned with him later. If Putin's stupid, then there must have been stupid defence secretaries in the 80s.

Rumsfeld: a brilliant statesman. :no:

segovius

11-23-2004, 04:56 AM

What politicians actually say doesn't mean that much. I think they used to call it diplomacy.

Putin is under pressure to sing with the choir but he is also re-invigorating the Russian nuclear programme and he is no fool whatever else you think of him. Iran is no threat to him but Bush could be.

I don't think he's going to sit back and let the US ***-up the region even more. That's one of the reasons why Russia is selling more Sunburn missiles to Iran.

steve666

11-23-2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Harald
While your sentiments about Bush are surprising, don't forget that America sold Saddam WMD precusor chemicals, and then got concerned with him later. If Putin's stupid, then there must have been stupid defence secretaries in the 80s.

Rumsfeld: a brilliant statesman. :no:

You wont see me defending our policies. We make stupid mistakes piled upon stupid mistakes.
However, Iran is a real threat. There are plenty of folks there who want the religious leaders out of office, but we cant wait until that happens. Iran actively supports terrorists and any country whose Govmnt chants 'Death to America' must be dealt with. I wish israel would be the one to do it, but if they dont, we need to act.

Harald

11-24-2004, 02:51 AM

Here we go. Here we go.

I remember all this rhetoric before the Iraq war; people hyping up the threat and resting the entire civilized world's future on one state and one 'weapons progamme.'

I didn't think you lot would fall for it again but you are.

One prediction: this time, not even Britain will back this fucking ludicrous endeavour. Israel will have a pop with those US bunker busters and the world will be less safer as it is now Iraq is a terrorist haven.

11-24-2004, 03:37 AM

What about this scenario: Iraq holds elections ( 'Iraq, a democracy now, is an ally in the WOT' ), Iraq beefs up its army... U.S. & Iraq invade Iran... thoughts?

segovius

11-24-2004, 03:44 AM

11-24-2004, 04:17 AM

Clue me in...

segovius

11-24-2004, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by Ra
Clue me in...

Sistani is the 'big cheese' in Iraq - he is undoubtedly a man of peace and he has almost total control of the majority Shi'i there. In terms of that they revere him and would do whatever he says.

Up till now he has been saying work with the Americans or at the very least, don't oppose them. And that is why the insurgency is as small as it is. Sadr tried to be a rebel and the US couldn't sort him out but Sistani neutralised him in one meeting.

So far he hasn't spoken on Fallujah and he hasn't condemned the Americans. Yet. That's why the insurgents consists of minority Sunni fighters, a few stray Shi'i on occasion, ex-Ba'athists and a lot of foreign Jihadis. The majority Shi'i are obeying Sistani's calls for peace.

Just as a ballpark figure, Sistani's followers number about 7.5 million in Iraq. That's 7.5 million currently obeying his implicit orders to support/not oppose the occupation. He has massive support in Iran too as this is his powerbase.

I'm not sure if he would order a Jihad if the US attacked Iran, no-one really knows. But if he did.......

tonton

11-24-2004, 04:55 AM

Very interesting... and scary.

By the way, Segovius, where are you in the creationism thread? I really want to hear your take on it.

segovius

11-24-2004, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by tonton
Very interesting... and scary.

By the way, Segovius, where are you in the creationism thread? I really want to hear your take on it.

umm, is there a creationism thread ? I must have missed it - is it in AO ?

tonton

11-24-2004, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by segovius
umm, is there a creationism thread ? I must have missed it - is it in AO ?

Yes. It's called "common descent ancestor found" or something like that.

segovius

11-24-2004, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by tonton
Yes. It's called "common descent ancestor found" or something like that.

Cheers, I'll head over there and check it out.

steve666

11-24-2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Ra
What about this scenario: Iraq holds elections ( 'Iraq, a democracy now, is an ally in the WOT' ), Iraq beefs up its army... U.S. & Iraq invade Iran... thoughts?

The iraqis have been through enough

What I would like to see is the Arab league rise up and speak out against Irans nuclear intentions. I cant imagine that they are happy to have this happen.

New

11-25-2004, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by steve666
The iraqis have been through enough

What I would like to see is the Arab league rise up and speak out against Irans nuclear intentions. I cant imagine that they are happy to have this happen.

The arab leaders or the arab people?

I believe the arab people are perfectly happy with Iran getting the bomb. Seeing Israel has a whole arsenal aimed at them...

segovius

11-25-2004, 05:17 AM

Iranians are Persians.

And what New said.

Hassan i Sabbah

11-25-2004, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by segovius
Iranians are Persians.

And what New said.
The word Iran predates the word Persia.

And what New said.

segovius

11-25-2004, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The word Iran predates the word Persia.

And what New said.

And they're not Arabs.

And what Hassan said.

Hassan i Sabbah

11-25-2004, 09:10 AM

Oops.

What you said the first time.

New

11-25-2004, 09:16 AM

says who?

11-25-2004, 09:29 AM

i havent read all the comments but I can tell you that a war with Iran is just not gonna happen.

I've been there many times and know the country pretty well. Not like a native, but its nowhere near as "easy" as Iraq.

Iran is like mixing the mountains of Afganistan and some parts of deserts of Iraq. Mix in some very motivated soldiers who have a LOT of weapons (not like the pathetic US invasion of Iraq in 2002 against an army that had been 10 years depleated and just not even a half effort.

Iran has lots of tanks, lots of fighters, long range missle systems, millions of soldiers, millions of reservists, para-military, etc.

They do not have the religious problems of Iraq. They are basically all Shiite muslim so, pretty stable. There are some tribal things, but hardly enough to pit one group against another in case of a foreign invasion.

Overall, Iranians are a very proud people who love their country despite all the crap the religious authorities fling at them. Yes, they have issues about capital punishment, torture, and just general ass backwards laws (seen from our point of view), but despite that, as I said before, I dont think you'll get a popular uprising against the religious authorities if the US were to invade.

When I was there, Persians were publicly hating the USA (because they have to) but when you go to a market or just meet common people, they hope you're an american and want to talk, discuss, and they have this thing about wanting to be pen pals. Heh.

Lets not forget that Persia was the most westernized nation outside of Europe for a while. The problem was that the Shah westernized too quickly and upset a lot of people and eventually the extremists took over and the rest is history. The current president, and the former, were/are quite moderate.

Generally the iranian government does not like the religious authorities becaus ethey interfere with everything and are just way too extremist for a lot of things. Unfortunately, they are necessary in order to keep the nation together and not have another extremist revolution like that lunatic Khomeni.

Aaaaanyway... to make a long thing short, the US of A better think 5 times before doing something as dumb as that.

11-25-2004, 09:37 AM

also just wanted to add:

associating Al-Q with Iran is a shot in the dark. Granted, Bush and Cronies managed to somewhat brainwash the American public to invade Iraq on bullshit proof, but it just wouldnt work with Iran.

In general, and most middle eastern countries have figured this one out since a while, its NOT A GOOD THING to harbor and/or encourage terrorist groups in your country.

Why? Because these groups tend to bite you in the arse and topple you down. This happened plenty of times in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, etc.

Saddam Hussein and anyone else would be CRAZY to harbor terrorist groups unless they were their own special operations groups that were created, controlled, and maintained by their respective armies. This is what we generally call "Special Operations" or things like "CIA" in our country. Every country has their own.

But to actually harbor Al-Q in Iran? Knowingly? Thats just pure folly.

segovius

11-25-2004, 11:24 AM

Well said Zo - one thing though: your argument that a war isn't going to happen seems to hinge on the fact that it would be insane. Which is true.

But that leads to the premise that the Bush admin is not insane enough to do it.

I think that's where the doubt lies.

Frank777

11-25-2004, 03:20 PM

Ok, I'm just thinking out loud here. I have no proof, nor anything in substance to back this up.

But what if the neo-cons' idea is to recreate Persia?

Wasn't it the British that divided Iran and Iraq? It's an artificial line, drawn through a people that think and worship similarly (well the Shia anyway?)

Is it actually possible to combine the two (should Iran's government somehow fall) and sell it to their people as the new mid-east superpower?

Again, I'm just thinking out loud here. Don't be too cruel. ;)

steve666

11-25-2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Iranians are Persians.

And what New said.

I know Iranians arent Arabs, thats why i would think the Arab league could say something without appearing to go against one of their own.

I bet that Arab countries are more concerned about Iran having the bomb than israel. When Israel destroyed Osarik in Iraq they were quite grateful.

steve666

11-25-2004, 05:55 PM

So let me get this straight, Iran with Nuclear weapons doesnt bother any of you and we would be stupid to go to war with them to prevent that, but not stupid to sit back and allow them to get nuclear weapons?

Talk about a head in the sand mentality.

Gene Clean

11-25-2004, 08:04 PM

It doesn't bother me any more than Israel with nuclear weapons, supplied by the US.

steve666

11-25-2004, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
It doesn't bother me any more than Israel with nuclear weapons, supplied by the US.

They built their own.

And Im not sure how you can say it doesnt bother you. I find that pretty lame.

Frank777

11-25-2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
It doesn't bother me any more than Israel with nuclear weapons, supplied by the US.

For a country that has been under attack most of it's life, Israel has shown surprising maturity and extreme patience with their ownership of nuclear weapons.

Even with what sometimes seem like daily incursions by terrorists into civilian areas, there is no real public support for a "nuke 'em all" solution virtually anywhere in Israeli society.

Iran, on the other hand, is controlled by nutbars who perform death chants against their political enemies inside their government chambers.

If they get a nuke, they will use it.

steve666

11-25-2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Frank777
For a country that has been under attack most of it's life, Israel has shown surprising maturity and extreme patience with their ownership of nuclear weapons.

Even with what sometimes seem like daily incursions by terrorists into civilian areas, there is no real public support for a "nuke 'em all" solution virtually anywhere in Israeli society.

Iran, on the other hand, is controlled by nutbars who perform death chants against their political enemies inside their government chambers.

If they get a nuke, they will use it.

Exactly. And they will give them to terrorists who will make a smart bomb. Putin should have known that the Chechens will most likely be a buyer. Yet he stupidly helped Iran build reactors.

A nuclear Iran is a danger to the entire world.

Gene Clean

11-26-2004, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by steve666
They built their own.

And Im not sure how you can say it doesnt bother you. I find that pretty lame.

Dream on, buddy. They built their own... :lol:

So is Iran. What is the problem then?

Gene Clean

11-26-2004, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Frank777
For a country that has been under attack most of it's life, Israel has shown surprising maturity and extreme patience with their ownership of nuclear weapons.

Even with what sometimes seem like daily incursions by terrorists into civilian areas, there is no real public support for a "nuke 'em all" solution virtually anywhere in Israeli society.

Iran, on the other hand, is controlled by nutbars who perform death chants against their political enemies inside their government chambers.

If they get a nuke, they will use it.

Its pretty surprising to see a country 'constantly' attacked to be holding others territories.

A country constantly in attack doesn't occupy territories and perform genocide on them. A country that is attacking, however, does.

Iran has never used nukes either. And never says they would. So, double standards ayyyy?

Gene Clean

11-26-2004, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by steve666

A nuclear Iran is a danger to the entire world.

change this to: 'A nuclear Iraq is a danger to the entire world' and you come close to Bush's speeches. Hell even the monkey-face Dicky.

You've started quoting Bush now?

steve666

11-26-2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Dream on, buddy. They built their own... :lol:

So is Iran. What is the problem then?

Pakistan built nukes also. Who helped them? It can be done without outside help. Find me proof that the US helped Israel with their program.

The problem is that Iran is run by terrorist supporting thugs who chant 'Death to America' . I consider that a problem.

steve666

11-26-2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Its pretty surprising to see a country 'constantly' attacked to be holding others territories.

A country constantly in attack doesn't occupy territories and perform genocide on them. A country that is attacking, however, does.

Iran has never used nukes either. And never says they would. So, double standards ayyyy?

Genocide? Hardly. Your bias is showing.
Israel has been attacked many times by Arabs. Look it up.
Iran has never used nukes because they never had them. If you trust Iran's word over Israel's you'd be in the minority. The Arabs arent afraid of Israel, they were always more afraid of Saddam. Iran is no friendly neighbor, if Israel destroyed their reactors they would most likely cheer (internally of course, dont want to upset the fanatics).

New

11-26-2004, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by steve666
Pakistan built nukes also. Who helped them? It can be done without outside help. Find me proof that the US helped Israel with their program.
france gave israel their nuclear program.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimona ...

steve666

11-26-2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by New
france gave israel their nuclear program.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimona ...

France used to pick their allies alot better than they do now.

Harald

11-27-2004, 03:38 AM

Not really. What's changed is that people in America hear a lot of distortion about France, all the time. France is getting the same kind of treatment as Iraq and Iran do, only watered down a bit.

I mean, consider this. Iraq is all about democracy, right? Because democracies are good, and if Iraq was one then America would like them and so would the whole world.

Well, France is a democracy. But there seems to be reason to hate (yes, hate) France. And do you imagine that an Iraqi democracy that represented the wishes of a people who now hate America would be more or less favourable to America then France?

segovius

11-27-2004, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by Harald
Not really. What's changed is that people in America hear a lot of distortion about France, all the time. France is getting the same kind of treatment as Iraq and Iran do, only watered down a bit.

I mean, consider this. Iraq is all about democracy, right? Because democracies are good, and if Iraq was one then America would like them and so would the whole world.

Well, France is a democracy. But there seems to be reason to hate (yes, hate) France. And do you imagine that an Iraqi democracy that represented the wishes of a people who now hate America would be more or less favourable to America then France?

It isn't about democracy - that's just a lie for the sheep, some of whom do still believe in the concept.

Your point about France proves that.

There are further confirmers from the other side of the coin as it were, where quasi-fascist undemocratic states are high on the 'friendly and good' nations list. Saudi would be one - Pakistan and Indonesia another.

Aquatic

11-27-2004, 02:05 PM

Iran actively supports terrorists and any country whose Govmnt chants 'Death to America' must be dealt with.

OK Mr. Freedom of Speech!

Wow. Just wow. Duuuh?

As for the Two Fronts thing, well, that has ALWAYS been an American priority: being able to fight a war on two fronts. Afghanistan doesn't count anymore because we don't give a shit about it. We already bombed it. Check. Iraq: already bombed: check. Just needs a few troops. Time for Iran. I see it coming. What will happen to Iraq you say? I think terrorists will plan a massive surprise attack on the few troops we leave in Iraq and it will be a bloodbath. A terrible horror. I also think there will be a dirty nuclear bomb attack in the US in the next 4 years. It wouldn't surprise me. I'm glad I'm not living in NYC. And to think, those poor bastards didn't even vote for Bush.

Bush is definitely heading to Waterloo. Hmm didn't he take history and learn about supply lines, and all those other military thingies? I think he's streeetching a bit already.

Man it has to suck to be in the Army right now. And to think I once wanted to do ROTC. The second Bush was in, I was like...haha, no.

Hey steve666 are you ready to join up and die for us just because Iran chants smack about us? yea that's what I thought.

And yes as for the human rights thing...well, there are whole continents that are worse, like Africa, South America, most of Asia...

edit: disclaimer: I don't support Iran's government. Yes they harbor terrorists. They helped Al Quaeda pass through borders.

Does this mean we should invade Iran? No. Diplomacy? Yes.

It's called MAD people. They know if they attacked us with a nuclear bomb, they would become I think as Bush I put it "a glass park." The US does not hesitate to use nuclear weapons when they are necessary and I support this. Stamping out terrorism is important and MAD and our willingness to use nukes is part of the "big stick" we carry while speaking softly. I think we should start watching Iran much closer, and hey, maybe use some intelligence from the CIA and other organizations, although under Porter Goss who knows what their deal is. Multilateral talks would be a good idea too. And I think we should increase our naval and air presence in the region to a large degree.

But then again, I'm an arm chair general. I'd say leave the thinking to experienced leaders, like say, Colin Powell. :\

steve666

11-27-2004, 05:55 PM

>Hey steve666 are you ready to join up and die for us just because Iran chants smack about us? yea that's what I thought.

And yes as for the human rights thing...well, there are whole continents that are worse, like Africa, South America, most of Asia...

edit: disclaimer: I don't support Iran's government. Yes they harbor terrorists. They helped Al Quaeda pass through borders.

Does this mean we should invade Iran? No. Diplomacy? Yes.

It's called MAD people. They know if they attacked us with a nuclear bomb, they would become I think as Bush I put it "a glass park." The US does not hesitate to use nuclear weapons when they are necessary and I support this. Stamping out terrorism is important and MAD and our willingness to use nukes is part of the "big stick" we carry while speaking softly. I think we should start watching Iran much closer, and hey, maybe use some intelligence from the CIA and other organizations, although under Porter Goss who knows what their deal is. Multilateral talks would be a good idea too. And I think we should increase our naval and air presence in the region to a large degree.

But then again, I'm an arm chair general. I'd say leave the thinking to experienced leaders, like say, Colin Powell<

Ok, let me get this straight because it appears you contradicted yourself a few times there. You do think Iran is supporting terrorists that want us dead, but you dont think we should do something about it.
You say those in charge are loons, but you want us to use diplomacy.

Sorry, but thats just not realistic. If they are a danger to us, and I think you agree that they are, they must be dealt with.
I am no fan of Bush, I cant stand the guy. I actually voted for Gore and Kerry. Iraq was a mistake, the real danger is Iran. If things can be worked out satusfactorily without military action that would be great, but it isnt going to happen.

The Europeans are trying to get an agreement with Iran without physical verification. How the hell is that supposed to work, by taking their word for it? Sorry, we cant allow Iran to get nukes. Whatever it takes must be done.

segovius

12-07-2004, 02:54 PM

Iran launches military exercises on Iraq border (http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/december/12_07_2.html)

Officials say the exercises are the biggest ever conducted and are specifically to prepare for a possible invasion by the US.

The exercise included missiles, rockets, armored personnel carriers, main battle tanks and unmanned aerial vehicles developed over the last decade. Officials said many of these weapons and platforms were introduced into service over the last two years.

Officials said the exercise included 10 infantry divisions as well as artillery, missile and electronic warfare units. They said the air force was providing support for ground units as part of a demonstration of the interoperability between the services.

segovius

12-13-2004, 10:03 AM

Bullshit update: Dec 04

Yep, it's the 45-minute claim redux (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/12/94252.shtml)

People were stupid enough to buy it last time so why change the formula:

The latest generation of missile technology currently being engineered by Iranian scientists will be able to reach the continental United States, former Israeli ambassador to the U.N. Dore Gold said Saturday.

Good one ! :lol: But wait, it gets better.....

Gold called Iran's capacity to launch a nuclear attack on most of the Western world a "global problem [for] which European governments, the United States and Israel have to come up with a solution."

You can't even call it insulting someone's intelligence because the sheep that swallow this crap haven't got any - they've defined a whole new genre....

:no:

New

12-13-2004, 12:12 PM

Gold is one of the more unsympathetic people I've come across...

Powerdoc

12-13-2004, 03:38 PM

In the future most countries will have acess to nuke technology. I don't see how you can stop that. It was complicated in 1950, it's not that difficult in 2004.

Gene Clean

12-14-2004, 01:03 AM

you know, when Israelis stark talking about nukes, its like pedofiles saying 'yelling at kids is an abuse!'

they did this in iraq, they're doing it in iran. lets see where the 'funny' wheel of death spins last.

steve666

12-14-2004, 06:14 PM

Iran cant be allowed to get nukes, period.
Whatever it takes

tonton

12-14-2004, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by steve666
Whatever it takes

Never an acceptable answer. That's the answer for those people too stupid to come up with a peaceful solution.

steve666

12-14-2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by tonton
Never an acceptable answer. That's the answer for those people too stupid to come up with a peaceful solution.

There is no peaceful solution with a country that doesnt want peace. A country that pays money to terrorists to kill as many innocents as possible.

You and your ilk are appeasers.

Death to Iran

Gene Clean

12-14-2004, 11:57 PM

tonton

12-15-2004, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by steve666
There is no peaceful solution with a country that doesnt want peace. A country that pays money to terrorists to kill as many innocents as possible.

You and your ilk are appeasers.

Death to Iran

There is a peaceful solution to everything. And each of your allegations are unfounded. You and your ilk are afraid of independent thought and analysis, so you let the right wing fear mongers speak for you.

New

12-15-2004, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by tonton
There is a peaceful solution to everything. And each of your allegations are unfounded. You and your ilk are afraid of independent thought and analysis, so you let the right wing fear mongers speak for you.

You and your ilk, tonton.
You and your damn ilk....

steve666

12-15-2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
:lol: good one!

and I say "death to Idiots!"

Nah, I dont want you to die:)

talksense101

12-15-2004, 10:12 PM

In the meanwhile, GWB's defense system fails again during tests.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=639263

Hmm, I would be a little careful about attacking other countries that can fight back...

Gene Clean

12-16-2004, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by steve666
Nah, I dont want you to die:)

Obviously, since you'd be in line way before me, and then Iran wouldn't be able to die... as you predict and wish. :lol:

Nightcrawler

12-16-2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by talksense101
In the meanwhile, GWB's defense system fails again during tests.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=639263

Hmm, I would be a little careful about attacking other countries that can fight back...

Iran can't attack the US. The rockets it has have a maximum reach of 2,000 kilometers which means Iran can attack Israel, US-military-bases in Iraq, Saudi-Arabia and the other gulfstates and also the US-ships in the persian gulf, and if they are so inclined even parts of Europe, but not the US-soil.

Nightcrawler

New

12-16-2004, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Iran can't attack the US. The rockets it has have a maximum reach of 2,000 kilometers which means Iran can attack Israel, US-military-bases in Iraq, Saudi-Arabia and the other gulfstates and also the US-ships in the persian gulf, and if they are so inclined even parts of Europe, but not the US-soil.

Nightcrawler

Unless they have means to "close the gap".

segovius

12-16-2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by New
Unless they have means to "close the gap".

Shahab 4

steve666

12-16-2004, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Obviously, since you'd be in line way before me, and then Iran wouldn't be able to die... as you predict and wish. :lol:

Methinks you be wrong

Gene Clean

12-16-2004, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by steve666
Methinks you be wrong

Methinks you're not able to perform such a complicated task. Methinks you should get on with your regular intervals of jibbering. Methinks that's enough said about you or me in this topic.

Mesays sayonara,

SDW2001

12-17-2004, 07:11 AM

segovius

12-17-2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
That is stupidity.

That ain't exactly rocket science either.

How about why ? Supporting evidence ? Structured argument ?

I have a tip for you: if that's what you call analysis then never under any circumstances submit yourself for examination at an academic institution - medical institutions should be ok but steer clear of places where people might ask you to back-up what you say.

tonton

12-17-2004, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
That is stupidity.

Nice argument, there. :rolleyes:

Powerdoc

12-18-2004, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by segovius

I have a tip for you: if that's what you call analysis then never under any circumstances submit yourself for examination at an academic institution - medical institutions should be ok but steer clear of places where people might ask you to back-up what you say.

Speaking of the medical field, you don't have to back up your claim in medical school, but at higher level you are recquired to.
For example at a basic level the anatomy of the lips will teach you that there is two coronary arteries that are interconnected in each side of the lip creating an arterial circle.
Now if you are searching real references about the subject, you will see more complicated and different patterns. If you have an examination, you shoud better cite these articles than the common knowledge.

segovius

01-08-2005, 06:46 AM

Latest Update:

The BS ratchets up a gear (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_militant_confession&cid=540&ncid=1473)

How do we know it's bull ? Simple:

On the tape, Yasseen, a colonel in Saddam Hussein's army, said two other former Iraqi military officers belonging to his group were sent "to Iran in April or May, where they met a number of Iranian intelligence officials." He said they also met with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Three Reasons:

1) They reference Saddam - if they were smart they would have the group was a Shi'i faction. The Iranians are never going to be sympathetic to ex-Ba'athists - especially when they have Shi'i insurgents (who are infighting with the Ba'athist remnants) to possibly support.

But they have to reference Saddam - they can't help themselves. The Neocons and their supporters are the only people who still believe Ba'ath is a factor.

2) No way would any insurgent be allowed to meet Khamenei - especially if Khamenei was organising such a plan. These idiots think that middle easterners are stupid.....

3) As above - Iran is Shi'i, Ba'ath is Marxist with a nominal Sunni base. Why would Iran fund Ba'th Sunni insurgents in order to kill Shi'i ones ?

Utter stupidity.

They need to get some new blood in the propaganda department asap - preferably (for themselves) someone who knows something about the cultures being targetted.

Chris Cuilla

01-08-2005, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
If only people knew history. Lybia "backed down" after almost twenty years of sanctions, and it had little if anything to do with Bush's idiotic threats and mindlessly chosen war.

I'm not sure I agree with that analysis.

1. 20 years of sanctions?

2. 1 year of a demonstrable willingness/ability to go to war against any enemy viewed as a threat (real or not)?

NOTE: I am not justifying the war in Iraq...only questioning the logic of your reasoning here.

jimmac

01-08-2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
That is stupidity.

Nope! That is stupidity.

One of my favorite movie quotes is : " The first man to pick up a gun is the first man to run out of ideas. "

jimmac

01-08-2005, 11:40 AM

jimmac

01-08-2005, 11:43 AM

All this war business and beating up on small countries is a distraction anyway. You know the type they used in the novel 1984. Bush must have read Orwell.;)

giant

01-08-2005, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'm not sure I agree with that analysis.

1. 20 years of sanctions?

2. 1 year of a demonstrable willingness/ability to go to war against any enemy viewed as a threat (real or not)?
Well, at least we know you aren't really interested in learning before speaking.

Chris Cuilla

01-08-2005, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by giant
Well, at least we know you aren't really interested in learning before speaking.

Or...you could provide a counter-argument. But I guess we now know you're not interested in doing that.

Towel

01-08-2005, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Or...you could provide a counter-argument. But I guess we now know you're not interested in doing that. We just get tired of educating people who have the same sorts of ignorant presumptions over and over again. If we set the record straight for one, two more pop-up, hydra-like, to spew more drivel. Nevertheless...

Libya has been slowly bringing itself back into the international community for over a decade now. Qadaffi didn't have a Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus moment when the bombs started dropping in Baghdad. He'd been moving that way for years. He stopped actively supporting terrorist groups in 1993. He handed over the PanAm bombing suspects in 1999. Libya paid compensation to French victims of UTA-772 in 1999. THey offered a compensation package for PanAm in 2002, and negotiations were finished in 2003. UN sactions were officially lifted in response. Later in 2003 they came clean about their moribund WMD programs.

Learn. Read. Use your god-given brain, not just your winger-devoted ears and eyes.

Chris Cuilla

01-08-2005, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Towel
We just get tired of educating people who have the same sorts of ignorant presumptions over and over again. If we set the record straight for one, two more pop-up, hydra-like, to spew more drivel. Nevertheless...

Sorry to "put you out". I merely offered a contrary view on one poster's comment.

Originally posted by Towel
Libya has been slowly bringing itself back into the international community for over a decade now. Qadaffi didn't have a Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus moment when the bombs started dropping in Baghdad. He'd been moving that way for years. He stopped actively supporting terrorist groups in 1993. He handed over the PanAm bombing suspects in 1999. Libya paid compensation to French victims of UTA-772 in 1999. THey offered a compensation package for PanAm in 2002, and negotiations were finished in 2003. UN sactions were officially lifted in response. Later in 2003 they came clean about their moribund WMD programs.

See...now that wasn't so hard to do, was it? Reasonable, articulate, logical. Good counterpoints. Now I have something I can accept, reject, investigate, argue against, whatever.

BTW...I don't think it is remarkably stupid, ignorant or "winger" of me to notice the amazingly coincidental timing of Libya's latest (WMD) move.

Originally posted by Towel
Learn. Read. Use your god-given brain, not just your winger-devoted ears and eyes.

Okay...so now we drop off. So ---- you (that was out of line...I regret it). Please don't assume anything about my "winger-ness" whatever the hell that means. I offered a counter opinion...all that was need in response to my first post was your middle paragraph above. Instead 3/4 of the responses (yours and giant) were simply smug arrogance.

I'll admit that (perhaps) my response came from ignorance (lack of knowledge) but yours (aside from the middle paragraph) were rooted in smugness and arrogance.

steve666

01-08-2005, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Sorry to "put you out". I merely offered a contrary view on one poster's comment.

See...now that wasn't so hard to do, was it? Reasonable, articulate, logical. Good counterpoints. Now I have something I can accept, reject, investigate, argue against, whatever.

Okay...so now we drop off. So fuck you. Please don't assume anything about my "winger-ness" whatever the hell that means. I offered a counter opinion...all that was need in response to my first post was your middle paragraph above. Instead 3/4 of the responses (yours and giant) were simply smug arrogance.

I'll admit that (perhaps) my response came from ignorance (lack of knowledge) but yours (aside from the middle paragraph) were rooted in smugness and arrogance.

Don't take these asswipes too seriously, Chris.
If you dare disagree with these pompous chowderheads they automatically assume you are a Right-Winger or they automatically assume that they know more than you do.

These boards are infested with pompous lefties who don't like to face reality.
They also don't like to argue like adults.

Do you know the difference between ultra-leftists and ultra-rightists? There is no difference. Neither side can put on an intelligent argument because they are both caught up in their dogma.

Chris Cuilla

01-08-2005, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by steve666
Don't take these asswipes too seriously, Chris.
If you dare disagree with these pompous chowderheads they automatically assume you are a Right-Winger or they automatically assume that they know more than you do.

These boards are infested with pompous lefties who don't like to face reality.
They also don't like to argue like adults.

Do you know the difference between ultra-leftists and ultra-rightists? There is no difference. Neither side can put on an intelligent argument because they are both caught up in their dogma.

Thanks. I probably overreacted. I really like to try for intelligent debate. Sometimes it fails.

BTW..where did you get that term "chowderhead"? I've heard my Dad use that. Never heard from anyone else (until now).

segovius

01-08-2005, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by steve666
Neither side can put on an intelligent argument because they are both caught up in their dogma.

Too true - the problem we have here though is recognising who is who....:D

steve666

01-08-2005, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Thanks. I probably overreacted. I really like to try for intelligent debate. Sometimes it fails.

BTW..where did you get that term "chowderhead"? I've heard my Dad use that. Never heard from anyone else (until now).

I dont remember where I first heard it, it may have been from a TV show. In fact the term posturing chowderheads is from a TV show.

Wait, i remember, it was from an episode of Taxi when Louie was applying for an apt in a wealthy building and Alex called the board members posturing chowderheads. Although its possible that the writers got it from somewhere else.

The key is inserting it in the proper place. And since this board is infested with posturing chowderheads its perfect!

:smokey:

NaplesX

01-08-2005, 10:10 PM

The premise of this thread is once again hypocritical:

I thought that to be consistent, Bush would have to take on Iran and Korea.

Looks like you are getting complete consistency from this admin if your conspiratorial theories are true.

What are you complaining about now?

Chris Cuilla

01-08-2005, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
I thought that to be consistent, Bush would have to take on Iran and Korea.

This sort of consistency isn't necessarily good. It presumes that the situation and dynamics in all three cases are the same. They might be...more likely they are not.

Just something to think about.

NaplesX

01-08-2005, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This sort of consistency isn't necessarily good. It presumes that the situation and dynamics in all three cases are the same. They might be...more likely they are not.

Just something to think about. Believe me, I DO realize this.

I was just pointing out the ever changing "progressive" argument.

It was not long ago that the same people that are criticizing this admin for NOT being consistent by doing the same thing in Iran and Korea that it did in Iraq. Using it's supposed inconsistency on foreign policy as proof that the admin was wrong in Iraq.

Not that I agree with the theory, but the theory seems to say that the admin is now gearing up to invade Iran in an identical manner. The fact that they are latching onto this theory means (to me) they either knew the first contention was BS or they think no-one will remember they said it or both

You see, the premise of this thread, as most here, is along the lines of "see, I told you so" and the underlying message here is "Bush was a liar and this proves it" which is one of the bullet points in the "Bush is a murderous NeoCon" outline.

I guess, "Inconsistent foreign policy" can be taken off of the list, if this is not yet another BS thread.

Northgate

01-09-2005, 12:19 AM

Some people are just so f'ing stubborn they fail to see the forest...

rhetorical

adj 1: of or relating to rhetoric; "accepted two or three verbal and rhetorical changes I suggested"- W.A.White; "the rhetorical sin of the meaningless variation"- Lewis Mumford 2: concerned with effect or style of writing and speaking; "a rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply" [ant: unrhetorical]

The "progressive" argument has never changed. The argument has always been that all-out war on the axis of evil was always a doomed strategy. The argument has always been that a war with Iraq was stupid as there were far worse villains out there. The rhetorical argument is that if your going to wage war with Hussein than you should wage war with Kim Jung Il and the Mullah's of Iran FIRST.

Again, I don't expect neo-cons to understand something as simple as this.

hardeeharhar

01-09-2005, 12:28 AM

The inconsistency here is from an administration which explicitly stated that it would bring this battle to the countries that harbor terrorists etc etc etc. Saying that, and then failing to follow through makes the US look like a pussy, which is why ultimately the doubters of this administration's foreign policy believe that another war in another country is more than just likely, it not occurring is nearly impossible.

Clearly the axis of evil is still propagating its evil.

Chris Cuilla

01-09-2005, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Northgate
Some people are just so f'ing stubborn they fail to see the forest...

rhetorical

adj 1: of or relating to rhetoric; "accepted two or three verbal and rhetorical changes I suggested"- W.A.White; "the rhetorical sin of the meaningless variation"- Lewis Mumford 2: concerned with effect or style of writing and speaking; "a rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply" [ant: unrhetorical]

The "progressive" argument has never changed. The argument has always been that all-out war on the axis of evil was always a doomed strategy. The argument has always been that a war with Iraq was stupid as there were far worse villains out there. The rhetorical argument is that if your going to wage war with Hussein than you should wage war with Kim Jung Il and the Mullah's of Iran FIRST.

Again, I don't expect neo-cons to understand something as simple as this.

What part don't you expect to be understood...the theory that going after Iran and Korea first makes more sense?

Northgate

01-09-2005, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The inconsistency here is from an administration which explicitly stated that it would bring this battle to the countries that harbor terrorists etc etc etc. Saying that, and then failing to follow through makes the US look like a pussy, which is why ultimately the doubters of this administration's foreign policy believe that another war in another country is more than just likely, it not occurring is nearly impossible.

Clearly the axis of evil is still propagating its evil.

Agreed. And a smart nation wouldn't try fighting that evil head on. It would think, be smart, be covert, use ALL of its resources to its fullest...rather than fighting a traditional numbskull battle that will cost a fortune in blood and treasure.

Chris Cuilla

01-09-2005, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Northgate
Agreed. And a smart nation wouldn't try fighting that evil head on. It would think, be smart, be covert, use ALL of its resources to its fullest...rather than fighting a traditional numbskull battle that will cost a fortune in blood and treasure.

What do you have to support this hypothesis?

Northgate

01-09-2005, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What do you have to support this hypothesis?

The Iraq War.

segovius

01-09-2005, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The inconsistency here is from an administration which explicitly stated that it would bring this battle to the countries that harbor terrorists etc etc etc. Saying that, and then failing to follow through makes the US look like a pussy, which is why ultimately the doubters of this administration's foreign policy believe that another war in another country is more than just likely, it not occurring is nearly impossible.

Clearly the axis of evil is still propagating its evil.

Disagreed.

There is an axis of 'evil': only because Bush said so.

They are continuing 'evil': only because Bush said so.

There were WMDs: only because Bush said so.

It's the oldest trick in the book - you have allowed yourself to be manipulated into accepting everything by constant repetition.

Now you can't question at all - you can only question the strategy of dealing with the 'problem'.

What you can't see is that the problem is a complete fabrication and you continue arguing about the strategy.

Chris Cuilla

01-09-2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Northgate
The Iraq War.

I don't see how "The Iraq War" validates your hypothesis that the U.S. would have been more effective by not fighting evil head-on.

I infer from your argument that you consider the Iraq war to be a failure. Is that true?

segovius

01-09-2005, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I don't see how "The Iraq War" validates your hypothesis that the U.S. would have been more effective by not fighting evil head-on.

I infer from your argument that you consider the Iraq war to be a failure. Is that true?

I think we need to either jettison terms like 'evil' or clarify them. I would prefer to leave them out but if you insist....

Imo Bush is 'evil' as far as anything can be. Certainly I have seen more 'evil' in post Saddam Iraq than I have anywhere else.

I do not believe in evil - I do believe in mental illness, spiritual sickness and people who are dead inside. Imo Bush, Saddam and the Taleban leaders would all fall in the category.

It's subjective. You need to be very careful throwing terms like that around, or you should be - I know you are a fundie but let's keep this as a rational discussion.

Chris Cuilla

01-09-2005, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by segovius
I think we need to either jettison terms like 'evil' or clarify them. I would prefer to leave them out but if you insist....

Imo Bush is 'evil' as far as anything can be. Certainly I have seen more 'evil' in post Saddam Iraq than I have anywhere else.

I do not believe in evil - I do believe in mental illness, spiritual sickness and people who are dead inside. Imo Bush, Saddam and the Taleban leaders would all fall in the category.

It's subjective. You need to be very careful throwing terms like that around, or you should be - I know you are a fundie but let's keep this as a rational discussion.

First, I was using the term that Northgate used.

Second, please do not call me a "fundie"...if you would like to have rational, level-headed discussions with people it is counter-productive to use terms that are intended to insult and incite. Besides you don't know enough about me to "know that I am a 'fundie'". Give it a rest.

segovius

01-09-2005, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
First, I was using the term that Northgate used.

Second, please do not call me a "fundie"...if you would like to have rational, level-headed discussions with people it is counter-productive to use terms that are intended to insult and incite. Besides you don't know enough about me to "know that I am a 'fundie'". Give it a rest.

Hehe :D

Quite an interesting reaction - is it the term you object to or the reality which the term signifies ?

As I have said before and I will have to re-iterate here again now: a term is needed to describe the grouping which exists under that nomenclature and which is very often discussed here

Personally, I don't care what term is used as long as we all know what it means and to what it refers. What I refuse to do is to have to clarify my meaning in one or two complete sentences ad nauseum. Why should I when I can use one word ad nauseum.

And more: it is descriptive - it is not intended to insult. I refuse to take responsibility for other's thin-skin and propensity to get offended (as something which is only in operation when they are apparently on the receiving end).

You are right. I do not know you. But I have observed your actions and drawn conclusions. By their fruits and all that....

Edit: better throw one of these :D in before I get in trouble...

:devil:

Chris Cuilla

01-09-2005, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Quite an interesting reaction - is it the term you object to or the reality which the term signifies ?

The term. And I don't entirely know what it signifies. It seems (to me) that it is intended to "paint a broad stroke" about bunch of people that you don't seem to know much about.

Originally posted by segovius
And more: it is descriptive - it is not intended to insult.

The problem is, it really isn't very usefully descriptive. It is far to broad and stereotypical.

Originally posted by segovius
I refuse to take responsibility for other's thin-skin and propensity to get offended (as something which is only in operation when they are apparently on the receiving end).

I'm not being thin-skinned or offended. I was only making a suggestion that might help you to be viewed with a bit more credibility. Afterall, at least in my view, people that choose to revert to simplistic, stereotypical characterizations of others (as individuals or groups) don't have much credibility...for the simple fact that...well they seem to be prone to making stereotypical generalizations about people or groups (and possibly also events, ideas, etc.).

I personally, try to avoid this (making stereotypical generalizations about people or groups).

Yes, I have seen you (or someone here) make the argument about "well we need some label"...well I'm not talking about (or for) some abstract, ill-defined group of people. I am speaking about me...and about you...and we can try to speak as civil as possible to one another without reverting to vague, stereotypical generalizations about one another. We are (at least I am) able to speak to one another as individuals. If you choose not to, well, I guess that's life.

segovius

01-09-2005, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The term. And I don't entirely know what it signifies. It seems (to me) that it is intended to "paint a broad stroke" about bunch of people that you don't seem to know much about.

If you don't know what it signifies how do you know whether I know about it ?

I know enough - about you and them.

And you assume too much as ever, I grew up with 'fundies', I know many personally and have met probably the majority of those you could name. Am more than likely related to some you would choose.

hardeeharhar

01-09-2005, 02:03 PM

The issue isn't so much that the groups are ill-defined, we each know in the context of this place who the "wingers," progressives, liberals, neo-libs, neo-cons etc etc. are. In the broader context of the world out there beyond the .com, none of the same definitions apply...

Chris Cuilla

01-09-2005, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by segovius
If you don't know what it signifies how do you know whether I know about it ?

I know enough - about you and them.

And you assume too much as ever, I grew up with 'fundies', I know many personally and have met probably the majority of those you could name. Am more than likely related to some you would choose.

Look, again, you really don't know much about me at all...nor me about you...and stop projecting your childhood experiences with "fundies" onto me.

Your arguments can be read, argued, disputed without such gratuitous language. But continue if you wish. It seems clear to intend to.

hardeeharhar

01-09-2005, 02:16 PM

It actually seems that Chris is attempting to bring this place back from the brink...

jimmac

01-09-2005, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Look, again, you really don't know much about me at all...nor me about you...and stop projecting your childhood experiences with "fundies" onto me.

Your arguments can be read, argued, disputed without such gratuitous language. But continue if you wish. It seems clear to intend to.

So who are you?

You posture here, you posture there, but you're careful not to tie anything down too much about your position.

By the way going after N. Korea without more provocation than we've gotten is nuts! There you would have a real war on your hands with a large army and WOMD that could reach our shores for real! I agree that we may have to deal with this eventually but it must be handled carefully ( as long as we aren't attcked first ) or we might see some U.S. history we'll really regret. Plus can we really afford another war? We're already up to our ears because of the Iraq debacle.

MarcUK

01-09-2005, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It actually seems that Chris is attempting to bring this place back from the brink...

Or just playing games and pleading innocence and nobility. The art of deception, pretend you are not doing it. Nice.

I remember some dude called Benzene tried the same tactics not so long ago. Pretended to be all civilized, full of rational thought, no defined positions on the issues, pretending to listen to the arguments, but then he slipped up and the beans were spilled.

Related by any chance?

segovius

01-09-2005, 02:39 PM

Chris Cuilla

01-09-2005, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by MarcUK
Or just playing games and pleading innocence and nobility. The art of deception, pretend you are not doing it. Nice.

I remember some dude called Benzene tried the same tactics not so long ago. Pretended to be all civilized, full of rational thought, no defined positions on the issues, pretending to listen to the arguments, but then he slipped up and the beans were spilled.

Related by any chance?

Nope. Have no idea who that is. In fact...I am about the only one here dumb enough to use my real (full) name as opposed to some alias. Dumb, I say, because, in this day and age I have no idea who might try to hunt me down and harm me because of something I said on a message board...that they happen to disagree with.

I just stumbled into AO one day because I was bored.

Games? Whatever. MarcUK I think everyone can see your games quite clearly.

I haven't tried to deceive anyone about anything. I do have defined positions on some things...but am also wise enough...open enough to see if there are things that might cause those positions to change. It isn't necessary to reveal all my positions on all things...and, in some cases, I don't have defined positions...I'm trying to figure things out and make some decisions (if I really need to)...some things I don't really need to have any defined position about. I am comfortable enough with myself to be uncertain (even confused) about important issues. I don't pretend to know everything about them...or even a alot.

Finally, I'd have to say that there are a couple of "loud mouths"here that don't care to tolerate views other than their own...and don't do much to make such folks welcome by way of reasoned discussion.

Chris Cuilla

01-09-2005, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
So who are you?

You posture here, you posture there, but you're careful not to tie anything down too much about your position.

What do you want to know?

giant

01-09-2005, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Or...you could provide a counter-argument. But I guess we now know you're not interested in doing that.
Or...you could just bother to learn a little bit about a subject before forming an opinion. But I guess we now know you're not interested in doing that.

MarcUK

01-09-2005, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Whatever.

Post what you like but please have the respect not to engage me in discussion from this point onwards.

Hey Chris, me too.

I don't think you're genuine, I want no further interaction with you either.

Chris Cuilla

01-09-2005, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by MarcUK
Hey Chris, me too.

I don't think you're genuine, I want no further interaction with you either.

:rolleyes:

steve666

01-09-2005, 05:42 PM

The Iraq War was a mistake because it was not necessary (at the time). Had Bush waited until Saddam screwed up we would have had international support, and would not be knee-deep in debt and fatalities. Bush didn't even consult his father because he wanted to be his own man (an idiot), and decided to consult God instead. Well, either God lied to him or God isn't a very good General because this war has been a disaster on all fronts.

In the meantime, Iran built Nuclear Reactors with the aid of Bush's 'friend' Putin. Iran is the real problem. Bush could have found a way to replace the money Russia was getting from Iran and stopped the construction dead in its tracks.

Bush will go down in history as a complete failure, IMHO.

jimmac

01-09-2005, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What do you want to know?

Something a little more definite. Are you someone else here? Are you middle aged or are you young like Common Man ( this is assuming he's telling the truth )? And yes age changes perspective and experiential parameters etc. so yes it makes a difference.

Chris Cuilla

01-09-2005, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
Something a little more definite. Are you someone else here?

Not sure what you mean? Am I masquerading as someone else? I am me. This is the only login account I have. This is my real name. No jokes. No smoke. No Mirrors.

Originally posted by jimmac
Are you middle aged or are you young like Common Man ( this is assuming he's telling the truth )? And yes age changes perspective and experiential parameters etc. so yes it makes a difference.

No doubt that age makes quite a difference in perspective.

I am 36.

Chris Cuilla

01-09-2005, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by steve666
knee-deep in...fatalities

This is a statement that doesn't have much support when compared to historical American military conflicts.

Note, I don't necessarily disagree with some of the other things you've said...but to be fair, people focus a lot on the casualty numbers and don't compare these to other conflicts (which have had much greater fatality counts).

Surely things could escalate here. But, let's deal with the fact as they are now.

steve666

01-09-2005, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This is a statement that doesn't have much support when compared to historical American military conflicts.

Note, I don't necessarily disagree with some of the other things you've said...but to be fair, people focus a lot on the casualty numbers and don't compare these to other conflicts (which have had much greater fatality counts).

Surely things could escalate here. But, let's deal with the fact as they are now.

This is true compared to other wars as they were on-going. This one was supposed to be over, as Bush stated himself.
The problem is is that they didnt secure the borders and now there are so many armaments being used against our forces its as if the war just started all over again.
This war was a distraction from the war on terror, as Bin laden and his cohorts still havent been captured 4 years later.