American Planes Refitted for MOABs

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]tme wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I just heard on the news this AM that bombers have just been refitted with MOABs, in light of President Bush’s new sanctions against Iran. President Bush told the Europeans that they can trade with the USA or Iran, but not both.

It won’t be long now.

And that gives you a raging hard-on doesn’t it, you chickenhawk douchebag?

“WHOO-HOO, let’s go attack them eeranyan fuckers boys! Y’all go on ahead now, I gotch 'er back. I’d go too, but you know …cough…cough, I got the wheez, and well golly, I wish I could go, but…cough…”

Got a new crop of younguns to sign up this year? Got em all rarin’ to go yet? And you get to sit home and spank to the bomb-sight videos again. Life’s good for you.

[/quote]

Pissing in your face would be more enjoyable.

42

[quote]hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
You recognize that means you have taken sides right?

Of course I do. But my position transcends the US-Iran issue.

I’ll side against the aggressor in any conflict. If some warmongering moron was to say the same thing about “attacking the US with impunity”, I’ll jump on America’s side just the same.

You are in the military, and that doesn’t leave any room for acting based on your own critical thinking. You do as you are told, and if you don’t, well, you’ll end up being court-martialed. I can’t blame you for that, but I can damn well smack down idiotic statements such as “We can strike the Iranian reactors with impunity”. If you don’t like the way I did it, tough luck. It was inflammatory, but it got attention.

I overlook the fact that Hedo couldn’t be bothered to read the NPT. Most of the time I don’t even respond to his lousy arguments. But when he tries to pass fantasies as fact, I have to put him back in his place.

Now, if I can see evidence that Iran is building nukes, or that they have attacked you, I’ll say “take the bitches down!”.

Tiny Moroccan Bitch,

You have never “put me in my place”. You live in la la land (Islamic version of course). Too fucking funny you have yet to make an argument that wasn’t pure bullshit or lies. It really is the reputation you have earned. You do realize that don’t you.

In fact I have never taken anything you have posted as anything more then a comical attempt at propaganda. You try to be Goebels but you sound more like Baghdad Bob. I am glad that you are obsessed with me. I like it when the radicals become unhinged. It’s always fun to watch.

You know less then nothing of military affairs. Iranian fixed targets will not last 48hrs. End of story. Not even your Iranian allies expect anything more. Iraq was much stronger in 91. The Iraqi military was decimated. We have advanced 16 years forward. Iran simply bought more outdated Russian crap. The results will be even more lopsided.

Perhaps you could become a human shield at one of the nuclear facilities? That way you could prove how committed you are. Inform your cell leader you need a new mission. You have failed at T-Nation.

[/quote]

Baghdad Bob? LMAO!!! THAT was quality!!

43

[quote]hedo wrote:
Iranian fixed targets will not last 48hrs. [/quote]

Of course they won’t. That has never been an issue. But the “impunity” bit in your statement is risible. Iranians will strike back as hard as they can and the only way they can. Would I approve of innocent kids in NY getting blown out? No. Can it be avoided? Yes. Don’t bomb people who did nothing to you based on nothing more than flimsy excuses and weak intelligence.

And who’s Baghdad Bob?

44

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Iranian fixed targets will not last 48hrs.

Of course they won’t. That has never been an issue. But the “impunity” bit in your statement is risible. Iranians will strike back as hard as they can and the only way they can. Would I approve of innocent kids in NY getting blown out? No. Can it be avoided? Yes. Don’t bomb people who did nothing to you based on nothing more than flimsy excuses and weak intelligence.

And who’s Baghdad Bob?[/quote]

Your uncle.

45

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Iranian fixed targets will not last 48hrs.

Of course they won’t. That has never been an issue. But the “impunity” bit in your statement is risible. Iranians will strike back as hard as they can and the only way they can. Would I approve of innocent kids in NY getting blown out? No. Can it be avoided? Yes. Don’t bomb people who did nothing to you based on nothing more than flimsy excuses and weak intelligence.

And who’s Baghdad Bob?[/quote]

An idiot who made about as much sense as you do.

46

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
You recognize that means you have taken sides right?

Of course I do. But my position transcends the US-Iran issue.[/quote]

Negative. My point is that your use of language is one of taking sides between US-Iran, not that of taking an ideological side.[quote]

I’ll side against the aggressor in any conflict. If some warmongering moron was to say the same thing about “attacking the US with impunity”, I’ll jump on America’s side just the same.[/quote]

I trust you actually believe that. I also think that it would take little rationalization for you to be convinced that we are the bad guys in any event.[quote]

You are in the military, and that doesn’t leave any room for acting based on your own critical thinking. You do as you are told, and if you don’t, well, you’ll end up being court-martialed. I can’t blame you for that, but I can damn well smack down idiotic statements such as “We can strike the Iranian reactors with impunity”. If you don’t like the way I did it, tough luck. It was inflammatory, but it got attention.
[/quote]

This is not only insulting, but demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the American fighting man. And for what it’s worth, I am no longer in the military, I’m only entertaining the idea of going back after I graduate this spring. There is no reason to think that the American fighting man has no ability to engage in critical thinking. That also said, the military is a volunteer force, having enlisted does not give a man a free ride to do evil, so if I were to take an evil stance, you CAN blame me for that.

mike

47

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I trust you actually believe that. I also think that it would take little rationalization for you to be convinced that we are the bad guys in any event. [/quote]

Why on earth would you think that?

I said it many times before: If you’re attacked by anyone, you have every right to retaliate. Case in point, Afghanistan. Blasting the country was appropriate and I supported it.

You’re right. I am no expert on the “American fighting man”. However, I do think it’s pretty naive to make your military sound special. There are soldiers all over the world, and most often than not, they are volunteers as well. In the military, you have to obey your superiors. There isn’t much room for questioning (i.e: you’re not paid to think).

Let’s take the American soldiers who refused to shoot at Iraqi because they believed it was a war of aggression. Didn’t they end up in jails? Interestingly, UK courts protected their British counterparts. But I digress. It’s not the ability (of any soldier) to engage in critical thinking that I challenged. It’s the room to tweak your actions based on the result of said thinking. I made that pretty clear in my post. You may wanna read it again.

As for blaming “you” for taking an “evil stance”, I’d rather blame your superiors and ultimately your president for putting you in that god-forsaken place in the first time. And by “evil stance”, I don’t mean raping kids and shooting puppies. Bombing and invading a country that did nothing to you is good enough.

48

[quote]BH6 wrote:

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, an Australian biologist has increased the fatality rate of the smallpox virus to 60% by turning on a genetic switch that is found in an lot of viruses.

Costs to do so: around 30000$.

The cost to mass produce them: probably less than 100000$.

The cost of killing a few hundred thousand Iranians: probably a few million Americans and an ensuing police state.

Chances of preventing such an attack: Virtually none, given that 40 billion a year cannot prevent thousands of tons of drugs from being smuggled into your country .

But, yeah, no harm to you.

So would you consider the possession of weaponized Smallpox worthy of military action? An outbreak of a vaccine resistant smallpox in the United States would hardly be contained in the United States. Austria would get its taste, as well as most of Europe, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and any other major air route out of North America.

Retalitory terrorism isn’t an effective tactic, unless you are Spanish. The Palestinians have been trying it for years, and all it does is set them back further in their attempts to form a palestinian state.

We can strike the Iranian reactors with impunity, destroy their air defenses and airforce, and sink their navy and all they will do is lob a few missles at Isreal and maybe Iraq, attack some ships in the strait of Hormuz, and dig themselves out of the rubble.

We will hurt them more by destroying the 9 or so gas refineries they have. Iran can’t produce enough gasoline domestically. The loss of those refineries and an embargo on gas imports will crush Iran.

Countries in that area of the world are terrible at warfare, they really suck at it. There isn’t a piece of military equipment in Iran that the US doesn’t already own (the Russians will sell to anyone). They don’t have any advantage over the US at all.

You sound like those folks who sat gleefully by in 1991 waiting for the superior Iraqi Army to crush the inexperienced US Military.

[/quote]

what I am saying is that they can do an incredible amount of damage with very little means-

The practice of bombing the natives into submission had itd heyday in the British Empire and produced lots of the problems we have now, like Kurds settling in four countries that have been drawn on the map in 20 min by some British official.

This kind of conflicts follow new rules, they will strike, they will strike from the dark and when you get it that you actually have been attacked it will already be to late.

If there were as many radical Muslims as one is led to believe it already would have happened.

This is not a question of honor, who has the biggest dic, um , army or who has done what to whom first.

49

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
And Mck28 one day you will have to fill us in why you think a “skank, Austrian whore” is the worst thing you can think of-

What is the most disgusting thing about it?

Female sexuality?

Uncontrolled female sexuality?

How does that fit in with you attacking female members of this site that they would “follow you around” to “attack you” ?

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1745395

Predatory females, out to hurt your precious ego?

Deeper rooted problems maybe?

Does “vagina dentata” ring a bell?

I hope 28 is not your age, but such unresolved issues at that age would explain the anger…

No, I just don’t like big mouth austrian whores, who know nothing about America and constantly attack it.

So…shut the fuck up, or keep posting but don’t ever expect any respect from me or any other person who is aware of your game.

[/quote]

Why would I want your respect?

50

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
I don’t think it will matter one way or the other whether we bomb Iran or not. If we took out it’s nuclear capability what’s the big deal? There are no plans of sending in ground troops.

No harm to us.

Sure, because they will just lay back and quietly except the destruction of nuclear reactors and research facilities.

Other than the Iraqi insurgents they do have the means to follow you home.

In fact I am pretty sure they are already there.

Mick wrote:When I want to hear from a skank austrian whore I’ll let you know.

Let me know when you have mastered the “quote” function, Inbred Boy.

I was quoting my previous comment idiot.

This reminds me of your infantile attacks on America. You think you’re so right, but you’re so very wrong.

[/quote]

Yup, I am so very wrong.

Reason: You say so.

Boy, that convinces me. I am like crushed by the power of your arguments.

Austrian skank whore, no less.

Given the brilliance of your debating style you obviously must be right.

51

[quote]lixy wrote:
BH6 wrote:
We can strike the Iranian reactors with impunity

Impunity? Don’t delude yourself.

Bring it on bitches![/quote]

Thats cute Lixy. I can imagine you at Natanz, with your tiny fist raised definatly in the air screaming “Bring it on Bitches” as you watch formations of American bombers fly over and destroy the Iranian dreams of becoming a nuclear power. You go badass. You crack me up kid, you really do. Now let the adults go back to work.

52

[quote]orion wrote:

what I am saying is that they can do an incredible amount of damage with very little means-

The practice of bombing the natives into submission had itd heyday in the British Empire and produced lots of the problems we have now, like Kurds settling in four countries that have been drawn on the map in 20 min by some British official.

This kind of conflicts follow new rules, they will strike, they will strike from the dark and when you get it that you actually have been attacked it will already be to late.

If there were as many radical Muslims as one is led to believe it already would have happened.

This is not a question of honor, who has the biggest dic, um , army or who has done what to whom first.

[/quote]

Honestly they can’t do that much damage. The rules have changed, I’ll give you that, but there won’t be hoardes of Iranian terrorists rising out of suburban America to strike us a killing blow. There will be a few attacks, probably on public transportation, and of course people will be terrorized, but they won’t win the war. We invaded Afganistan after 9/11, that changed the rules as well. While Bush in in office, terrorists are not going to attack the US. This administration is too unpredicable and willing to fight back. We will have to see what happens after next year.

54

[quote]BH6 wrote:
orion wrote:

what I am saying is that they can do an incredible amount of damage with very little means-

The practice of bombing the natives into submission had itd heyday in the British Empire and produced lots of the problems we have now, like Kurds settling in four countries that have been drawn on the map in 20 min by some British official.

This kind of conflicts follow new rules, they will strike, they will strike from the dark and when you get it that you actually have been attacked it will already be to late.

If there were as many radical Muslims as one is led to believe it already would have happened.

This is not a question of honor, who has the biggest dic, um , army or who has done what to whom first.

Honestly they can’t do that much damage. The rules have changed, I’ll give you that, but there won’t be hoardes of Iranian terrorists rising out of suburban America to strike us a killing blow. There will be a few attacks, probably on public transportation, and of course people will be terrorized, but they won’t win the war. We invaded Afganistan after 9/11, that changed the rules as well. While Bush in in office, terrorists are not going to attack the US. This administration is too unpredicable and willing to fight back. We will have to see what happens after next year. [/quote]

Well some of that was the libertarian, non-neo con argument all along, that even 10 9-11 could not defeat the US or force it to change.

Yet one attack has changed the US and the US standing in the world significantly.

Now imagine a biological attack that is next to impossible to prevent and/or trace back and 1984 will look like Disneyland.

If that happens they will have destroyed the US all but in name by using the American government and the fear of the American public.

55

[quote]orion wrote:
BH6 wrote:
orion wrote:

what I am saying is that they can do an incredible amount of damage with very little means-

The practice of bombing the natives into submission had itd heyday in the British Empire and produced lots of the problems we have now, like Kurds settling in four countries that have been drawn on the map in 20 min by some British official.

This kind of conflicts follow new rules, they will strike, they will strike from the dark and when you get it that you actually have been attacked it will already be to late.

If there were as many radical Muslims as one is led to believe it already would have happened.

This is not a question of honor, who has the biggest dic, um , army or who has done what to whom first.

Honestly they can’t do that much damage. The rules have changed, I’ll give you that, but there won’t be hoardes of Iranian terrorists rising out of suburban America to strike us a killing blow. There will be a few attacks, probably on public transportation, and of course people will be terrorized, but they won’t win the war. We invaded Afganistan after 9/11, that changed the rules as well. While Bush in in office, terrorists are not going to attack the US. This administration is too unpredicable and willing to fight back. We will have to see what happens after next year.

Well some of that was the libertarian, non-neo con argument all along, that even 10 9-11 could not defeat the US or force it to change.

Yet one attack has changed the US and the US standing in the world significantly.

Now imagine a biological attack that is next to impossible to prevent and/or trace back and 1984 will look like Disneyland.

If that happens they will have destroyed the US all but in name by using the American government and the fear of the American public.
[/quote]

So we should not have fought after Pearl Harbor, when Japan attacked us? After all, there were lots of Japanese people here by then. They could have terrorized us.

You’ve got to stop living in fear, Orion. Join us now, all the fine people of Austria — together we can conquer the Middle East, drive the price of oil down, and the West will have a Rennaisance. We can help the ME industrialize and save their people from backwardness.

56

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

So we should not have fought after Pearl Harbor, when Japan attacked us? After all, there were lots of Japanese people here by then. They could have terrorized us.

You’ve got to stop living in fear, Orion. Join us now, all the fine people of Austria — together we can conquer the Middle East, drive the price of oil down, and the West will have a Rennaisance. We can help the ME industrialize and save their people from backwardness.

[/quote]

After Pearl Harbor you had an actual enemy to fight war on.

They even had battleships on which you could sign peace treaties.

So that was a war.

Al Quaeda is a bunch of politically motivated criminals. They could not have hoped for a success like Iraq. They could not have hoped for this conflict to start involving Turkey and Iran.

If my “fear” prevents me to spend 2 trillion dollars to get so deep into shit, make a giant leap towards a police state and give all my enemies on a gold platter what they were praying for five times a day, I think I will listen to my fear more often.

Isn`t fear the biological adaption that warns us before we do something incredible stupid?

57

Tehran Here We Come!

"British Defense Researchers Create Invisible Tank
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
FNC/AP

What the British cloaking device might look like if it were applied to an Israeli tank.
British defense researchers have invented an invisible tank �?? or at least a way to make a tank invisible.

London’s Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and Sun all report on tests conducted by the Ministry of Defence last week in which a tank rolled across a field, completely invisible to observers standing at a certain point.

“This technology is incredible,” an unnamed soldier was quoted by the Daily Mail and Sun. “If I hadn’t been present I wouldn’t have believed it. I looked across the fields and just saw grass and trees �?? but in reality I was staring down the barrel of a tank gun.”

58

Tehran Here We Come!

"British Defense Researchers Create Invisible Tank
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
FNC/AP

What the British cloaking device might look like if it were applied to an Israeli tank.
British defense researchers have invented an invisible tank �?? or at least a way to make a tank invisible.

London’s Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and Sun all report on tests conducted by the Ministry of Defence last week in which a tank rolled across a field, completely invisible to observers standing at a certain point.

“This technology is incredible,” an unnamed soldier was quoted by the Daily Mail and Sun. “If I hadn’t been present I wouldn’t have believed it. I looked across the fields and just saw grass and trees �?? but in reality I was staring down the barrel of a tank gun.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306678,00.html

59

Orion you are hung up on the biological attack scenario, which actually sounds more neo-con than admitting it isn’t a realistic threat. We can spend billions of dollars in government money building and installing biological monitoring systems if we convince everyone it is viable threat.

Biological weapons are hard to make and harder to employ successfully. It takes training and resources to make and employ a bio-weapon, and the world intelligence agencies and law-enforcement have been monitoring this issue for a very long time. If it was so easy, why hasn’t Isreal been attacked by a bio-weapon? That would be a reasonable target.

A successful bio-weapon attack, such as smallpox, is a worldwide threat and is treated as such by the intelligence agencies and law-enforcement agencies around the world. Even in Austria.

The United States wouldn’t be ruined by such an attack. The IRA couldn’t take down Britian, Hamas can’t take down Isreal, the FARC can’t take down Columbia, and Aum Shiriko couldn’t take down Japan with their chemical attack in Tokyo.

Every attack is traceable. Terrorist don’t attack without claiming it or exploiting the attack for thier purposes. Terrorist attacks without media exploitation are not effective. The anthrax mailing incidents in the US were never claimed and those incident have generally been forgotten by the public. That is considered a failure.

Bio-weapons are a threat that must be considered, but that scenario has acutally been thought out and planned for long before 9/11.