[quote]doogie wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
doogie wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Iran is and has been a much greater threat to the U.S. and world at large than Iraq. If Iraq, why not Iran? Or why not Iran instead of Iraq? Too late now-we are involved and I think we need to stay involved and fulfill our committment to resolve things as much as we possibly can. But this is something we should’ve thought of a long time ago. Some people did.
You think it is just sheer blind luck that we have Iran surrounded now?
Wow, doogie, you must have been a General who planned strategy when you were in the reserves! Brilliant, simply Brilliant, we’ve got em surrounded… whew hoo, our troops can’t drive safely from Camp Freedom to the Baghdad airport, but hey, we’ve got Iran surrounded. Insurgents are still fighting in Afghanistan and Bin Laden’s on the loose, but hey General doogie says don’t worry from my strategic post in Texas (kinda like Georgy) I’m telling ya folks… we’ve got Iran surrounded!!! Why, did you ever leave the reserves? They need your brilliant skills at the Pentagon General doogie!
So, Elkfucker, are you saying that we’d be in a better strategic position in regards to Iran if we DIDN’T have troops on two of their borders? Please explain that to me.
If you were planning on isolating Iran, how would you have gone about it? No fair using the word “diplomacy” unless you completely explain what you would have done diplomatically.[/quote]
I’m finding it hard to believe for a school teacher you’re really this retarded. We may be in countries around Iran, but we don’t even have those countries secured not by a long shot and Iran has millions more people General. The only way we would be victorious would be to throw nukes and I don’t even want to think about that scenerio.
And, oh, elkfucker… you’re really crushing my spirit there doogie. Please, please, stop, I’m begging for mercy.
[quote]doogie wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
A bunch of off topic stuff about Iraq, followed by…
As for Iran, let it go. Just redefine the triggers for mutual assured destruction: any suitcase bomb goes off anywhere and the mullahs and musharraf and dear leader all get the nuclear treatment on the same glorious day. We’ve lived with this scenario before.
Russians didn’t believe that they’d end up in heaven with 72 virgins. Russians didn’t think that God wanted them to kill us. You can’t apply the same common sense approach that we used with Russia to Iran.
I don’t know about you, but the thought that after my family is nuked a lot of Iranians will be nuked also doesn’t really put my mind at ease.[/quote]
MAD was never about putting anybody’s mind at ease (why do you expect your mind should be at ease, especially if the recipe calls for preemptively nuking a bunch of human beings?) MAD is about getting down the road safely, hopefully to better times.
Your line about Russia vs. Iran is nonsense, of the sort you usually wind up with by turning your opponent into a sub-human boogeyman. What is lost in a nuclear exchange is much more than human life, and even the mullahs know this. Their goal is to protect and expand their Islamic state, not to fuck like bunnies in the afterlife.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
doogie wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
doogie wrote:
So, Elkfucker, are you saying that we’d be in a better strategic position in regards to Iran if we DIDN’T have troops on two of their borders? Please explain that to me.
If you were planning on isolating Iran, how would you have gone about it? No fair using the word “diplomacy” unless you completely explain what you would have done diplomatically.
I’m finding it hard to believe for a school teacher you’re really this retarded. We may be in countries around Iran, but we don’t even have those countries secured not by a long shot and Iran has millions more people General. The only way we would be victorious would be to throw nukes and I don’t even want to think about that scenerio.
And, oh, elkfucker… you’re really crushing my spirit there doogie. Please, please, stop, I’m begging for mercy. [/quote]
Again, are you saying we’d be in a better position if we didn’t have Iran surrounded? Or do you deny that we have troops to their east and west? How would you have gone about isolating Iran?
Oh, I’m all for throwing nukes at their reactors. I don’t really care if you want to think about it or not. What I don’t want to think about is pussies like you trying to appease people who want us dead.
MAD was never about putting anybody’s mind at ease (why do you expect your mind should be at ease, especially if the recipe calls for preemptively nuking a bunch of human beings?) [/quote]
MAD was not about premptively nuking a bunch of human beings. MAD was about the RETALIATION that would follow the premptive nuking of a bunch of human beings.
MAD is about getting down the road safely, hopefully to better times.
Ask any Russian if they think the rebels in Chechnya are just like them. I do think that anyone who is willing to die for some imaginary thing in the sky is sub-human. I’m not shy about that.
It’s that whole “expanding their Islamic state” (and the means they are willing to utilize) that scares the shit out of rational people. What is your point?
GW Bush threatened the world with preemptive Christian hellfire (he even used the word “crusade”). Then he made good on the threat by invading Iraq. Naturally, some observers redoubled their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
Putting myself in Iranian shoes, I’d have to say that their program to acquire nuclear weapons was pretty much the T-man thing to do, a gutsy and effective response in the face of some serious intimidation.
As for having them surrounded, I hope you’re not counting Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq, beause you will not find much help in any of those places for dealing with Iran. Rather, these common borders are a serious exposure for American troops in the region.
[quote]doogie wrote:
I do think that anyone who is willing to die for some imaginary thing in the sky is sub-human. I’m not shy about that
[/quote]
In 1775, democracy was just an imaginary thing in the sky. Freedom, as we know it living cheek by jowel with each other under corporate governance, is largely an imaginary thing in the sky. Fighting and dying for imaginary things in the sky is about as human as it gets.
What’s my point? They’re no more, nor less, than any other human adversary. Like the Vietnamese, like the Chechens, like the North Koreans, like the Afghani, like the Americans, when it comes to that.
I think it’s more sub-human to suggest a preemptive nuclear war, just so you can have your peace of mind.
I’ve yet to hear or read anywhere, from any source, anything even vaguely conclusive to the effect that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programme.
Actually, if we’re speaking in terms of the ostensibly logic presented, it goes something like this.
[1]Iran is developing a programme to provide it with Nuclear Power.
[2] Iran hates the USA
[3] Conclusion: Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programme to attack the USA…
As logical arguments go…that doesn’t.
Similarly, following other lines of argumentation produced in this esteemed environment, it would appear that the USA is fully entitled and justified to deal with those nations whom it considers to be a potential threat to it’s sovereignty.
If you accept this logic, then I imagine no one will be complaining if China [for example] decides the USA is a threat an invades…
Doogie, presumably we bomb their nuclear facilities.
Are you really such a moron? I’ve not suggested an alternative to force needs to be found with respect to Iran. We’re talking about terrorists on one hand and how to deal with Iran on the other.
They are not the same thing. Not every muslim living in the Middle East is a terrorist. This is another point you can’t seemt to fathom.
Except for those that are in fact terrorists, or fanatics, we are all just people. Kumba-Ya oh confused one.
Well, ZEB does it all the time. Why isn’t anyone else allowed to?
No actually I don’t Ma’m.
Actually, you do. The only evidence you ever post is pulled out of your own butt or off of right wing websites. YOu have never in anything I’ve seen you post provide a neutral, empirical peer reviewed source of evidence. And you always expect us to just take your word without any application of critical thought. :)[/quote]
Your posts have become amusing!
The fact that I have a “position” on an issue somehow bothers you…Please keep posting dear.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’ve read this response five times now. I still don’t see your alternative to force solution. Tell me, Vroom. How do we keep Iran from developing nukes?
Doogie, presumably we bomb their nuclear facilities.
Are you really such a moron? I’ve not suggested an alternative to force needs to be found with respect to Iran. We’re talking about terrorists on one hand and how to deal with Iran on the other.
They are not the same thing. Not every muslim living in the Middle East is a terrorist. This is another point you can’t seemt to fathom.
Except for those that are in fact terrorists, or fanatics, we are all just people. Kumba-Ya oh confused one.[/quote]
Do you really think he is a moron, or are you frustrated by his argument, right or wrong?
Well, ZEB does it all the time. Why isn’t anyone else allowed to?
No actually I don’t Ma’m.
Actually, you do. The only evidence you ever post is pulled out of your own butt or off of right wing websites. YOu have never in anything I’ve seen you post provide a neutral, empirical peer reviewed source of evidence. And you always expect us to just take your word without any application of critical thought.
Your posts have become amusing!
The fact that I have a “position” on an issue somehow bothers you…Please keep posting dear. :)[/quote]
Oh pious and holy robe wearer, did you and flapquack PM each other and come up with a “let’s ignore elk” strategy? Don’t worry, I like it especially in regard to flapquack! It’s nice not to hear his irrational diatribes. I’m not going to stop responding to your propaganda though.
Like in this case. Your toadies love to say “burn” when they feel like you have said something profound for your cause. I will say this WMD owned your pious ass… owned it. I like you hope she keeps posting often and addressing your deceptive propaganda filled rhetoric.
Honestly? I would rather worry about a conventional AirLand battle between Jews and Muslems, than I would a nuclear war with anyone.
I agree that the Iranian nukes should be taken out. But, I don’t want Israel to do it for reasons stated above.
I think we could probably do it quickly and painlessly (no loss of American lives).
This is not a full scale invasion like Iraq. This is simply a strategic strike (or several of them) in order to take out key targets and leave them “nukeless.”
While we are at it we might also take out a few terrorists training camps providing we know where they are.
Let the world know that WE won’t stand for terrorist states having nukes! [/quote]
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
GW Bush threatened the world with preemptive Christian hellfire (he even used the word “crusade”). Then he made good on the threat by invading Iraq. Naturally, some observers redoubled their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
Putting myself in Iranian shoes, I’d have to say that their program to acquire nuclear weapons was pretty much the T-man thing to do, a gutsy and effective response in the face of some serious intimidation.
…[quote]
Iran has been working on acquiring nukes for decades.
You people are falling for Iran’s propaganda, just like you fell for North Korea’s propaganda.
Bush simply pointed out the truth about these countries. His statements did not encourage them. They were already doing it.
I think Iran definitely needs to be dealt with, but I have a question for those of you in the military: How well is our troop strength holding up? Suppose we invade Iran and encounter another “insurgency” like we have in Iraq. Would we be prepared to deal with it, or would our troops be spread too thin?
Although I realize you can’t blindly trust the evening news to give the complete picture, we’ve all heard about how the troops are having difficulty getting equipment, etc (presumably due to budget issues), and how the military is having a hard time meeting their recruitment needs. Based on this, I agree with the earlier posts saying we definitely need to kick up the diplomacy efforts and get some assistance from our neighbors. Bush may be well-advised to bring in his father and Bill Clinton to assist in the diplomacy efforts (at least behind the scenes). They both have experience and personal ties with many world leaders.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
WMD wrote:
So you ARE a pussy. Takes a real man to admit it.
Is that the best you’ve got? You are reduced to calling Bush Backers pussies?
I figured that being the big, strong, non-pussy that you seem to think you are you would actually have something to say. I must beg your forgiveness for overestimating your abilities by such a huge margin.
I guess, void of anything of substance to say, you think you will score points by wasting server space with your self-important little quips.
If that’s what it takes to make you feel important - knock yourself out. You certainly must need it. [/quote]
Are you taking me seriously, RJ? You’re so delicate. And actually it was you that admitted to being a pussy, I was just commending your courage. As soon as one of you Bush Backers posts something of relevance, besides your own brand of vitriol, I’ll respond to it. Meanwhile, I enjoy your snappy repartee.
When they shot at our planes, when they tried to assasinate an ex-president, when they invaded an ally, when they sponsored countless acts of terrorism against another ally.[/quote]
Heh, you’re serious aren’t you? You really think that backward ass, pissant, shit-hole of a country was a real threat to anybody but themselves, that it required a wholesale invasion by the greatest military power on the planet? While the above things may be true, when exactly was the US in any danger of collapse because of inept Iraqi machinations?
