PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Preparing Military Options Against Iran



Saxe
04-26-2008, 10:52 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042501480.html

This shit is scary - I hope every US citizen in here would riot if these plans got any more real than this!

8XQan1qo8T4

Italian Jew
04-26-2008, 11:09 AM
I would prefer if our country would wait a bit before invading another country...just loses its flavor after a while. We are bogged down by Iraq and fighting Al Qaeda and now Iran? I understand Iran in several years, but not anytime soon. It would stretch out military too thin, which is disastrous, even for strong nations. Might have to wait till World War III before we fight Iran.

SpikedRocker
04-26-2008, 11:20 AM
This is kinda simular with what happened before we went into Iraq, but congress approved that action. I do not see congress doing that again any time soon, expecially with the democrats in control of congress. Most of the most recent elected democrats to congress used ending the war in Iraq to gain the win. If they approve, I think we would start a motion to recall all elected officals for probably the biggest lie to the country since Bill's stained dress. But I really don't think that would happen, too much is at stake for the november elections. Bush is on his way out, personally I think he and Laura has checked out since she was 'host' of Today show earlier this week and him doing more awarding of people to try to make his image better, he will want to leave this for the next president to deal with. We'll have to keep an eye on this to make sure the elected people don't make another stupid mistake.

VirDeBello
04-26-2008, 11:33 AM
I say its good idea AS LONG as it is implemented correctly. If we do things correctly this time.....(I really hope so if we deciede to take action)....then war against Iran will be successful. Iran supports terrorism in the Middle East and he needs to be stopped. Its like if we just waged war against just Japan in WWII, you need to get rid of all threats and bad or "evil" governments. Again as long as this action will be implemented correctly then I say go for it but then again we have no choice in the matter just hope they can't screw up this war too if it happens or not.

Italian Jew
04-26-2008, 12:47 PM
A smaller population and something to do for the next several years

SpikedRocker
04-26-2008, 12:54 PM
What do people think they could achieve through this?

The main idea is to take out goverments or regimes that support terrorist activites to "undermine" the terrorist cells through out the world. Some governments take in terrorists, others fund them, and some say they go as far as helping with planning. Fundamentally, that is a good idea, take out their support, but it is flawed. Back in the 50's-60's CIA helped local fighters in Afghanistan to stop the Russians from taking them. By the end of that conflict the local leader there was a Saudi named Osama bin Laden. So as history as shown, we might help someone on their plight for freedom, just to have them turn around and stab us in the back.

Taking out Iran's government will just add more instability in the middle east. Instead of having one country in a state of "civil war", there will be 2. The 'possible' replacements for the government in Iran argue more than the ones in Iraq do. So think it took 2 years for the goverment in Iraq to form a new constitution, it might take Iran 4 or 5 years to get such a "stable" situation.

Everyone is concerned that Iran is making nuclear weapons. Right now their capabilities to attack us are slim and none. They have no access to the ICBM's that would deleiver such a warhead. Proof that they are even making these weapons are just about as much proof of WMD's in Iraq. Our spy sats can't prove they are doing more than enricing the urainium to try to get a nuclear reactor started. To me thats a sign that they want an alternative source of energy, other than oil. If we restrict this, then what right do we have to horde all the oil when their only source of viable energy is used through oil, coal, and refinerarys? The whole world needs to move towards a new source of energy. Not just the power countries.

Sorry for this being so long and a rant but that is all these wars are fought over, freedom, energy, and threat of conflicts.

Misanthrope
04-26-2008, 01:34 PM
I'm not surprised, It'd be nice to see the populace have a problem with this, but they won't.

junkie
04-26-2008, 01:43 PM
I see no point in starting more shit over there. I see no point in trying to "eliminate" terrorists, what right do we have to invade other countries because a bunch of old white guys think its a great idea. Most of these guys approving this non-sense aren't going to be alive in 10 years. And everyone knows, whatever we start is never going to end, just like everything else happening over there with israel and palestinians. No one truely has "freedom". Its just a false sense of protection. Regardless of what happens anywhere, the government dictates what goes on, we have no choice. Essentially we are no better off than other countries. We might have the right to elect people, but have no control over what they do. Sooner or later we will all be under some sort of dictatorship if they want to hold back people and disarm everyone.
Since forcing people to follow "laws" is impossible world-wide, we are only wasting more energy on it. Id love to know the figures of how much fossil fuels we use in Iraq daily compared to what we gain daily.

But anyways, I would have blown most places to pieces already if I had the power. Only one way to cure idiots is making examples of them. Blow em all up. Show the others we aren't going to be pushed around.
Iran isnt worth the manpower. I have a few Iranian friends and sure their government is shady, but the people are good. Just because they look different doesnt mean we have to kill them.
Hopefully whoever wins the next election puts this crap on the backburner and figures out how to cut the losses and get what we can out of Iraq before they blow each other up.

Italian Jew
04-26-2008, 01:49 PM
Wu Tang!

SpikedRocker
04-26-2008, 01:58 PM
Id love to know the figures of how much fossil fuels we use in Iraq daily compared to what we gain daily.


Ever since we started the invasion of Iraq in 2002 our gas prices has risen from $1.35/gal. to $3.50+/gal. (this week). In 6 years our gas has risen $2.15/gal. That just shows how much of our 'normal' surplus of fuel/oil goes to the war effort. Basically domestically, we have no surplus of oil anymore. We are buying from who ever is selling it. They are selling their surplus and making a killing on it, because we will pay for it. If the war effort was pulled back to half of what it is now, we would see prices stabilize or even drop. Most of our oil we refine goes overseas to the troops and it should cause if they didn't get it, they'd be sittin in their hummers being shot at cause they have no gas. Its all another reason to end this now pointless conflict.

Veggie
04-26-2008, 03:50 PM
The Sooner Bush is out of office the better.

Italian Jew
04-26-2008, 03:59 PM
But that fool will be the focus of many humorous jokes for years to come! :rlol:

VirDeBello
04-26-2008, 04:25 PM
Ever since we started the invasion of Iraq in 2002 our gas prices has risen from $1.35/gal. to $3.50+/gal. (this week). In 6 years our gas has risen $2.15/gal. That just shows how much of our 'normal' surplus of fuel/oil goes to the war effort. Basically domestically, we have no surplus of oil anymore. We are buying from who ever is selling it. They are selling their surplus and making a killing on it, because we will pay for it. If the war effort was pulled back to half of what it is now, we would see prices stabilize or even drop. Most of our oil we refine goes overseas to the troops and it should cause if they didn't get it, they'd be sittin in their hummers being shot at cause they have no gas. Its all another reason to end this now pointless conflict.

And don't forget the greedy oil companies owners are what not, they use the excuse of war as a point to raise prices. So not all of it is because of war. I think we are looking at the conflict in the middle east wrongly. Yes we are doing things bad over there but its no excuse just to leave and let terrorism fester and grow. And yes Iran may not be building a nuke but still supports terrorism and something must be done. Not diplomatically, but swift action. Not much gets settled through talking.

Dracula
04-26-2008, 05:08 PM
I say we dont go to "real war" with Iran we just take out the leaders all we need to do is send in some bombers and boom. It will make the country unstable but that will also make a lot of terrorists go there and not to Iraq ect. As long as we dont get into a ground war with Iran I think it would work for the time being.

Slavic
04-26-2008, 10:39 PM
And don't forget the greedy oil companies owners are what not, they use the excuse of war as a point to raise prices. So not all of it is because of war. I think we are looking at the conflict in the middle east wrongly. Yes we are doing things bad over there but its no excuse just to leave and let terrorism fester and grow. And yes Iran may not be building a nuke but still supports terrorism and something must be done. Not diplomatically, but swift action. Not much gets settled through talking.

Instability breeds terrorism. Is is has been clearly seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other countries with inefficient governments. There was hardly any terrorism sponsorship going on under the late Hussein's regime. Hussein was more concerned with ripping his people off and crushing minorities than throwing money at fundamentalists. Since Hussein was thrown out there has been an frightening escalation of terrorist activities in Iraq and abroad.

There is no way that you are going to tell me that performing a regime change in Iran will make the region more stable and have less terrorists. The only reason why we would do this would be to get rid of an ideological rival and regional power player. The US government doesn't give a shit about the common man in other countries. "Terrorists" are men who attack US citizens. We don't give a damn what terrorist do to others. Just go read up about good ol' Reagen and his Central America.

Also Iran isn't in the same horrible state Iraq was in. There will be casualties, and we are already stressing our reserves. If a draft gets created, guess who is of prime age Vir : p

VirDeBello
04-27-2008, 06:22 AM
Also Iran isn't in the same horrible state Iraq was in. There will be casualties, and we are already stressing our reserves. If a draft gets created, guess who is of prime age Vir : p

lmao Ima already signed up lol I made a post about that awhile ago. I am signed up to go to basic July 8th but I think I maybe changing that date though....

nightmarejr
04-27-2008, 06:45 AM
I dont wanna sound unpatriotic but i was talkin to my friend about this. THe us labels other countries as a "military regime" but the fact is we spend way more money, time and effort on weapons. afterall who has the technology and actually declares wars like we do?

Dracula
04-27-2008, 09:11 AM
......

LitKey
04-27-2008, 09:22 AM
I dont wanna sound unpatriotic but i was talkin to my friend about this. THe us labels other countries as a "military regime" but the fact is we spend way more money, time and effort on weapons. afterall who has the technology and actually declares wars like we do?

Someone doesn't know what a military regime is, apparently.

LegalSmash
04-27-2008, 09:37 AM
This thread makes my head hurt. Establishing, examining, or otherwise testing Readiness is NOT preparing for war, but rather, only making sure that we have the capacity to do so.... but hey, lets just all hide under the tin foil tents until uncle sam the giant crab fights megadon.

LitKey
04-27-2008, 10:13 AM
This thread makes my head hurt. Establishing, examining, or otherwise testing Readiness is NOT preparing for war, but rather, only making sure that we have the capacity to do so.... but hey, lets just all hide under the tin foil tents until uncle sam the giant crab fights megadon.

Yeah, for real. It would be stupid not to test our readiness. Why would you not want to be ready for war with a country that's trying to acquire nuclear weapons to use against your country and its allies? The Iranians are widely known to be providing weapons and manpower to insurgent groups that our killing our troops. Knowing this, it seems obvious to me that we need to put pressure on Iran and show some fucking backbone by showing we are ready for war if need be. But alas, you guys will jump at anything like this like this as if we have plans to have our boys jump into Tehran tomorrow. :thumbdown:

To quote the article your provided (but only seemed to read the headline), Saxe:


Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said.

Senior
04-27-2008, 10:39 AM
You know what FUCK the Middle East all we need is there oil if I had my way they would all be dead!!!
They have caused the world nothing but trouble its as simple as that.

cool thanks man, my moms husband is from iraq, im sure he'd appreciate it if you killed them all (:

oh and i think omar is from iraq too, i bet he'd appreciate it aswell

Dracula
04-27-2008, 12:11 PM
Seriously think has the middle east ever really done anything for the world. [besides oil]

And are either of them living there or a terorist?

Slavic
04-27-2008, 12:16 PM
Seriously think has the middle east ever really done anything for the world. [besides oil]

And are either of them living there or a terorist?

Go read a fucking book. Arab and Iranian culture has given many gifts to the world. Contributions to the arts, sciences, inventions, and music. The language you are speaking stems from a broad Iranian language tree.

With your logic, i'd expect you to say what did Africa ever really do for the world besides a source of cheap labor and diamonds.

Dracula
04-27-2008, 12:19 PM
But we could have done most of that stuff with out the middle east and with all the trouble they are causing lately it seems to me they are not worth it.

LegalSmash
04-27-2008, 12:28 PM
^Actually, the first amendment, freedom of expression allows him to say this... , he is not making a threat against the indiv., people, or omar, or your mom's husband, nor is it hate speech. He is simply weighing the balance of utilities and necessities to him... as far as he is concerned: oil > iraqi lives.

I cannot completely blame him, considering the fact that their "government officials" are about as useful as mammary glands on Rosie O'Donnel, who will never breast feed anything more than Melissa Ethridge.

Bringing up the fact that they are (enter ethnic here) or suffering from (enter condition or religion here) is nothing more than a sob tactic to garner pity to shame people out of their opinions.

Who cares if it is appreciated? They are not privy nor party to the conversation, and the man is entitled to his opinion. I would humbly suggest to speak to the actual topic: namely, the validity, or invalidity of the article, and the original poster's understanding of the article, or lack thereof.

It just annoys the hell out of me.

average joe: "Well I dont like circus seals"
xxxxheartbleedsblackxxxx: "well my dad was a circus seal trainer, and the argonians KILLED them, and we CRIED!!!! I bet the baby seals wont appreciate that1!?11oneeleven11!" THEIR GONE11ONE!! FOREVAAAR! HOW DO YOU FEEL!?!!?1?1?!

I despise pity parties, or otherwise attempting to shame someone into conformity with your view. If I wanted that, I'd go to church on Sunday rather than work.

Dracula stated what he thought. It should be taken as that, or you can refute his point through an actual statement of logic, fact, etc. that is more meaningful than a hallmark card for emos.


With your logic, i'd expect you to say what did Africa ever really do for the world besides a source of cheap labor and diamonds.
____________

I dont think that is the best comparison slavic. I think that you have to look at the arab world in the past 100 years. ANYONE can go back far enough to determine something GOOD about a group of people, country, etc. I mean, shit, Once upon a time the french helped us fight for freedom.. they had balls... .now they are cheese eating surrender monkeys. Arab culture HISTORICALLY (over 500 years ago) was relevant to that time period. In the past 100 years though, not so much. Their religion holds them back from developing into real world powers. Iran was better off under the shah than many first world countries. In walks in Khomeni and the "islamic revolution" and everything goes to pots.

Once Europe put the bible down and started thinking logically, they caught up to the arabs and suffice to say, surpassed them.

Im not saying that they were ALWAYS smelly, backwards, violent people, but right now, they are not doing anything of use to the rest of the world... unless you consider monopolizing oil, subjugating women, and destroying freedom of press and expression,


As for africa
Well... what have they done? "Cradle of civilization" argument doesnt count, BTW, "AFRICA" as we know it didnt do that. Right now, I think they provide lots of commercials asking me to donate 30 cents a day to the starving children in the formerly prosperous british colony of (enter colony here).

Dracula
04-27-2008, 12:35 PM
Thanx Legal but i edited that post was REALY MAD that day but the other stuff i stand by.

Italian Jew
04-27-2008, 12:41 PM
Well, the bloody idiot is pointing to our reserves in the Navy and Air Force, so if we were to go to war, why would we automatically send our reserves? They are there just in case we need them, not as an immediate military force. We should have no business trying to invade Iran because we are too busy elsewhere. Saying you are testing for readiness is just political speak for preparing for war, but this is coming from the idea that our leadership is full of BS based upon the past several years. But if we say they are trying to develop nuclear weapons they must be because we found so many weapons of mass destruction in Iraq we didn't know what to do with them all.:001_tongue:

Within a few years, either Iran or the U.S. will cross the line and throw the world into another world war. It will be one the Europeans didn't start! :laugh:

Just gotta wait to see what really happens...

Senior
04-27-2008, 12:47 PM
So how is he any better than the random violent anti-ameircan arab? who screams with all their lung capacity that americans should die and be burned or what ever the hell theyre yelling.

I couldnt care less of what he thinks the government is capable of, but when he says they all should die it starts to bug me.

racism and freedom of speech are 2 different things.

What would happen if i said "fuck all black people, what have they done blablabla"

trust me, the freedom of speech card wouldnt help me at all.

LegalSmash
04-27-2008, 12:52 PM
Well, the bloody idiot is pointing to our reserves in the Navy and Air Force, so if we were to go to war, why would we automatically send our reserves? They are there just in case we need them, not as an immediate military force. We should have no business trying to invade Iran because we are too busy elsewhere. Saying you are testing for readiness is just political speak for preparing for war, but this is coming from the idea that our leadership is full of BS based upon the past several years. But if we say they are trying to develop nuclear weapons they must be because we found so many weapons of mass destruction in Iraq we didn't know what to do with them all.:001_tongue:

Within a few years, either Iran or the U.S. will cross the line and throw the world into another world war. It will be one the Europeans didn't start! :laugh:

Just gotta wait to see what really happens...

No, the reserves are not there "in case" they sign a contract that states if they are called up by congressional order, they will go. The only difference between them and active is that they are "part time" and have a "drill location" as opposed to being active and immediately deployable. The difference is a phone call or letter. They signed up for collegiate benefits, health insurance, etc. Those are the benefits you get for serving, and the liability is a possible call up to go stand on a corner in "unspecifiedestan".

Testing for readiness is just that jew, they test fire drills, that doesnt mean they are going to start a fire. Its "in case shit happens".

Also, BTW, according to United States Code S 18.921 , any explosive device capable of indiscriminately killing population is considered a weapon of mass destruction... NBC capability is a "bonus" so to speak. The iraqis had bombs.... that was enough according to our def of the statute. People are just stupid and didnt bother to ask for clarification. This administration isnt the most clear, but its definitely not the most obscure either.

Dracula
04-27-2008, 12:53 PM
I am sorry for that post but I in no way said all muslims or arabs but it seems more and more of them that live in the middle east are helping/becoming terrorists.

nightmarejr
04-27-2008, 12:54 PM
Someone doesn't know what a military regime is, apparently.

lies! im just pointing out that in some aspects we are similar. Patriot act is both a good and bad thing but when it first started out innocent people were being targeted by government ops. lets not forget the "scare tactics" and misleading info too. just becuase theres no actual army backing the country there are other authority figures that do. a good quote from running scared said by a cop "im from the most powerful mafia in the country"

LegalSmash
04-27-2008, 12:59 PM
So how is he any better than the random violent anti-ameircan arab? who screams with all their lung capacity that americans should die and be burned or what ever the hell theyre yelling.

I couldnt care less of what he thinks the government is capable of, but when he says they all should die it starts to bug me.

racism and freedom of speech are 2 different things.

What would happen if i said "fuck all black people, what have they done blablabla"

trust me, the freedom of speech card wouldnt help me at all.

Its not racism. Racism is directed, specifically, if you said "fuck you you goddamn (enter racial epithet here)" THAT is objectively racist statement, preventing someone from eating at a table due to race or creed, etc. that is racism.

saying you dislike a group of people we are at war with, or for that matter, that getting their posessory interest in the oil is more important than their livelihood isnt racist. It may be a radical viewpoint, and I cant say that I agree with it, but it is not de facto racist.

This does fall within freedom of speech bc it wasnt directed at any particular individual. He isnt conducting himself in any manner other than making a declaratory statement about what he thought the policy concerns should be.

Go read about the first amendment and how it works, then say "its not a freedom of speech issue". This isnt canada, we dont criminalize racially charged speech here.

BTW, race sensitive speech is covered in the US, in a limited manner, what he said , falls within that, it was a declaratory statement, with no conduct attached to it. Should it have included a "Im going to ____ those _____. Its different. Conduct versus Content, here there is no conduct.

LegalSmash
04-27-2008, 01:01 PM
lies! im just pointing out that in some aspects we are similar. Patriot act is both a good and bad thing but when it first started out innocent people were being targeted by government ops. lets not forget the "scare tactics" and misleading info too. just becuase theres no actual army backing the country there are other authority figures that do. a good quote from running scared said by a cop "im from the most powerful mafia in the country"

Seriously, do you read anything more than "moveon.org" fliers?

Go read the damn patriot act. We have had something called a "wiretap act" since the 1970s that did the exact same damn thing. Please go read the relevant sections to the USC. I'll make a post on this wed after my exam.

Saxe
04-27-2008, 01:02 PM
I am sorry for that post but I in no way said all muslims or arabs but it seems more and more of them that live in the middle east are helping/becoming terrorists.

Well don't you ever wonder why some people in the middle east is desperat enough to go out and kill themself? What makes them leave their family and friends? Just think about it please. But don't give me this "It's that stupid religion" BS.

Btw: I'm sorry that I didn't respond to my thread yet, but it has evolved into a lot more than I imagined. I'll come back sometime and explain my opinions :)

nightmarejr
04-27-2008, 01:10 PM
Seriously, do you read anything more than "moveon.org" fliers?

Go read the damn patriot act. We have had something called a "wiretap act" since the 1970s that did the exact same damn thing. Please go read the relevant sections to the USC. I'll make a post on this wed after my exam.

wow i didnt know about that site.. im only mentioning things from working with the nypd. Its the best thing that happened to them.

Italian Jew
04-27-2008, 01:37 PM
No, the reserves are not there "in case" they sign a contract that states if they are called up by congressional order, they will go. The only difference between them and active is that they are "part time" and have a "drill location" as opposed to being active and immediately deployable. The difference is a phone call or letter. They signed up for collegiate benefits, health insurance, etc. Those are the benefits you get for serving, and the liability is a possible call up to go stand on a corner in "unspecifiedestan".

Testing for readiness is just that jew, they test fire drills, that doesnt mean they are going to start a fire. Its "in case shit happens".

Also, BTW, according to United States Code S 18.921 , any explosive device capable of indiscriminately killing population is considered a weapon of mass destruction... NBC capability is a "bonus" so to speak. The iraqis had bombs.... that was enough according to our def of the statute. People are just stupid and didnt bother to ask for clarification. This administration isnt the most clear, but its definitely not the most obscure either.

Shit is already happening. I also fail to see how testing preparedness for a fire is the same as for war. For a fire drill you run out of the building and wait for the firemen to turn off the alarm or fight the fire, either case it does not take more than a few days at the most. Testing preparedness with a bunch of navy and Air Force reservists is all yippy skippy, but they aren't going to be the ones doing most of the hard fighting if we go to war with Iran. Besides, reservists already practice their skills needed if they were to go to war. Saying that they would be preparing for Iran would mean that the U.S. is already planning something, but for in the future. As for the exact time, nobody knows, but it will definitely be within the next hew years.

The reserves are supposed to be reserves, not some part-time army that we can call up whenever we want. Using them to flex our muscle across the world is an abuse of their trust in the government.

We are already having problems in Iraq, so fighting a war in much larger Iran will be much harder, so I can already say the U.S. cannot fight multiple wars at once.


Also, where does it mention weapons of mass destruction in that code, because I cannot find it...

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+528+54++%2818%20 USC%20sec.%20921%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

If this is the wrong section, then you can point me in the right direction.

PotshotPolka
04-27-2008, 06:26 PM
During the Gulf War, a man named George Bush Sr. asked aids what they thought of a continued assault into Iraq after ousting them Kuwait.
Their answer: Hell no.
His answer: Okay.

I'm surprised no one here mentioned all that good stuff about how the Islamic states should be pissed, since we carved up their nations (Specifically Palestine and Kurdistan), established a foreign backed nation in their religion's greatest holy site, without a single please, and then were kicked around in, what? 5 wars now with Israel?
Plus, we backed the Shah who used his secret police to keep the Iranians in line, and for the last few wars between Iraq and Iran we've funded which ever side was losing.

LegalSmash
04-27-2008, 06:59 PM
Jew, my mistake, this is the appropriate subsection: http://128.253.22.246/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002332---a000-.html

it references 921, please note term "precursors"
arguably legislative intent would have a reasonable person believe that plain ol' composition B, dynamite, C4, etc. would suffice, if its intent was to further any of the intents under WMDs of the above cited section.

Polka, go see the thread where we spoke of palestines "claim" to land. They dont really have any, ask litkey for the exact thread, as we spoke about it recently. Palestine has no claim, and historically speaking, they are about as relevant as cattle on the land.

Kurdistan is another story.

Hunter, there are a series of legislations that were passed in the 1950-1990s prior to "patriot" that essentially allowed the government to achieve the exact same ends. People know of the patriot act because of media coverage, but the average person isn't touched by it at all. The big difference was that there was a long, really costly, really arbitrary bureaucratic process to get wiretaps, phone bugs, and other forms of surveillance. Further, Patriot was passed BY the congress.

The same jimmy pop cretins that are now all up in arms have passed it again and again.

Saxe, they do it for a reason: 72 virgins in paradise and the will of Allah.


Polka, I agree with one thing:
They do have the right to be pissed, no one is disputing that fact. Their rationale however, and method of dealing with it, is questionable at best.

phatman76
04-27-2008, 07:00 PM
I believe this thread is getting bogged down in semantics, I want to put in my 2 cents about the actual issue.

Nuclear weapon use is stupid, it is called deterrence for a reason, however, strong deterrence means having the best damn nukes ever, then building bigger ones, as scary as that might be. Bush would never use the Nuclear Football for a first strike, he may have verbal incompetence but he isn't stupid or insane. First Strikes are for commies and terrorists. However, there is a third option to nukes and a ground war. Just so you know, i think this was also the way to have gone with Iraq.

Bomb them back to the stone age with conventional weapons. Don't bother toppling the regime, topple everything else. Destroy the trains, destroy the airports, destroy the ports, take the oil and raw materials down to the last barrel and pound, then destroy all the infrastructure. If Iran wants to work against us, we may as well ensure they never work at all. Napalm bombing and air raids worked great at breaking the back of Germany and Japan (conventional and firebombs killed twice as many people on the Japanese mainland as the nukes), they can work well here.

The core of the problem is that building a nuke just isn't that hard, with the materials any grad student with some nuclear-tech experience could build one. Missiles are harder to make, we have a corner on the market with those. Iran will never reach the United States if we beat them to the ground now.

Finally, a word on battle plans. I feel safe knowing that our nukes really do have the coordinates of our potentially enemies stored on them rather than being blank. I'm glad the generals are working out every possible situation. Know Thine Enemy, and know him before the possibility of fighting becomes a reality.

VirDeBello
04-27-2008, 07:20 PM
Ahhh.....the problem is we pussy around with diplomatic options and forgotten that swift and precise military action is much more effective.

I know alotta people and friends that went into the military, some went reserve and some went active. And from what they have all told me out of the 9 friends I know that joined the military. Five went reserves and from that five, four of them are now in Iraq or Afghanistan. Out of the 4 friends I know that went active, only one of them went to Iraq. The rest of them are either in Germany or Japan. There are more reserve people in the Middle East then active. We joke around and call it the Active Reserve nowadays.

Also because of us trying to be "diplomatic" and try to find a "peaceful" way to resolve the problems in the Middle East, we lost valuable ground. That was our biggest problem. Another problem was the UN warned Iraq when they were gonna send inspectors in there. What the fuck is a purpose of an inspection if you know when its gonna happen? We said we were gonna send in inspectors and I think the first time the UN tried it Iraq didn't let the inspectors in and I think about the third or fourth time we said, alright we will send them in 14 days, let them in or else..... They let them in and found remote traces of chemical or bio agents. I am pretty sure thats what happened unless my memory has failed me. Correct me if I am wrong on that.

Most likely, Iraq smuggled those weapons of whatever into Syria and thats where they are hiding now.

Do you agree with me on this or am I just a big dummie head?

PotshotPolka
04-27-2008, 07:25 PM
Polka, I agree with one thing:
They do have the right to be pissed, no one is disputing that fact. Their rationale however, and method of dealing with it, is questionable at best.

I didn't say a thing about rationality, but for instance, what keeps radical polarized groups centered on a hate for Western culture in influence need more than anything? Fuel of course, so what did the extremists do?
They stirred shit up so they could call for another holy war on the west.

That's my opinion...
Now for intermission you persistent basterd!
EwTZ2xpQwpA

VirDeBello
04-27-2008, 07:26 PM
Hunter, there are a series of legislations that were passed in the 1950-1990s prior to "patriot" that essentially allowed the government to achieve the exact same ends. People know of the patriot act because of media coverage, but the average person isn't touched by it at all. The big difference was that there was a long, really costly, really arbitrary bureaucratic process to get wiretaps, phone bugs, and other forms of surveillance. Further, Patriot was passed BY the congress.

Isn't that ECHELON? Or am I just some crazy conspiracy theorist mentioning that?

Italian Jew
04-27-2008, 07:55 PM
Nice to see they made the definition of WMDs AFTER they checked Iraq. Seems to me that the government is trying to cover its ass. Sort of has an ex post facto characteristic to it. "They don't have anything that we thought they had...no, wait...they have grenades. WMD!" By that definition by Congress, every country contains WMDs, so why not invade Cuba, North Korea, China, India, etc. over them?

PotshotPolka
04-27-2008, 08:09 PM
Nice to see they made the definition of WMDs AFTER they checked Iraq. Seems to me that the government is trying to cover its ass. Sort of has an ex post facto characteristic to it. "They don't have anything that we thought they had...no, wait...they have grenades. WMD!" By that definition by Congress, every country contains WMDs, so why not invade Cuba, North Korea, China, India, etc. over them?

I think you caught stupid.

LegalSmash
04-27-2008, 08:31 PM
Isn't that ECHELON? Or am I just some crazy conspiracy theorist mentioning that?

No echelon is a signal intelligence collection network.