Iran Strike Set For June Or July

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ee,

As Zap is pointing out, the power is there. It is simply that America is NOT like Nazi Germany, using that power to crush others. There’s a whole laundry list of rogue nations that are very lucky that we DON’T want to exercise that power.

Imagine if we drafted, say, 10 million men and went hammer-and-tongs to wipe all this shit out. Game over.

On the contrary, the U.S. has invaded and fought more wars by proxy than Hitler ever had.

By the way, why DON’T we want to exercise power over other rogue nations, ones that are far more dangerous than Iraq was during our recent invasion?[/quote]

Ummm…Hitler was in power for only 12+ years. His country was devastated by losing WWI and in the midst of the Great Depression. Soon as he was able, war. You’re statement comparing how many wars we’ve had is non- sequitor.

We don’t attack nations unless they are a clear risk to us. Saddam was rebuilding and endangering our oil supply. So, he was first. Iran is next, followed by North Korea. Iran is next because they, quite foolishly, are doing exactly what Saddam did — threaten our oil supply. We’ll probably leave NK alone, since they don’t threaten us, and China feels somehow that they must protect NK.

I’m always amazed how libs ASSUME that the same relative peace and order would continue, w/o the vast power of the United States enforcing that order. Do you guys realize how quickly the world would degenerate into roving bands of thugs and murderers w/o the USA? The world would quickly turn into Zimbabwe, with every little tribe more than happy to burn the crops, blow up the mines, topple buildings, rape your wife and murder your children (while making you watch). Is this what you want, when you advocate the US be ‘diplomatic’ and withdraw from trying to police this shitpit world?

Fucking and just plain stupid!!

H2

[quote]vroom wrote:
You guys get too many boners about how powerful a nation you are.

[/quote]

Well…at least we are not flacid and bitchy about our non performance like some countries I know…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We don’t attack nations unless they are a clear risk to us.[/quote]

Hahahahahahaha

How was Panama a clear risk? Serbia? Grenada?

You’re a laugh riot.

#1 If we leave NK alone, it will have everything to do with the fact that that nation can defend itself against a U.S. attack, and nothing to do with threats or lack thereof (which there are, by the way). The U.S. only invades weak countries that all but can’t defend themselves. This is a known fact that is acknowledged the world over.

#2 China isn’t protecting NK, doofus. China is protecting CHINA. Do you really think they want to have an even greater American presence in their backyard? You truly epitomize the completely arrogant, self-absorbed, unselfconscious “Ugly American”. Unbelievable.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’m always amazed how libs ASSUME that the same relative peace and order would continue, w/o the vast power of the United States enforcing that order. Do you guys realize how quickly the world would degenerate into roving bands of thugs and murderers w/o the USA? The world would quickly turn into Zimbabwe, with every little tribe more than happy to burn the crops, blow up the mines, topple buildings, rape your wife and murder your children (while making you watch). Is this what you want, when you advocate the US be ‘diplomatic’ and withdraw from trying to police this shitpit world?[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about?
#1 The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history, in no small part to Amerca’s participation in various conflicts. You were saying something about “relative peace”?

#2 What possible case could be made to support your assertion that, in the absence of U.S. Imperialism, the world would suddenly collapse into chaos? First of all, a great portion of the world is ALREADY in chaos, and much of this is precisely DUE to the effects of U.S. imperialism. America has no national defense. It has a national offense. If this were reversed, along with its foreign policy of imperialism, it would have absolutely nothing to fear from any other nation in the world.

#3 Zimbabwe and other African countries are fucked up for a REASON. And what’s that reason? None other than IMPERIALISM, the same driving force which you are advocating for American foreign policy. Thus, by citing Zimbabwe to support your argument, you are actually shooting yourself in the foot.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ee,

As Zap is pointing out, the power is there. It is simply that America is NOT like Nazi Germany, using that power to crush others. There’s a whole laundry list of rogue nations that are very lucky that we DON’T want to exercise that power.

Imagine if we drafted, say, 10 million men and went hammer-and-tongs to wipe all this shit out. Game over.

On the contrary, the U.S. has invaded and fought more wars by proxy than Hitler ever had.

By the way, why DON’T we want to exercise power over other rogue nations, ones that are far more dangerous than Iraq was during our recent invasion?

Ummm…Hitler was in power for only 12+ years. His country was devastated by losing WWI and in the midst of the Great Depression. Soon as he was able, war. You’re statement comparing how many wars we’ve had is non- sequitor.

We don’t attack nations unless they are a clear risk to us. Saddam was rebuilding and endangering our oil supply. So, he was first. Iran is next, followed by North Korea. Iran is next because they, quite foolishly, are doing exactly what Saddam did — threaten our oil supply. We’ll probably leave NK alone, since they don’t threaten us, and China feels somehow that they must protect NK.

I’m always amazed how libs ASSUME that the same relative peace and order would continue, w/o the vast power of the United States enforcing that order. Do you guys realize how quickly the world would degenerate into roving bands of thugs and murderers w/o the USA? The world would quickly turn into Zimbabwe, with every little tribe more than happy to burn the crops, blow up the mines, topple buildings, rape your wife and murder your children (while making you watch). Is this what you want, when you advocate the US be ‘diplomatic’ and withdraw from trying to police this shitpit world?

Fucking and just plain stupid!!

H2

[/quote]

Your point about Hitler and length of time is duly noted. I just didn’t make my point in a useful manner with that example.

However, your statement that we don’t attack unless provoked is absolutely false. There is no credible evidence that Saddam was rebuilding. It was nothing but smoke in mirrors from W, Rumsfeld and Powell. His ability to attack us was almost - if not impossible - non-existent. His nieghbors weren’t even afraid of him. His capabilities were 1/10 of what they were prior to the first Gulf War. And the severe sanctions put on Iraq - mostly led by the U.S.- helped to starve hundereds of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s. They were weaklings in the region so to suggest that there was actually a real threat to us is laughable and no one believes it outside this country.

And how is oil in a foreign country’s land ours? Can China claim that the coal supplies in the U.S. are theirs?

Of course Iran could be considered more of a threat as they were not devestated by the first Gulf War or sanctions. But so what? NK is a bigger threat as they have threatened nuclear strikes against us. So what do we do? Invade every nation who doesn’t agree or bow down to us? Iraq was easy as they couldn’t defend themselves and they have so much oil. NK and other nations are better eqipped to defend themselves and inflict harm to our nation so they don’t seem to be targeted for invasion. Plus NK doesn’t have many if any oil reserves.

The U.S. is to a great deal the very cause of unrest. This country has a long history of destabilizing other nations in order to put in puppet regimes and make it friendly for U.S. corporate takeovers and repression of indegious populations. Of course you won’t hear this from the very corporate mass media whose parent companies derives power and profit from such endevors. Just a function of unbridled capitalistic greed at work.

The best thing anyone can do in this country is to subvert mass media propaganda. Go to non-corporate and foreign news sources for a truly alternative look at what is going on in our name. It is shocking to say the least.

[quote]electric_eales wrote

No Zao I am sure you have enough power to wipe out the whole planet, like the power you had when you liberated Vietnam, or took over Iraq so swiftly with minimal losses, oh yeah and that time you went and spent like 10 billion dollars trying to kill one man but failed.

That’s really not even a funny comment. Just like in Vietnam, we could do a lot more then what the politicians are allowing. The hands of the military are so tied, it?s unbelievable. We are so scared of public perception that we would rather sacrifice our troops then to accidentally kill an ?innocent? Iraqi. Our troops have become almost paralyzed
Do I think we can win a war against Iran, Iraq, anyone? Yes. Do I think our leaders, the public, have the intestinal fortitude to do it? No. We have the soft under belly that Bin Laden liked to talk about.
If you are going to go to war, commit to it (WWI, WWII). Iraq and Vietnam are examples of not being able to commit, doing a half-ass job.

[/quote]

This is so nutty that the extremes on both edges of the political spectrum are exposing this idea.

Ridiculous!!

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We don’t attack nations unless they are a clear risk to us.

Hahahahahahaha

How was Panama a clear risk? Serbia? Grenada?

Headhunter wrote:We’ll probably leave NK alone, since they don’t threaten us, and China feels somehow that they must protect NK.

You’re a laugh riot.

#1 If we leave NK alone, it will have everything to do with the fact that that nation can defend itself against a U.S. attack, and nothing to do with threats or lack thereof (which there are, by the way). The U.S. only invades weak countries that all but can’t defend themselves. This is a known fact that is acknowledged the world over.

#2 China isn’t protecting NK, doofus. China is protecting CHINA. Do you really think they want to have an even greater American presence in their backyard? You truly epitomize the completely arrogant, self-absorbed, unselfconscious “Ugly American”. Unbelievable.

Headhunter wrote:
I’m always amazed how libs ASSUME that the same relative peace and order would continue, w/o the vast power of the United States enforcing that order. Do you guys realize how quickly the world would degenerate into roving bands of thugs and murderers w/o the USA? The world would quickly turn into Zimbabwe, with every little tribe more than happy to burn the crops, blow up the mines, topple buildings, rape your wife and murder your children (while making you watch). Is this what you want, when you advocate the US be ‘diplomatic’ and withdraw from trying to police this shitpit world?

What the hell are you talking about?
#1 The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history, in no small part to Amerca’s participation in various conflicts. You were saying something about “relative peace”?

#2 What possible case could be made to support your assertion that, in the absence of U.S. Imperialism, the world would suddenly collapse into chaos? First of all, a great portion of the world is ALREADY in chaos, and much of this is precisely DUE to the effects of U.S. imperialism. America has no national defense. It has a national offense. If this were reversed, along with its foreign policy of imperialism, it would have absolutely nothing to fear from any other nation in the world.

#3 Zimbabwe and other African countries are fucked up for a REASON. And what’s that reason? None other than IMPERIALISM, the same driving force which you are advocating for American foreign policy. Thus, by citing Zimbabwe to support your argument, you are actually shooting yourself in the foot.[/quote]

Possibly the stupidest, most ignorant-of-history post in the history of T-Nation. I actually had to read some of this twaddle twice to believe that someone would actually write this nonsense.

There ARE these things called books. History, philosophy, political science. Pick one up, though you won’t find these at K-Mart, you shopper you.

Headhunter

[quote]TRC wrote:
electric_eales wrote

No Zao I am sure you have enough power to wipe out the whole planet, like the power you had when you liberated Vietnam, or took over Iraq so swiftly with minimal losses, oh yeah and that time you went and spent like 10 billion dollars trying to kill one man but failed.

That’s really not even a funny comment. Just like in Vietnam, we could do a lot more then what the politicians are allowing. The hands of the military are so tied, it?s unbelievable. We are so scared of public perception that we would rather sacrifice our troops then to accidentally kill an ?innocent? Iraqi. Our troops have become almost paralyzed
Do I think we can win a war against Iran, Iraq, anyone? Yes. Do I think our leaders, the public, have the intestinal fortitude to do it? No. We have the soft under belly that Bin Laden liked to talk about.
If you are going to go to war, commit to it (WWI, WWII). Iraq and Vietnam are examples of not being able to commit, doing a half-ass job.

[/quote]

You certainly have the bit right about half assed job, regardless of the reasons Americs is just not that great at whopping ass im afraid, USA is not even the worlds biggest super power anymore, I think in the past 5 years you have killed just as many allied and your own troops as the enemy, holy shit you invented the phrase ‘friendly fire’! ‘Fuck up fire’ more like!

You might want to study your history a little better, recent or otherwise.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Possibly the stupidest, most ignorant-of-history post in the history of T-Nation. I actually had to read some of this twaddle twice to believe that someone would actually write this nonsense.

There ARE these things called books. History, philosophy, political science. Pick one up, though you won’t find these at K-Mart, you shopper you.[/quote]

This is what you’re attempting to pass off as a legitimate response to my refutation of your inane rabble?

What point am I missing? What bit of neocon wisdom is getting by me? Did we not invade Grenada and Panama and bomb Serbia? Do we not overwhelmingly pick on weak countries who lack the capability to defend themselves (case-in-point, the examples above)? Does China not care about protecting its backyard from U.S. influence? Did Africa spontaneously fall into its present state of turmoil, with no prior interference from Western powers? Was the 20th century not the bloodiest in history? Did not America play a large role in most of that century’s conflicts?

Every single point I made is completely accurate and verifiable. For you to reply in such a manner is utterly disgraceful. Shame on you.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Remember the “US Will Invade Iran In March” thread?

(Yawn)[/quote]

Right, and if it isn’t June or July he’ll just back it up a month.

Why doesn’t anyone examine the possibilities of Iranian aggression as soon as they go nuclear? After all we have never said Iran doesn’t have the right to exist, where as Iranian leaders have been quite clear in their belief and statements that Israel is to be wiped out. They don’t hold much love for the US either.

I hate to be negative on this matter but I see very little chance that Iran?s nuclear ambitions will not lead to war, a war that will over take that entire region. History has taught us that diplomacy and appeasement with despots and tyrannical governments never works, it only emboldens them. Thus the US is in a damned if you do and damned if you don’t position: First scenario, we strike preemptively, destroying Iran?s capability to make nuclear weapons and war. Though this would be in reality the best scenario and the least costly in terms of life and destruction, the world would react in mock righteous indignation and condemn the US, the political left in this country echo most of the anti-American sentiment only redirecting it at the GOP to seize the political upper hand. The second scenario has the US standing by as the UN and European leaders attempt to assure themselves that Iran will never build nuclear weapons and that Ahmadinejad is really a nice guy despite what he says (does anyone remember Neville Chamberlain declaring the Hitler was a good guy and “We will have peace in our time.”) At this point Iran will wait a few months after the obligatory summits to then announce to the world that it is nuclear armed or worse yet begin passing on its knowledge and arms to Hamas, Hezbolla and any other anti-US, anti-western freedom and market group. Then its a whole new ball game. Israel will most likely attempt to knock out Iranian nuclear installations and Iran will no doubt retaliate either by proxy with Hezbolla and Hamas or directly. The US will step up to defend Israel (this will depend heavily on the character of who is in office at the time if not Bush). After that I don’t see a way this could be contained until one side is utterly defeated, I’m talking complete destruction of one side’s ability to make war. Of course if the US does wait and this scenario comes to pass, the Anti-US and Anti-Bush/GOP crowd will demand to know why we didn’t know and didn’t stop it. You can’t win. Oh well here’s to hoping I am wrong.

[quote]GunnyBear wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Remember the “US Will Invade Iran In March” thread?

(Yawn)

Right, and if it isn’t June or July he’ll just back it up a month.

Why doesn’t anyone examine the possibilities of Iranian aggression as soon as they go nuclear? After all we have never said Iran doesn’t have the right to exist, where as Iranian leaders have been quite clear in their belief and statements that Israel is to be wiped out. They don’t hold much love for the US either.

I hate to be negative on this matter but I see very little chance that Iran?s nuclear ambitions will not lead to war, a war that will over take that entire region. History has taught us that diplomacy and appeasement with despots and tyrannical governments never works, it only emboldens them. Thus the US is in a damned if you do and damned if you don’t position: First scenario, we strike preemptively, destroying Iran?s capability to make nuclear weapons and war. Though this would be in reality the best scenario and the least costly in terms of life and destruction, the world would react in mock righteous indignation and condemn the US, the political left in this country echo most of the anti-American sentiment only redirecting it at the GOP to seize the political upper hand. The second scenario has the US standing by as the UN and European leaders attempt to assure themselves that Iran will never build nuclear weapons and that Ahmadinejad is really a nice guy despite what he says (does anyone remember Neville Chamberlain declaring the Hitler was a good guy and “We will have peace in our time.”) At this point Iran will wait a few months after the obligatory summits to then announce to the world that it is nuclear armed or worse yet begin passing on its knowledge and arms to Hamas, Hezbolla and any other anti-US, anti-western freedom and market group. Then its a whole new ball game. Israel will most likely attempt to knock out Iranian nuclear installations and Iran will no doubt retaliate either by proxy with Hezbolla and Hamas or directly. The US will step up to defend Israel (this will depend heavily on the character of who is in office at the time if not Bush). After that I don’t see a way this could be contained until one side is utterly defeated, I’m talking complete destruction of one side’s ability to make war. Of course if the US does wait and this scenario comes to pass, the Anti-US and Anti-Bush/GOP crowd will demand to know why we didn’t know and didn’t stop it. You can’t win. Oh well here’s to hoping I am wrong.
[/quote]

what about option three?

we invade the country, do another half ass job. they will retain their nuclear capabilities, an alliance between china, russia, iran, and anybody else smart enough to seize the chance. together they form their own version of the un to counter our own. then we have a world split into a few groups prepared to do war.the immigrants who fill our country begin to attack us from within, weakening our infrastructure. this allows for more powerful, and fully prepared forces to invade our shores. a batallion of foriegn troops invades your house and kills your entire family before you yourself are shot in the back of the head, on your knees begging for freedom. as a response the remains of our government provide a full on nuclear attack against the homelands of all invading forces. we wipe eachother out, and uzbekistan becomes the new world super power. although the above scenario seems unlikely, it holds as much merit as your option one or two theory.

[quote]vroom wrote:
You guys get too many boners about how powerful a nation you are.

[/quote]

Said the little sister country that piggy backs on us. Don’t hate us because we have pride and power to dominate the middle east and possible much more. Your just like everybody else think you know it all I bet your one of those people that watch a sporting event and when the athlete f-cks up you reply with well if that was me I would have,. Keep in mind that your shit stinks to.

[quote]Monster Tech wrote:
Said the little sister country that piggy backs on us.[/quote]

I’m not my country, asswad.

I don’t hate you. What gives you that impression? The fact that I think some folks (perhaps you) take too much pride in being powerful instead of wise?

No, if the athlete is on my side I call him a worthless piece of shit making too much money, and if he’s on the other team I say “aw, too bad, he almost had it”.

Don’t throw such lame ass arguments as your made up opinion about how someone might react to made up situations. How fucking useless is that?

Clue: very fucking useless!!!

what about option three?

we invade the country, do another half ass job. they will retain their nuclear capabilities, an alliance between china, russia, iran, and anybody else smart enough to seize the chance. together they form their own version of the un to counter our own. then we have a world split into a few groups prepared to do war.the immigrants who fill our country begin to attack us from within, weakening our infrastructure. this allows for more powerful, and fully prepared forces to invade our shores. a batallion of foriegn troops invades your house and kills your entire family before you yourself are shot in the back of the head, on your knees begging for freedom. as a response the remains of our government provide a full on nuclear attack against the homelands of all invading forces. we wipe eachother out, and uzbekistan becomes the new world super power. although the above scenario seems unlikely, it holds as much merit as your option one or two theory.[/quote]

Hmmm, I hadn’t thought of that…but your scenario has one mistake, it will not be Uzbekistan that makes it to the top of the trash heap but Kazakhstan! Yes the new ruler of the world will be Borat Sagdiyev, Kazakhstan’s sixth most famous person!

During the 2nd World War there were no nuclear weapons, don’t forget that, war was very different than. As long as the US is not able to shoot down nuclear missles before they hit US-soil every war is risky for their own population.

Just think about an alies between Russia and Iran. Russia has more than enough nuclear bombs to blow up the whole world - including the US.

[quote]Mishima wrote:
During the 2nd World War there were no nuclear weapons, don’t forget that, [/quote]

Er…

DIV

they were not a thread during the war 1939-45.

[quote]Mishima wrote:
they were not a thread during the war 1939-45.[/quote]

WTF are you trying to be stupid on purpose?