Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: WhiteHawk on December 24, 2006, 07:08:57 AM
-
Well, it looks as if Iran is just begging the US to invade. As they are stepping up thier efforts to aquire nukes, the US will be left with no alternative but to go into Iran. Its almost a blessing in disquise that we are forced to increase our troop level in Iraq to squelch out those pesky inusrgents as this will serve as the perfect base of operations to finally squash those terrorist loving iranians. Wow, wwIII is comming. Hide your children. :confused:
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
. Wow, wwIII is comming. Hide your children. :confused:
Not from nukes, but from the draft board. Because if the USA invades Iran. It will be a long war. Iraq is heading for it's fifth year and it's hardly a proper war.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Its almost a blessing in disquise that we are forced to increase our troop level...
tell that to the guys on the ground, and the one's who get drafted. Methinks they won't feel so "blessed"
-
whitehawk (http://www.arizonaprogreen.com/mars.mp3)
-
you left out the part where you blame the US for the cheekboness actions in Iran whitehawk...
-
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.
-
Islamofacists are already in charge in Iran and they are blodly proclaiming doom for Israel and the US. What do we have to lose by going and destroying their military and government? We don't need to leave an occupying force or do any rebuilding like we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. When they rebuild and start making noise we just do it again, and again.
-
What do we have to lose by going and destroying their military and government?
Jobs and lives.
Probably a few hundred lives if things go well, in the thousands if they go badly. Millions of jobs either way.
An attack on Iran, and the Iranian retaliation, means the oil price will go well over $100 a barrel, maybe as much as $200. That means $6 a gallon or more when you fill up.
What do you have to gain by destroying the Iranian military and government?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Jobs and lives.
Probably a few hundred lives if things go well, in the thousands if they go badly. Millions of jobs either way.
An attack on Iran, and the Iranian retaliation, means the oil price will go well over $100 a barrel, maybe as much as $200. That means $6 a gallon or more when you fill up.
What do you have to gain by destroying the Iranian military and government?
You assume a ground war. We decimated Iraqs army long before ground troops invaded and lost far fewer than a "few hundred" lives. I think it pure specualtion on the impact on the price of oil.
What do we have to gain? How about eliminating the threat of a nuclear attack on Israel which could very possibly escalate into something very, very ugly.
-
Amazing, the US invading Iran would give OBL multiple orgasms.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Amazing, the US invading Iran would give OBL multiple orgasms.
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.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Actually, since the insurgency in Iraq is primarily funded and supplied by Iran.
lol
-
Originally posted by lukster
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.
Yeah, and the Bush administration that the occupation of Iraq would be a piece of cake. You and everyone else here advocating an attack on Iran are only seeing the best possible (and not necessarily most probable outcome). What was the response of the US public when it was attacked? Now, how can you possibly think an entire nation of Shia are going to rollover? Hell even the Pentagon thinks that bombing Iran is (to put it kindly) short-sighted.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact
-
Originally posted by takeda
lol
welcome to 2 weeks ago.:rolleyes:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yeah, and the Bush administration that the occupation of Iraq would be a piece of cake. You and everyone else here advocating an attack on Iran are only seeing the best possible (and not necessarily most probable outcome). What was the response of the US public when it was attacked? Now, how can you possibly think an entire nation of Shia are going to rollover? Hell even the Pentagon thinks that bombing Iran is (to put it kindly) short-sighted.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact
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.
-
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.
-
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??
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://)
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 (http://)
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
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
He asked you for a Bush quote, not rumsfeld.
I referred to the Bush administration in general.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I referred to the Bush administration in general.
And he was referring to Bush, not his administration.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 :cool:
-
Thrawn, you proved long ago your agenda, and lack of any comments worth serious consideration.
It is the weak girlymen of the western countries that will be responsible for the deadly problems that we will experience in the future. Lacking the backbone to stand up to threats, they will become the Al Gore apologists, or the Bill Clintons giving in to extortion that will start the downward spiral of our nations standing as a world power.
-
Why should we give a rat's hindquarters if Iran nukes Israel? Israel will nuke back, and two pains in the butt will be temporarily anesthetized.
The arguments for preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons are specious at best. We didn't invade North Korea when they lit a nuke, and their leader is a way bigger nut job than Ahmadinejad. Where were the moral outrage and demands for military action when Pakistan and India went nuclear? Not exactly the most politically stable countries, yet we allow their possession of nuclear weapons.
Once again, the matter really comes down to oil. We have a problem with a non-friendly country having nukes near our oil fields. We would certainly retaliate against a country using nukes against us or our allies, but in this part of the world it would mess with our energy supplies. That can't be tolerated. But to call it like it is might make the unwashed masses ask questions that the administration is uncomfortable addressing.
Please go back to your bread and circuses. There is nothing to see here.
-
Originally posted by Auger
Where were the moral outrage and demands for military action when Pakistan and India went nuclear? Not exactly the most politically stable countries, yet we allow their possession of nuclear weapons.
India is not Pakistan is not North Korea is not Iran is not Iraq is not Libya.
not every tool is a hammer, and every problem a nail.
-
If the US did invade Iran, I guess the rest of the world would label this an "illegal" war and everyone would go ape-chit over it.
So far as I recall, the Iraq war has been the only war in history that has been an "illegal" war. :lol
Makes me wonder why we don't ever hear about any other wars in these terms.
-
Iran is a paper tiger at best.
They are not a threat to the US..just Isreal. IPAC and other Jewish proxies have convinced the coolaid drinkers otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Auger
Why should we give a rat's hindquarters if Iran nukes Israel? Israel will nuke back, and two pains in the butt will be temporarily anesthetized.
That's mind-bogglingly stupid--One decent-sized nuke, and every Israeli is dead (except for the ones on their nuke subs who would fire back)... Unless you feel it's ok to let them all die...(Israelis) It WOULD be easier for the US after they are gone--I get that impression from many circles
-
who cares about Isreal.
let them fight it out. If Isreal expands its borders from N Africa to Turkey then good for them.
They can take care of themselves.
-
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.
Well, I seriously doubt the conflict will stay that simple.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you left out the part where you blame the US for the cheekboness actions in Iran whitehawk...
You left out the part where Irans action is considered cheekbones-like? I hope you dont consider them terrorists for trying to gain a political advantage in Iraq? If iranian army were turning mexico into a radical islam state, would the US fund and activily participate in an effort to make that fail? Imagine, nuclear terrorists just across the border? I think it would be do or die, and after the 'axis of evil' speach, you really cant blame Iran for getting nervous.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Not from nukes, but from the draft board. Because if the USA invades Iran. It will be a long war. Iraq is heading for it's fifth year and it's hardly a proper war.
Yea, thats what I meant. Its going to be a never ending war.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
You left out the part where Irans action is considered cheekbones-like? I hope you dont consider them terrorists for trying to gain a political advantage in Iraq? If iranian army were turning mexico into a radical islam state, would the US fund and activily participate in an effort to make that fail? Imagine, nuclear terrorists just across the border? I think it would be do or die, and after the 'axis of evil' speach, you really cant blame Iran for getting nervous.
It's statements like this that make Iran "cheekbones-like".
At a conference in Tehran, Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Israel, "must be wiped off the map." Countries that recognize the Jewish state, he said, will "burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/archive/2005-11/2005-11-04-voa1.cfm
-
Originally posted by Choocha
who cares about Isreal.
let them fight it out. If Isreal expands its borders from N Africa to Turkey then good for them.
They can take care of themselves.
Everybody who wants to kill them