Target..+Iran+

[Thrawn]

Rip, that article confirms that Iraqi insurgents are getting supplied by Iran.  Not that the insurgency gets supplied most of it's resources from Iran.  

Wouldn't surprise if that was case amongst the Iraqi Shia, but certainly not the Sunni.  But that fact remains, Dago's point remains unsupported.

[Stringer]

Just a quick 3-4 week bombing campaign should be sufficient to shut Amadmanjihad's big mouth. If not, a second visit would almost certainly do the trick.

I think it pure specualtion on the impact on the price of oil.

So long as you make irresponsible and untrue claims like this there is little point in discussing this with you.

What makes me scratch my head is that we went in to help the oppressed majority Shia from the Sunni Saddam, and now we are upset that the formely oppressed Shia are getting help from their traditional ally.......something we helped facilitate by taking out the counter-balance that was Saddam??

[lukster]

Some of you seem to either be either completely ignorant of Iran's threat to annihilate Israel or just don't care. Do you not think this act would plunge the entire world into a war the likes of which we have never seen?

[Dago]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Rip, that article confirms that Iraqi insurgents are getting supplied by Iran.  Not that the insurgency gets supplied most of it's resources from Iran.  

Wouldn't surprise if that was case amongst the Iraqi Shia, but certainly not the Sunni.  But that fact remains, Dago's point remains unsupported.

From the King of unsupported claims.  Ironic.

I would love to hear how of you would handle the situation in Iraq and Iran.  Great minds with such astute powers of comprehension and wisdom, who can see only folly in others actions surely must have a grand master plan to bring peace to the middleeast and eliminate worldwide terrorism.

What it is?

Excuse me while I don't hold my breath, I am sure none of you can offer even a wimper of a plan, you just sit and criticize while not offering anything of value.

[Toad]

Dago, the world plan is to beech, cry, carp and whine, apply meaningless UN sanctions that will be bypassed by some of the very nations that approved them and then finally accept the fact that Iran is a nuclear power.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by lukster
Please quote for me one instance where Bush said or otherwise implied the occupation of Iraq would be a piece of cake. So long as you make irresponsible and untrue claims like this there is little point in discussing this with you.

No, problem.  It's understandable that you might forget what was said,  Rumsfeld doesn't even remember his how words.



“In a September 25 interview, a reporter from Sinclair Broadcasting
said to Rumsfeld, "Before the war in Iraq... you said they would
welcome us with open arms."

Rumsfeld responded with a denial:

Never said that.... Never did. You may remember it well, but you're
thinking of somebody else. You can't find anywhere me saying anything
like [that].... I never said anything like that because I never knew
what would happen and I knew I didn't know.”

“But on February 20, Rumsfeld was asked by PBS's Jim Lehrer: "Do you
expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of
the civilian population of Iraq?" And Rumsfeld responded: "There is no
question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan--the
people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and
doing all the things that the Taliban and the Al Qaeda would not let
them do."

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=782202

[Thrawn]

Dago, I've already responded to that very question on this BBS.  Feel free to look it up.  As you have shown on this board and AGW you just aren't worth the candle as it seems obvious to me that you have no wish for an actual honest exchange of information and ideas., hence I recently put you on ignore over there, and now here.

I'm sure you will respond with something ridiculing me or my points, that's fine.  I'll let my record here and my arguments stand on their own merits...if any.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Thrawn
No, problem.  It's understandable that you might forget what was said,  Rumsfeld doesn't even remember his how words.



“In a September 25 interview, a reporter from Sinclair Broadcasting
said to Rumsfeld, "Before the war in Iraq... you said they would
welcome us with open arms."

Rumsfeld responded with a denial:

Never said that.... Never did. You may remember it well, but you're
thinking of somebody else. You can't find anywhere me saying anything
like [that].... I never said anything like that because I never knew
what would happen and I knew I didn't know.”

“But on February 20, Rumsfeld was asked by PBS's Jim Lehrer: "Do you
expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of
the civilian population of Iraq?" And Rumsfeld responded: "There is no
question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan--the
people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and
doing all the things that the Taliban and the Al Qaeda would not let
them do."

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=782202

He asked you for a Bush quote, not rumsfeld.

[Stringer]

Originally posted by Dago
Actually, since the insurgency in Iraq is primarily funded and supplied by Iran, if we smashed Iran, the Iraq conflict might subside rather quickly.  I think a few small tactical nukes delivered onto Iran would be a good start.  Time to play hardball, let the bleeding hearts wimper.

Dago,
No offense, but that's not a plan...it's a reaction....and one that would not end will for the US or the world economy.

As for even contemplating their use...from Colin Powell in April of '06

http://www.itv.com/news/index_1167108.html

Asked if there could be any substance to suggestions that the US would consider a nuclear strike, he said: "No, nuclear weapons have not been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki."I think it most unlikely that anybody would seriously contemplate use of a nuclear weapon in the 21st century and especially for such a purpose".

Do I agree with Powell's stance as it pertains to Iraq, Iran, and Syria on Dec. 16th, 2006...yes..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/17/AR2006121700494.html

Especially as it pertains to the so-called "surge" strategy:

Before any decision to increase troops, he said, "I'd want to have a clear understanding of what it is they're going for, how long they're going for. And let's be clear about something else. . . . There really are no additional troops. All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there, there longer and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops."  He added: "That's how you surge. And that surge cannot be sustained

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
He asked you for a Bush quote, not rumsfeld.

I referred to the Bush administration in general.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Thrawn
I referred to the Bush administration in general.

And he was referring to Bush, not his administration.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Thrawn
I referred to the Bush administration in general.

And indeed many in Iraq did and still do welcome us with open arms. Like in Afghanistan though there are still many that want absolute religious rule over all people. I believe these people will fight using any means for that cause with their last breath and it is this war on "terrorism" that Bush and his administration never claimed would be quick or easy, to the contrary.

[Stringer]

Originally posted by lukster
And indeed many in Iraq did and still do welcome us with open arms. Like in Afghanistan though there are still many that want absolute religious rule over all people. I believe these people will fight using any means for that cause with their last breath and it is this war on "terrorism" that Bush and his administration never claimed would be quick or easy, to the contrary.

If that is the case, Lukster, then why did the admin go into Iraq on the cheap when it came to ensuring a quick and stable transition and think that Iraq, post-invasion, would be quick and easy?  After all Iraq was the first leg on the Axis of Evil....can't get much more terrorist than that, in the Admin's eyes of course.

My point is this.....the words that the war on terror would not be quick and easy are contrary to the actions the Admin employed when actually dealing with a post-invasion Iraq.  As the Rumsfield quote shows.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
And he was referring to Bush, not his administration.

Then he isn't asking for clarification for something I said, but something that he is attributing to me but I didn't say.  He would be making a Hasty Generalisation


IE:

Rip:  A US president once said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.".

Thrawn:  Prove that Bush said that.

Rip:  ...I never attributed that quote to Bush.

Thrawn:  Ha ha!  I teh win the debate!

Rip:  WTF?

[Yeager]

Leave the Iranians alone.  Let them develope their nuclear weapons.  Let Saudi Arabia develope atomic weapons to counter the Iranian threat.  Let Syria then begin to develope their own stockpile.  Whats to stop them.  Then perhaps Libya will have a change of heart.  Maybe Jordan will get into the game.

Let them all have atomic weapons.  Its their right.  If they misbehave or sneak some nuclear waste to the Jihad then destroy them all in a single flash/bang day.

Merry Christmas