Author Topic: Make Iran Make the 1st Move (Read 4147 times)

NUKE · « **Reply #135 on:** January 29, 2005, 09:45:41 PM »

Grun, are you going to fly tonight? I'm gettin ready.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #136 on:** January 29, 2005, 09:47:37 PM »

Maybe later, now I've got some errands to run.

Oh Saburo, I havent had much time to used the D70 lately, been busy with work etc.

SaburoS · « **Reply #137 on:** January 29, 2005, 10:11:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Please dont hijack this thread. The title is Make Iran make the 1st move. you want to talk afghanistan take it to another thread unless you are gonna link it into the Iran thing.

Does this go for me only or the other half dozen individuals as well? In any case I'll withdraw from this thread regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. Going around in circles anyway.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #138 on:** January 29, 2005, 10:15:16 PM »

It's just you SaburoS. You suck.

Raider179 · « **Reply #139 on:** January 29, 2005, 10:18:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SaburoS
Does this go for me only or the other half dozen individuals as well? In any case I'll withdraw from this thread regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. Going around in circles anyway.

I was hoping you would somehow link it into the iran debate....Open one up on the subject you will have bait I mean debate in no time.

SaburoS · « **Reply #140 on:** January 29, 2005, 10:22:13 PM »

Hey, I just wanted to get a whine in....WAAAAAAAHHH!
Now where's Airhead for a walk on the beach!

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #141 on:** January 30, 2005, 04:14:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I only have time for one post, so I'll answer yours.

Yes.

I prefer the slight possibility that the Iranians would attack the US or facilitate such an attack with the help of terrorists, to a continually "poking" by the USA. The Iranian regime and population are currently more neutral to the US than they have been since the fall of the Shaw ... That will end if you attack them; even just a limited attack will in fact increase the likelihood of them using WMD against you in the future ... Because they will eventually manage to get their hands on it, it is just a matter of time.

If and when a nuclear attack on the US (or any other major power) occurs, I sincerely want the attacking/sponsoring nation to be completely and utterly wiped of the face of the earth with every single man women and child. Even with the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki humanity has never really known the true horror of nuclear warfare. Unfortunately it seems we need to learn everything the hard way.

So after all that BS posing about me not understanding your post you basically fess up to it just like I thpout.

You would prefer a nuclear attack on the USA.

The funny thing about my initial response was that I said many here would take it as final proof that you hate America. I never said that I did, in my view I understand why you would p[refere this secenario - being the cold legalistic type that you are - but yiou just had to blow up.

Raider179 · « **Reply #142 on:** January 30, 2005, 04:15:39 PM »

More reports coming in of these "overflights" or intelligence flights...this time from Iranian air force leaders and their media.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050129-iran-targets.htm

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #143 on:** January 30, 2005, 09:49:27 PM »

Maybe you should read your posts GS... That whole tirade about me being too stupid to understand your english and thus unable to understand your post, when in fact you now admit it turned out exactly as I understood it was a pretty good emotinal blow up by you.

And now you deny it all, funny stuff...

SaburoS · « **Reply #144 on:** January 30, 2005, 10:08:54 PM »

Grun,
Looks like GScholz is saying it is better to attack and wipe out the country that sets off a nuke in our country as a defensive response. He even gave a reason he believes why it would be a mistake to attack Iran because they might be a threat.
You really believe he wishes the US to get nuked?
You really think he wishes harm to us?
C'mon, re-read his posts - ALL of them in this thread.
Sheesh.

genozaur · « **Reply #145 on:** January 30, 2005, 10:14:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
More reports coming in of these "overflights" or intelligence flights...this time from Iranian air force leaders and their media.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050129-iran-targets.htm

This is 99% Iranian propaganda !

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #146 on:** January 30, 2005, 10:22:13 PM »

He clearly finds wating for nuked US cities preferable to pre-emptive conventinal strikes to prevent those attacks on the US. This is the pre 911 mindset, and many americans disagree with it.

This whole tirade of his stared because I mentioned that many americans here would read that statement of his and pretty much write him off forever as an America hater extraordinare.

He seemed to take offense to that and the resukts were his neat posts where he based me for being too stupid to understand his sophisticaed posts when, in fact, as we see now I understood his words perfectly and I understand why he wrote them. I just pointed out how poeople might react.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #147 on:** January 30, 2005, 10:23:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
The Iranian regime and population are currently more neutral to the US than they have been since the fall of the Shaw ... That will end if you attack them;

Quote

2004-05-28

TEHRAN --(AP) In a display of anti-U.S. anger not seen in parliament for years, Iran's conservative-dominated legislature chanted "Death to America" and hardliners clashed with reformists yesterday in the first day of the house's new session. The tensions signalled a tough year ahead for President Mohammad Khatami, after fellow reformists lost control of the parliament in contentious February elections. The ballot was boycotted by reformists and largely spurned by voters because the hard-line Guardian Council disqualified thousands of reformist candidates.

I'm glad they're neutral. I'd hate to see what anti-US sentiment would look like.

genozaur · « **Reply #148 on:** January 30, 2005, 11:17:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SaburoS
Go ahead Grun, post them. Use your figures, just be honest about it.

So where was Bin Laden after 9/11? LOL, my plan would sure be a lot less costly than our present Afghanistan one. Remember we went to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. Find him at all costs. Well after how many dead and wounded? Both military and civillians? Remember we were told that there were untold numbers of Al Quaeda training bases and that we were going to go hunt down Bin Laden and his group.
Targeting Bin Laden covertly without a huge military presence in Afghanistan would most likely result in pinpointing him. We gave him a reason to hide with our very uncovert presence.
My way would have been less costly in everyway, less of our boys coming back in coffins.
We don't have Bin Laden in custody, we've got casualties, inflicted civillian casualties, spent big dollars. REAL success with our Afghanistan campaign... OOOOKAY. In the mean time here's betting he and his group aren't even in Afghanistan anymore. Can't find someone who isn't there. We're wasting good men and resources on a poorly planned military ops.

So why are we really in Afghanistan, again?

And why are you really in Iraq, again ?

In both cases it looks like propaganda cover-up of some other, deeper reasons.

Could these moves (occupation of Afganistan and Iraq) be of some global strategic importance for the USA administration?
There are some other global powers in the neighborhood : Russia and India, Pakistan and China (congrats on the recent newborn Chinese babyboy # 1, 300 000, 000) .

NUKE · « **Reply #149 on:** January 30, 2005, 11:25:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SaburoS
Grun,
Looks like GScholz is saying it is better to attack and wipe out the country that sets off a nuke in our country as a defensive response. He even gave a reason he believes why it would be a mistake to attack Iran because they might be a threat.
You really believe he wishes the US to get nuked?
You really think he wishes harm to us?
C'mon, re-read his posts - ALL of them in this thread.
Sheesh.

What he said was that he prefered we waited until we got nuked in order to respond rather than act to prevent a nuclear attack before it happens.

Then he said we should whipe out every man, woman and child in the country responsible. That hardly sounds reasonable now does it?

I'd rather prevent the nuclear attack, and that's what we will probably do. Less loss of lives in both countries compoired to GS's idea of nuclear holocaust.