Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on September 26, 2007, 06:40:10 PM
-
Declared their national army a terror cell. Jsut like that. Under the Bush doctrine, we can take out any terror cell without warning. Looks like we're going to be hitting targets to set things back there 8-10 years in their nuke program. I support it. I don't want another war, but I'm okay with taking out their nuke facilities and maybe getting a finger in that oil.
Also they talked about Israel bombing a syrian nuke facility on sept 6 of this year. Looks like syria was being sneaky, playing footsie witht he n koreans on WMD materials and technical knowhow.
None of these dem candidates will either agree with - or condemn - israel attacking iran. So maybe they'll do it for us!
-
It is clear that the majority of democrats and republicans are complicit in the design and execution of this potential attack against Iran.
Legally, the US has no right to bomb Iran's domestic nuclear facilities. That being said, weapons-wise, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. As technology becomes more sophisticated, the capability of other countries to develop the bomb will increase.
Arbitrarily bombing countries's allegedly developing the bomb is a ham-handed and clumsy attempt to curb the inevitable. This is why negotiations, treaties and a strong international presence in the world is better. The US doesn't have the resources to adopt the 'bomb first' approach to managing nuclear armament in the world. We just have to make sure that MAD is sustained and good police work is utilized to nail any terrorists.
Will US's approach be as easy as bombing Iran and helping ourselves to the oil? I don't think so.
Does anyone think that Russia, China and North Korea (Iran's allies) will just sit this attack out. What will the world-wide muslim community make of this attack? How will they react?
I can see Al Qaeda's ranks swelling from this invasion.
-
Does anyone think that Russia, China and North Korea (Iran's allies) will just sit this attack out. What will the world-wide muslim community make of this attack? How will they react?
Here is the real question.
Hey we got France backing us ;D
-
Decker...treaties and meetings and bits of paper have never worked..they provide a band aid at best. Bombing the Iraqi nuclear facility by Israel set them back essentially forever. Thats what will happen here. Many Arab countries don't want a nuclear Iran. We aren't invading anyway..we're bombing.
-
did i miss something? when did all this happen?
-
It is clear that the majority of democrats and republicans are complicit in the design and execution of this potential attack against Iran.
Legally, the US has no right to bomb Iran's domestic nuclear facilities. That being said, weapons-wise, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. As technology becomes more sophisticated, the capability of other countries to develop the bomb will increase.
Arbitrarily bombing country's allegedly developing the bomb is a ham-handed and clumsy attempt to curb the inevitable. This is why negotiations, treaties and a strong international presence in the world is better. The US doesn't have the resources to adopt the 'bomb first' approach to managing nuclear armament in the world. We just have to make sure that MAD is sustained and good police work is utilized to nail any terrorists.
Will US's approach be as easy as bombing Iran and helping ourselves to the oil? I don't think so.
Does anyone think that Russia, China and North Korea (Iran's allies) will just sit this attack out. What will the world-wide muslim community make of this attack? How will they react?
I can see Al Qaeda's ranks swelling from this invasion.
hahaha, you think Russia would do anything? They're licking their chops at the possibility to come in after we annihilate Iran and pick up the pieces and extend their influence.
Iran has what's coming to them. They continue to push this nuclear topic when their economy is in the shitter, unemployment's through the roof, and countless other problems on the home front, yet they're sticking their nose into international affairs constantly.
-
Decker...treaties and meetings and bits of paper have never worked..they provide a band aid at best. Bombing the Iraqi nuclear facility by Israel set them back essentially forever. Thats what will happen here. Many Arab countries don't want a nuclear Iran. We aren't invading anyway..we're bombing.
That is a fruitless task. We don't even know where all the nuclear facilities are located--above or below ground.
If I'm not mistaken, we have survived the Soviet nuclear threat for over 60 years with those bits of paper and meetings.
Why?
B/c of MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction.
That is the club and the treaties, conferences and such keep us from using that club.
-
hahaha, you think Russia would do anything? They're licking their chops at the possibility to come in after we annihilate Iran and pick up the pieces and extend their influence.
Iran has what's coming to them. They continue to push this nuclear topic when their economy is in the shitter, unemployment's through the roof, and countless other problems on the home front, yet they're sticking their nose into international affairs constantly.
Russia is already in Iran. Who do you think is providing the oversight for the construction of the their domestic nuclear power plants?
Iran has every right in the world to push for domestic nuclear power development.
It's the neocons that are pushing the weapons charges.
But in fairness, the nuclear secret is no longer a secret. The technology for developing the bomb will only improve. Therefore access to the bomb will only improve. It is a problem that must be dealt with.
Could you tell me some of the international affairs they are constantly sticking their noses into?
-
decker should run for president.. hes got the answer for everything. shit, we dont even need a congress or anyone, just hand over everything to decker. he knows it all
-
Maybe the region needs another nuclear superpower to balance things out.
At any rate, some military action against Iran is inevitable. They live in the wrong neighborhood and support the Palestinians. It is also rumored that they killed Santa Claus. >:(
-
if iran's nuclear facility's are bombed, how many will die?
surely iran would declare war on that
-
I have to agree with Decker. Common sense tells anyone who has common sense ;), that starting another war isn't the answer as more and more countries will get nuclear weapons.
-
if iran's nuclear facility's are bombed, how many will die?
surely iran would declare war on that
It's called "Collateral Damage" starring Arnold
"bomb bomb bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"
-
decker should run for president.. hes got the answer for everything. shit, we dont even need a congress or anyone, just hand over everything to decker. he knows it all
Well from what I've heard from Decker, ...he'd probably do one heckuva much better job than your current president and congress combined!
I find it rather revealing that during the 1970's, the case for a nuclear iran was made and supported by many of the neocons in office today. It was felt that in the coming years, the increased energy needs of Iran made nuclear power an absolute necessity. 30 years later, those needs have only increased, yet the very people who argued for it then, are unable to see the necessity for it now.
one thing is for sure... if bombs start dropping on Iran, ...you can rest assured that any domestic energy program they might have will quickly turn to a nuclear weapons program.
-
I have to agree with Decker. Common sense tells anyone who has common sense ;), that starting another war isn't the answer as more and more countries will get nuclear weapons.
I'm not so sure. If we know a country that has called for the destruction of our country and our allies (e.g., Israel) is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, why shouldn't we take out those facilities? Wouldn't that kind of action protect us?
I have no opinion about Iran and haven't looked at the possibility of air strikes over there, but I can see logic behind a possible strike.
-
I'm not so sure. If we know a country that has called for the destruction of our country and our allies (e.g., Israel) is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, why shouldn't we take out those facilities? Wouldn't that kind of action protect us?
I have no opinion about Iran and haven't looked at the possibility of air strikes over there, but I can see logic behind a possible strike.
::)
That is probably one of the biggest examples of BS, hypocritical doublespeak I have ever heard from your lips!
You have no opinion about Iran? ...and you haven't looked at the possibilities of air strikes over there?
...but you can see logic behind a possible strike?! :o Are you on crack? seriously?
If you have no opinion, and haven't looked into the possibilities... SHUT THE FVCK UP!!! Please & Thank You!
Yours is the bullshit sheeple thinking that has allowed your country to get into the bloody clusterfuck it's now in.
Renounce your citizenship immediately 'cause you're a disgrace to your country!
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=171154.msg2405186#msg2405186 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=171154.msg2405186#msg2405186)
-
::)
That is probably one of the biggest examples of BS, hypocritical doublespeak I have ever heard from your lips!
You have no opinion about Iran? ...and you haven't looked at the possibilities of air strikes over there?
...but you can see logic behind a possible strike?! :o Are you on crack? seriously?
If you have no opinion, and haven't looked into the possibilities... SHUT THE FVCK UP!!! Please & Thank You!
Yours is the bullshit sheeple thinking that has allowed your country to get into the bloody clusterfuck it's now in.
Renounce your citizenship immediately 'cause you're a disgrace to your country!
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=171154.msg2405186#msg2405186 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=171154.msg2405186#msg2405186)
Off our medication today are we? I have a better idea. How about I express my opinion any way I darn well please and if you have a problem with how I do so, you can hop on a plane, fly to Honolulu, and plant your lips on my big ole rear end. Does that work for you?
-
Off our medication today are we? I have a better idea. How about I express my opinion any way I darn well please and if you have a problem with how I do so, you can hop on a plane, fly to Honolulu, and plant your lips on my big ole rear end. Does that work for you?
{lol} I'll be heading to Hawaii sooner than you think, ...and when I arrive, the only thing of mine going near your big fat ass will be my shoe. It may infact be inserted so far up your anatomy, ...you may need to eat a pound of Ex-Lax, ...just for me to get it back!
-
{lol} I'll be heading to Hawaii sooner than you think, ...and when I arrive, the only thing of mine going near your big fat ass will be my shoe. It may infact be inserted so far up your anatomy, ...you may need to eat a pound of Ex-Lax, ...just for me to get it back!
That's great tutu. I highly recommend you stay on Kahoolawe when you come.
-
I'm not so sure. If we know a country that has called for the destruction of our country and our allies (e.g., Israel) is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, why shouldn't we take out those facilities? Wouldn't that kind of action protect us?
I have no opinion about Iran and haven't looked at the possibility of air strikes over there, but I can see logic behind a possible strike.
Do you remember that the policy of the Russians a few years ago was the destruction of capitalist America? How did Reagan handle that?
He called them evil, built up the military and engaged our opponents at the discussion table.
According to most republican supporters, Reagan ended the cold war.
Did he have to bomb the Russians into oblivion to achieve victory? No.
Here we have a historical proof that military might and diplomatic efforts achieve the desired result.
Why bomb when we don't have to?
-
maybe the air force needs the practice...
-
That is a fruitless task. We don't even know where all the nuclear facilities are located--above or below ground.
If I'm not mistaken, we have survived the Soviet nuclear threat for over 60 years with those bits of paper and meetings.
Why?
B/c of MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction.
That is the club and the treaties, conferences and such keep us from using that club.
Heh...these guys had something to loose. They ran things based on a political ideology. Things have changed. These religious nutbags can't be trusted. While Iran does have something to loose, atleast by our standards, I not sure some of the folks running that country care. I bet the Generals care, I'm sure some of the moderate Mullahs, enjoying the fruits of oil industry care, but the ultra conservatives, I'd think they'd rather we all glow.
-
Do you remember that the policy of the Russians a few years ago was the destruction of capitalist America? How did Reagan handle that?
He called them evil, built up the military and engaged our opponents at the discussion table.
According to most republican supporters, Reagan ended the cold war.
Did he have to bomb the Russians into oblivion to achieve victory? No.
Here we have a historical proof that military might and diplomatic efforts achieve the desired result.
Why bomb when we don't have to?
Agreed; Diplomacy first...
-
Heh...these guys had something to loose. They ran things based on a political ideology. Things have changed. These religious nutbags can't be trusted. While Iran does have something to loose, atleast by our standards, I not sure some of the folks running that country care. I bet the Generals care, I'm sure some of the moderate Mullahs, enjoying the fruits of oil industry care, but the ultra conservatives, I'd think they'd rather we all glow.
Yeah, I think their religious stuff is awful. But when it comes to survival, the Iranian leaders are no different than the Russians, Pakistan/India or Iraq under Hussein: Nobody wants to be obliterated by a nuclear attack. These governmental leaders are rational to grasp that concept.
I mean if India and Pakistan can live together w/ nuclear weapons, there must be some validity to the idea that self-preservation trumps religious/political craziness. We have to remember to keep our opponent's rhetoric to its own arena.
-
I'm not saying we have to bomb..but a case for Iran being easily worse then Saddam can be made. This guy has says he has nukes. I think at this point it doesn't matter what we think or post. We're going to do something, before Israel does it herself. They hit syria..bombed something and used SOF units to take capture something. These guys aren't playing. Last summer woke them up.
-
Yeah, I think their religious stuff is awful. But when it comes to survival, the Iranian leaders are no different than the Russians, Pakistan/India or Iraq under Hussein: Nobody wants to be obliterated by a nuclear attack. These governmental leaders are rational to grasp that concept.
I mean if India and Pakistan can live together w/ nuclear weapons, there must be some validity to the idea that self-preservation trumps religious/political craziness. We have to remember to keep our opponent's rhetoric to its own arena.
Iran..as a country wants to survive...but they aren't above allowing somebody nuclear materials..planning and support to conduct attacks on their neighbors or the US. Thats why they're dangerous..thats why Bin Laden is dangerous. We've entered a new type of war..or actually revisting the default state or war for thousands of years. Religious war.
Iran is a major supporter of terrorism...armed with nuclear weapons..or materials..they become that much more a problem...they need to go. The "how" is up for debate. I'm not thrilled with bombing because its going to cause alot of problems for us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Iran....I wonder how long it will be till my little island gets declared some terrorist cell and we get bombed to oblivion.
If I ever stop posting permanently - you all know why >:(
-
Iran..as a country wants to survive...but they aren't above allowing somebody nuclear materials..planning and support to conduct attacks on their neighbors or the US. Thats why they're dangerous..thats why Bin Laden is dangerous. We've entered a new type of war..or actually revisting the default state or war for thousands of years. Religious war.
Iran is a major supporter of terrorism...armed with nuclear weapons..or materials..they become that much more a problem...they need to go. The "how" is up for debate. I'm not thrilled with bombing because its going to cause alot of problems for us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't buy that. I want to see the proof that Iran's support of terrorism is any different than any other country in the middle east.
I also think that it is incredibly arrogant for the US to lope into a foreign country, start kicking ass and taking over sovereignties, and then criticize neighboring countries displaying any inclination at self-preservation from similar illegal attacks.
I disagree with your contention that Iran has any inclination to attack the US. That runs counter to my theory that they value their own survival.
I think even in this situation, MAD is still functional.
Bombing Iran will further destabalize the middle east. Muslims worldwide will hate the US. Al Qaeda's ranks will swell. And a growing hatred of america worldwide will put us in a jeopardy we have not yet considered. Our enemies will take more and more desperate measures b/c they have nothing to lose. There's no carrot at the end of the Bush foreign policy stick.
You know what comes of desperation? Suicide attackers. They have nothing to live for other than revenge.
-
I'm sure ur fine..besides we'd never bomb a warm...lush tropical paradise, where once we invaded, we could enjoy ourselves. I'm sure its very nice there, the women are pretty and accessible...no bizarre religious practices, plenty of booze right? Until u become a desert, full of bugs and practice a shitbag religion where hot chicks and beer is outlawed..u have nothing to worry about. We only invade shitholes
-
I don't buy that. I want to see the proof that Iran's support of terrorism is any different than any other country in the middle east.
I also think that it is incredibly arrogant for the US to lope into a foreign country, start kicking ass and taking over sovereignties, and then criticize neighboring countries displaying any inclination at self-preservation from similar illegal attacks.
I disagree with your contention that Iran has any inclination to attack the US. That runs counter to my theory that they value their own survival.
I think even in this situation, MAD is still functional.
Bombing Iran will further destabalize the middle east. Muslims worldwide will hate the US. Al Qaeda's ranks will swell. And a growing hatred of america worldwide will put us in a jeopardy we have not yet considered. Our enemies will take more and more desperate measures b/c they have nothing to lose. There's no carrot at the end of the Bush foreign policy stick.
You know what comes of desperation? Suicide attackers. They have nothing to live for other than revenge.
These people have been conducting suicide attacks long before we invaded Iraq....many of these people have always hated the West. Why after 8 years of Clinton BS and appeasement....did we get 911. Iran wants to survive..but if it can support terrorism as it has since 1979...without become directly involved it will. But now its nukes instead of hijacked planes. As far as other countries..true. But some aren't State sponsers...folks come from Jordan, UAE, etc etc but aren't trained and funded by the government. Iran and Syria give direct and indirect support to these groups. Saudi Arabia? Depending on who u talk to...they play both sides.
-
These people have been conducting suicide attacks long before we invaded Iraq....many of these people have always hated the West. Why after 8 years of Clinton BS and appeasement....did we get 911. Iran wants to survive..but if it can support terrorism as it has since 1979...without become directly involved it will. But now its nukes instead of hijacked planes. As far as other countries..true. But some aren't State sponsers...folks come from Jordan, UAE, etc etc but aren't trained and funded by the government. Iran and Syria give direct and indirect support to these groups. Saudi Arabia? Depending on who u talk to...they play both sides.
Yes, the palestinians, when cornered, with little alternative, by Israel, resorted to suicide bombings.
The US helped prop up the ruthless dictator Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi--the Shah of Iran. So they have a reason to hate us right there: we fucked with them first making them suffer decades of torment at the hands of a cruel leader.
How would you like it if Canada overthrew Ronald Reagan and installed Jimmy Carter as lifelong president?
Terrorism is a problem that you cannot bomb away. It is really that simple.
Battling terrorism is complex but possible.
Bombing Iran will solve no problems that the US claims to exist but it will increase our problems tenfold.
-
if cananda overthrew bush and installed wayne gretzky as president forever i'd be ok with it...no, really, i would...
-
For the next 25 years, the Shah of Iran stood fast as the United States' closest ally in the Third World, to a degree that would have shocked the independent and neutral Mossadegh. The Shah literally placed his country at the disposal of US military and intelligence organizations to be used as a cold-war weapon, a window and a door to the Soviet Union-electronic listening and radar posts were set up near the Soviet border; American aircraft used Iran as a base to launch surveillance flights over the Soviet Union; espionage agents were infiltrated across the border; various American military installations dotted the Iranian landscape. Iran was viewed as a vital link in the chain being forged by the United States to "contain" the Soviet Union. In a telegram to the British Acting Foreign Secretary in September, Dulles said: "I think if we can in coordination move quickly and effectively in Iran we would close the most dangerous gap in the line from Europe to South Asia.'' In February 1955, Iran became a member of the Baghdad Pact, set up by the United States, in Dulles's words, "to create a solid band of resistance against the Soviet Union....
Its not about fair its about whats in our strategic best interest. Had we had better or more farsighted individuals in government, not worried about the Soviets or Vietnam, we could have easily pushed for reforms withing Iran and avoided the Islamic Revolution and Jimmy Carters subsequent policy blunders. But we didn't and while u can blame the US, the point is we need to deal with Iran now and figure out how to neutralize it.
-
For the next 25 years, the Shah of Iran stood fast as the United States' closest ally in the Third World, to a degree that would have shocked the independent and neutral Mossadegh. The Shah literally placed his country at the disposal of US military and intelligence organizations to be used as a cold-war weapon, a window and a door to the Soviet Union-electronic listening and radar posts were set up near the Soviet border; American aircraft used Iran as a base to launch surveillance flights over the Soviet Union; espionage agents were infiltrated across the border; various American military installations dotted the Iranian landscape. Iran was viewed as a vital link in the chain being forged by the United States to "contain" the Soviet Union. In a telegram to the British Acting Foreign Secretary in September, Dulles said: "I think if we can in coordination move quickly and effectively in Iran we would close the most dangerous gap in the line from Europe to South Asia.'' In February 1955, Iran became a member of the Baghdad Pact, set up by the United States, in Dulles's words, "to create a solid band of resistance against the Soviet Union....
Its not about fair its about whats in our strategic best interest. Had we had better or more farsighted individuals in government, not worried about the Soviets or Vietnam, we could have easily pushed for reforms withing Iran and avoided the Islamic Revolution and Jimmy Carters subsequent policy blunders. But we didn't and while u can blame the US, the point is we need to deal with Iran now and figure out how to neutralize it.
I'm not blaming the US. You questioned how the Iranians could hate the West and I pointed out one fact that we helped undermine and overthrow their country's own government.
It's good to see the discredited "Domino Theory" was governing our foreign policy planning back in the day.
-
Actually the Brits put us up to it because they wanted their nationalized oil company back....It benefited us nicely for awhile. U can point fingers all over the place...but since I'm an American I'll point em at Europe. Iran/Iraq/Vietnam...all messes left over from Colonial Europe. If we over threw the Iranina government once we can do it again.
-
Do you remember that the policy of the Russians a few years ago was the destruction of capitalist America? How did Reagan handle that?
He called them evil, built up the military and engaged our opponents at the discussion table.
According to most republican supporters, Reagan ended the cold war.
Did he have to bomb the Russians into oblivion to achieve victory? No.
Here we have a historical proof that military might and diplomatic efforts achieve the desired result.
Why bomb when we don't have to?
Russia and the cold war isn't a model. We essentially bankrupted the former Soviet Union in the arms race. We cannot use that tactic with Iran.
I'm not saying we have to bomb.
-
No...but I think we can do something to destabilize the government. Is the disinchantment with the current regime big enough for an overthrough? What happens in Iran after we bomb? I can tell u what happens outside of Iran.
-
Actually the Brits put us up to it because they wanted their nationalized oil company back....It benefited us nicely for awhile. U can point fingers all over the place...but since I'm an American I'll point em at Europe. Iran/Iraq/Vietnam...all messes left over from Colonial Europe. If we over threw the Iranina government once we can do it again.
I know it was a joint effort w/ the Brits. I was just commenting on Dulles's quote.
-
Russia and the cold war isn't a model. We essentially bankrupted the former Soviet Union in the arms race. We cannot use that tactic with Iran.
I'm not saying we have to bomb.
I am pointing out that in the face of rhetorical flourishes on both sides "death to the evil enemy", negotiation and the threat of nuclear annihilation carried the day.
That is apt for Iran too.
-
Let's face it too, we are a nation of limited resources. Now we are to embark on a third war?
Where's the cash/troops etc going to come from...the Chinese (Iranian ally) who already own much of our national debt?
-
That is a fruitless task. We don't even know where all the nuclear facilities are located--above or below ground.
If I'm not mistaken, we have survived the Soviet nuclear threat for over 60 years with those bits of paper and meetings.
Why?
B/c of MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction.
That is the club and the treaties, conferences and such keep us from using that club.
Ummm actually we controlled the Russia threat by circling B-52s over their head for 20+ years around the clock. it had nothing to do with paper. While they would have had to launch rockets at us during the cold war, we had Buffs in the air that would have dropped bombs so fast they never would have see their rocket hit ground.
-
Ummm actually we controlled the Russia threat by circling B-52s over their head for 20+ years around the clock. it had nothing to do with paper. While they would have had to launch rockets at us during the cold war, we had Buffs in the air that would have dropped bombs so fast they never would have see their rocket hit ground.
Glad to see you read the part of my post re MAD.
-
Glad to see you read the part of my post re MAD.
believe me, MAD is ground into our heads in the Air Force...that, and not treaties...keeps countries from Russia from trying to do shit. if we took that option off the table then guess what...so from time to time it requires us to show our strength for people (Iran) who have forgotten
-
believe me, MAD is ground into our heads in the Air Force...that, and not treaties...keeps countries from Russia from trying to do shit. if we took that option off the table then guess what...so from time to time it requires us to show our strength for people (Iran) who have forgotten
Reagan's diplomacy with the Russians, along with MAD, helped with the Soviet Union's downfall. The treaties reference is part of the diplomacy vehicle that we were talking about.
Show our strength to Iran? That's ridiculous. Why not just "announce our presence with authority!" They know full well that the US can obliterate the country.
That's not forgotten. And after the shortsighted Bush/neocon use of brute force (with contempt for any intelligent solution), the US's troubles will only be beginning. We'll call that an opinion.
-
Bombing Iran, might even be a worse decision than invading Iraq.
-
I am pointing out that in the face of rhetorical flourishes on both sides "death to the evil enemy", negotiation and the threat of nuclear annihilation carried the day.
That is apt for Iran too.
I'm all for negotiation and threats, but what if those don't work?
-
I'm all for negotiation and threats, but what if those don't work?
Sanctions.
We starve them like we did Iraq. We destroyed Iraq's economy from 93 to 2003 thru economic sanctions. Iran's economy is in the dumps already despite all that oil. Squeeze them. Their population will suffer and they'll elect moderates. It can happen in Iran. Saddam was a dictator so it couldn't happen there.
-
I'm all for negotiation and threats, but what if those don't work?
Let's find out first.
-
I'm all for negotiation and threats, but what if those don't work?
It depends on what you mean by "if those don't work?"
"Don't work" is in reference to what? An attack on the US?
-
It depends on what you mean by "if those don't work?"
"Don't work" is in reference to what? An attack on the US?
We know a few things: (1) Iran has been supplying insurgents who are attacking and killing Americans, (2) they have called for the destruction of Israel (one of our allies) and the U.S. for decades, and (3) they are attempting to obtain WMDs. So, they have effectively already attacked the U.S. and they are a threat to the U.S.
I think whatever action we take (diplomacy, military, etc.) would have to include Iran discontinuing whatever support they are providing to insurgents and dismantling their nuclear program.
-
We know a few things: (1) Iran has been supplying insurgents who are attacking and killing Americans, (2) they have called for the destruction of Israel (one of our allies) and the U.S. for decades, and (3) they are attempting to obtain WMDs. So, they have effectively already attacked the U.S. and they are a threat to the U.S.
I think whatever action we take (diplomacy, military, etc.) would have to include Iran discontinuing whatever support they are providing to insurgents and dismantling their nuclear program.
(1) No we don't know for certain that Iran has been supplying insurgents with weapons;
(2) If by "they" you mean the government of Iran--show me where its policy is the destruction of the US and/or Israel? That doesn't matter though, does it? You actually expect the US to go to war over trumped up rhetoric?
(3) Again, where's your proof Iran wanted WMDs? I thought it was cooperating with the IAEA.
The Iranian people have every right in the world to pursue the development of nuclear power for domestic purposes. Does that mean they will try to surreptitiously create an atomic bomb? I don't know.
-
Declared their national army a terror cell. Jsut like that. Under the Bush doctrine, we can take out any terror cell without warning. Looks like we're going to be hitting targets to set things back there 8-10 years in their nuke program. I support it. I don't want another war, but I'm okay with taking out their nuke facilities and maybe getting a finger in that oil.
Also they talked about Israel bombing a syrian nuke facility on sept 6 of this year. Looks like syria was being sneaky, playing footsie witht he n koreans on WMD materials and technical knowhow.
None of these dem candidates will either agree with - or condemn - israel attacking iran. So maybe they'll do it for us!
Not doubting you 240...but you got a link, i just wanted to read the whole thing..thanks
-
(1) No we don't know for certain the Iran has been supplying insurgents with weapons;
(2) If by "they" you mean the government of Iran--show me where its policy is the destruction of the US and/or Israel? That doesn't matter though, does it? You actually expect the US to go to war over trumped up rhetoric?
(3) Again, where's your proof Iran wanted WMDs? I thought it was cooperating with the IAEA.
The Iranian people have every right in the world to pursue the development of nuclear power for domestic purposes. Does that mean they will try to surreptitiously create an atomic bomb? I don't know.
1. Not according to the people on the ground:
The U.S. military unveiled the first round of evidence of Iran's complicity in supplying Iraqi insurgents with sophisticated explosive devices and weaponry. An unnamed military explosive expert and a defense intelligence official, along with Coalition Spokesman Major General Bill Caldwell presented the evidence to the Baghdad press corps this morning.
"Iran is involved in supplying explosively formed projectiles or EFPs and other material," such as "explosive charges, booby traps, mortar shells of different calibers and remote controls" to detonate IEDs to "multiple" insurgent groups." Those in attendance "were shown fragments of what the defense official said were Iranian-made weapons, including one part of an EFP and tail fins from 81-mm and 60-mm mortars." "More than 120 US and coalition troops have been killed by these things, and 620 wounded. There was a significant increase in there use over the past six months," said the defense official.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/02/evidence_of_iran_sup.php
2. Iran has called for the destruction of Israel and the U.S. for decades. This isn't news. No I'm not advocating war over rhetoric, but this is certainly part of the analysis.
3. "Iran's chief nuclear envoy Ali Larijani said on Friday that Iran is committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology but warned the situation could change if his country is threatened. 'We oppose obtaining nuclear weapons and we will peacefully use nuclear technology under the framework of the Nonproliferation Treaty, but if we are threatened, the situation may change,' He told a news conference after two days of talks in Beijing." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3348748,00.html
-
1. Not according to the people on the ground:
The U.S. military unveiled the first round of evidence of Iran's complicity in supplying Iraqi insurgents with sophisticated explosive devices and weaponry. An unnamed military explosive expert and a defense intelligence official, along with Coalition Spokesman Major General Bill Caldwell presented the evidence to the Baghdad press corps this morning.
"Iran is involved in supplying explosively formed projectiles or EFPs and other material," such as "explosive charges, booby traps, mortar shells of different calibers and remote controls" to detonate IEDs to "multiple" insurgent groups." Those in attendance "were shown fragments of what the defense official said were Iranian-made weapons, including one part of an EFP and tail fins from 81-mm and 60-mm mortars." "More than 120 US and coalition troops have been killed by these things, and 620 wounded. There was a significant increase in there use over the past six months," said the defense official.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/02/evidence_of_iran_sup.php
2. Iran has called for the destruction of Israel and the U.S. for decades. This isn't news. No I'm not advocating war over rhetoric, but this is certainly part of the analysis.
3. "Iran's chief nuclear envoy Ali Larijani said on Friday that Iran is committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology but warned the situation could change if his country is threatened. 'We oppose obtaining nuclear weapons and we will peacefully use nuclear technology under the framework of the Nonproliferation Treaty, but if we are threatened, the situation may change,' He told a news conference after two days of talks in Beijing." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3348748,00.html
Ah yes, the Caldwell evidence has already been debunked: an EFP factory was found in Iraq in April by troops during “Operation Black Eagle,” according to Army Spokesman Lt. Col Scott Bleichwehl. Also, EFPs were created by the Brits, not the Iranians.
As for the WMD charge, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons. "The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, says it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use." http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran/index.html
So what do we really have here?:
1. Allegations of Iran's WMDs refuted by inspectors on the ground
2. Allegations that Iran is aiding and abetting our enemy with no supporting evidence
Beach Bum have you seen these two lines of "proof" before?
-
The U.S. experts say that metal disks used in the bombs are precision-engineered and bear Iranian serial numbers. And, U.S. officials say, the EFPs are known to have been used only by Shiites — the majority religion in Iran.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7371750
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/iran-in-iraq/?resultpage=1%26
The last one is the Official DOD slideshow brief to media about Iranian involment in Iraq.
-
Iran acting to expand its military, economic involvement in Iraq
By Haaretz Service
The Iranian ambassador to Baghdad has revealed a plan to expand significantly Tehran's economic and military ties with Iraq, the New York Times reported on Sunday.
In an interview with the Times, Hassan Kazemi Qumi outlined a plan that could potentially heighten Iran's conflict with the United States over Iraq. Washington has recently warned Tehran not to meddle in the affairs of its neighbor, detaining a number of Iranian operatives in recent weeks and claiming it has proof of Iranian complicity in attacks on American and Iraqi forces.
Advertisement
The Iranian ambassador said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called "the security fight," the Times said.
In the economic area, Qumi told the paper that Iran was prepared to take on expanded responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq.
"We have experience of reconstruction after war," Qumi said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. "We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis."
Qumi also acknowledged, for the first time, that two Iranians seized and later released by U.S. forces last month were security officials, as the Americans had claimed. But he said that they were engaged in legitimate discussions with the Iraqi government and should not have been detained.
The ambassador said that the Iranian operatives were in Iraq because "the two countries agreed to solve the security problems." The Iranians "went to meet with the Iraqi side," he said.
Qumi said also that Iran would soon open a national bank in Iraq, in effect creating a new Iranian financial institution right under the Americans' noses. A senior Iraqi banking official, Hussein al-Uzri, confirmed that Iran had received a license to open the new bank, which Uzri said would apparently be the first "wholly owned subsidiary bank" of a foreign country in Iraq.
"This will enhance trade between the two countries," Uzri said.
-
If it walks like a.....forget it.
-
If there's independent proof they are killing our men, let's bomb them.
If we can get their oil, let's bomb them.
But -
If it's just about spending money and religious hard-ons for each other, no sense getting americans killed for it, ya know?
I'm all for letting Israel bomb the shit out of Iran. Go for it! We're already in two wars. Let Israel cook Iran. No problem with that. But why should more Americans die in a 3rd war?
-
Think about what would happen if we let Israel bomb them.....then get back to me. While I don't share the 911 stuff with u...I believe that Israel has told us that "we're going if u don't so u better do it soon"....
-
Maybe the region needs another nuclear superpower to balance things out.
At any rate, some military action against Iran is inevitable. They live in the wrong neighborhood and support the Palestinians. It is also rumored that they killed Santa Claus. >:(
I think you spoke too soon doc. If you do a search, I think you will find that Santa Claus is alive and well right here on our very own getbig! ;D
-
If it walks like a.....forget it.
lol. :D
You're absolutely right about Israel. We had to beg to keep them out of Desert Storm. There will be a full-scale regional war if Israel bombs Iran.
-
funny how few people even try to look at everything from iran's perspective.
no one semed to mind when israel went nuclear ::)
im not an iran fanboy but why would anyone expect them to do anything different? we are putting them in a very compromised position then point our fingers and say how evil they are when they show any reaction at all ::)
-
Well if it were me..I'd sell oil and shut the hell up..but I see ur point. ;D
-
funny how few people even try to look at everything from iran's perspective.
no one semed to mind when israel went nuclear ::)
im not an iran fanboy but why would anyone expect them to do anything different? we are putting them in a very compromised position then point our fingers and say how evil they are when they show any reaction at all ::)
Maybe it's all those "death to America" rants? Calling America the "Great Satan"? Teaching their kids to burn American flags. They hate us. Certainly colors my opinion.
-
It could be...yeah I think that does it for me.
-
Maybe it's all those "death to America" rants? Calling America the "Great Satan"? Teaching their kids to burn American flags. They hate us. Certainly colors my opinion.
oh brother what a predictable response, maybe they feel that way because we have been fiercely supporting israel, and condemning them, for the last 50 years.
99% of the reason they hate us is our own doing- its not just random, its not like they just decided one day out of the blue just to hate america, just to be mean, i mean jesus does this even need to be explained? ::)
haha theres a reason why they are not chanting things like 'death to portugal!' or 'death to slovakia'
-
We support Israel because they were a bulwark against the expansion of Soviet backed regimes in trhe Middle East. We could not have the Sov's controlling our oil..much like we can't have religious nutbags controling our oil. We backed the Shah for the same reason..strategic best interest.
-
oh brother what a predictable response, maybe they feel that way because we have been fiercely supporting israel, and condemning them, for the last 50 years.
99% of the reason they hate us is our own doing- its not just random, its not like they just decided one day out of the blue just to hate america, just to be mean, i mean jesus does this even need to be explained? ::)
haha theres a reason why they are not chanting things like 'death to portugal!' or 'death to slovakia'
Maybe we've been condemning them for the last 50 years because they've been calling for our heads for the last 50 years.
They hate us because we exist and because we support Israel.
They don't chant "death to Portugal," because nobody cares about Portugal. Does that country even exist anymore? :)
-
if cananda overthrew bush and installed wayne gretzky as president forever i'd be ok with it...no, really, i would...
I have a feeling that if Canada overthrew bush and installed the Trailer Park Boys from Newfoundland, or the guy from Corner Gas, the entire world would be ok with it.
-
Sanctions.
We starve them like we did Iraq. We destroyed Iraq's economy from 93 to 2003 thru economic sanctions. Iran's economy is in the dumps already despite all that oil. Squeeze them. Their population will suffer and they'll elect moderates. It can happen in Iran. Saddam was a dictator so it couldn't happen there.
Eons ago, an old Roman emperor tried that before on the Persians, ...and it had disastrous results on the empire.
The old adage that those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it holds very true.
It appears to me that the Persians haven't forgotten, but the new Caesar has ...if he ever knew it in the first place
-
Maybe we've been condemning them for the last 50 years because they've been calling for our heads for the last 50 years.
They hate us because we exist and because we support Israel.
They don't chant "death to Portugal," because nobody cares about Portugal. Does that country even exist anymore? :)
yep just like i said
-
yes, we back israel, as they are a strategic partner. you can argue agains tthe validity of israel's right to be there, but it's like they are there. If Rus decided to surprise nuke us, Israel would nuke Russia. Part of MAD.
They hate us becase we interfere with what happens in their part of the world.
BB, your assertion that they hate us because we exist, and they don't hate other countries because they don't care... well, it's something I'd expect from an elementary school student trying to explain it. THey hate us because we back Israel. Fuck em, I could care less. They hate us because we buy more of thei oil than anyone else, and keep prices low thru smart relationships - fuck em on that one too. They hate us for our religion. Yes, fuck em again. I don't care if they hate us. I don't want to bomb another country because they don't like us. In case you haven't noticed, the majority of americans hate THEM too. So be it. You always fear the unknown, and they are a scary unknown.
Now if they go from hating us to ATTACKING us - well then I say we cook em, plain and simple.
I could care less about what they like/dislike about us. But have some honesty, BB. THey don't hate us for no reason, it's not random. They hate us because we exploit their resources and back a country which took land from their ally.
-
We support Israel because they were a bulwark against the expansion of Soviet backed regimes in trhe Middle East. We could not have the Sov's controlling our oil..much like we can't have religious nutbags controling our oil. We backed the Shah for the same reason..strategic best interest.
Correct. It's nice to see a brain here. THey don't hate us "because we exist". THat's beyond idiotic. Walruses exist on the opposite side of the world. I think I'll randomly hate them, eh BB? ;) They hate us because we manage their lifeblood, oil. Tough luck for them.
-
yes, we back israel, as they are a strategic partner. you can argue agains tthe validity of israel's right to be there, but it's like they are there. If Rus decided to surprise nuke us, Israel would nuke Russia. Part of MAD.
They hate us becase we interfere with what happens in their part of the world.
BB, your assertion that they hate us because we exist, and they don't hate other countries because they don't care... well, it's something I'd expect from an elementary school student trying to explain it. THey hate us because we back Israel. Fuck em, I could care less. They hate us because we buy more of thei oil than anyone else, and keep prices low thru smart relationships - fuck em on that one too. They hate us for our religion. Yes, fuck em again. I don't care if they hate us. I don't want to bomb another country because they don't like us. In case you haven't noticed, the majority of americans hate THEM too. So be it. You always fear the unknown, and they are a scary unknown.
Now if they go from hating us to ATTACKING us - well then I say we cook em, plain and simple.
I could care less about what they like/dislike about us. But have some honesty, BB. THey don't hate us for no reason, it's not random. They hate us because we exploit their resources and back a country which took land from their ally.
lol. You should sit this one out. It's a little over your head. Go work on your cooking recipes. http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Basics-Dummies/dp/0764572067/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2747542-9259361?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191114537&sr=8-1
Or maybe you should continue to focus on the faked moon landing conspiracy.
-
lol. You should sit this one out. It's a little over your head. Go work on your cooking recipes. http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Basics-Dummies/dp/0764572067/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2747542-9259361?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191114537&sr=8-1
Or maybe you should continue to focus on the faked moon landing conspiracy.
An insult followed by a red herring.
I think even those who disagree with me here will agree that I listed valid reason for their disdain, and instead of refuting them, you delivered an insult and a red herring argument.
It's a shame that the far right members here have to settle for you as a moderator. With Delusional Liberal, at least they had a guy who could deliver cohesive arguments and back things up. You, on the other hand, quickly end debates when you don't have a response by starting insults.
-
lol. You should sit this one out. It's a little over your head. Go work on your cooking recipes. http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Basics-Dummies/dp/0764572067/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2747542-9259361?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191114537&sr=8-1
Or maybe you should continue to focus on the faked moon landing conspiracy.
You know it's easier to believe than it is to think....think about this for a minute.
-
You know it's easier to believe than it is to think....think about this for a minute.
It is easy to believe what I see.
-
To pick on my comments about Iran hating us because we exist, that comment is based in part on a conversation I had with someone who has spent a lot of time in the Middle East. He explained to me that much of Islam believes the West is evil. They believe our lifestyle is immoral. They hate our way of life. The really hate our support of Israel. There is really nothing we can do to change this. They have been breeding their children to hate the U.S., including in places like Iran. So, they do in fact hate us because we exist--based on the way we live our lives and who we support.
No they don't care about places like Portugal. They wouldn't care about us either if the U.S. was the size of Delaware. There are undoubtedly other places in the world with systems and lifestyles just like ours, but they are not a target, because they have no influence and probably don't support Israel.
-
To pick on my comments about Iran hating us because we exist, that comment is based in part on a conversation I had with someone who has spent a lot of time in the Middle East. He explained to me that much of Islam believes the West is evil. They believe our lifestyle is immoral. They hate our way of life. The really hate our support of Israel. There is really nothing we can do to change this. They have been breeding their children to hate the U.S., including in places like Iran. So, they do in fact hate us because we exist--based on the way we live our lives and who we support.
No they don't care about places like Portugal. They wouldn't care about us either if the U.S. was the size of Delaware. There are undoubtedly other places in the world with systems and lifestyles just like ours, but they are not a target, because they have no influence and probably don't support Israel.
IMO, sustained hate can only occur when the target of that hatred is present. There is no way that hatred for an anonymous set of strangers lasts 60 years. It's only because of our presence there, that they are able to actually conceptualize who they hate.
Why didn't we suffer terror attacks at home in the 50? 60s? 70s? 80s? Thye might have textbook disliked us, but it's only when they are able to SEE sanctions killing their own kind. When they are able to SEE US troops in their streets. When they are able to look at the US flag flying over their oil pipeline.
I'm all for bombing iran and taking their oil, don't mistake me for a lib or whatever.
I just think that in order for an entire generation of a billion people to hate us - many of them willing to blow themselves up over it - well - you cannot blame islam, because islamic extremism at this level is new. Why didn't they kill westerners for so many centuries? Why the fevered pitch now?
bb- Do you honestly believe that 1) our managing so much oil there 2) our invasion of iraa 3) our threatening iran, has NOTHING to do with why they hate us?
-
IMO, sustained hate can only occur when the target of that hatred is present. There is no way that hatred for an anonymous set of strangers lasts 60 years. It's only because of our presence there, that they are able to actually conceptualize who they hate.
Why didn't we suffer terror attacks at home in the 50? 60s? 70s? 80s? Thye might have textbook disliked us, but it's only when they are able to SEE sanctions killing their own kind. When they are able to SEE US troops in their streets. When they are able to look at the US flag flying over their oil pipeline.
I'm all for bombing iran and taking their oil, don't mistake me for a lib or whatever.
I just think that in order for an entire generation of a billion people to hate us - many of them willing to blow themselves up over it - well - you cannot blame islam, because islamic extremism at this level is new. Why didn't they kill westerners for so many centuries? Why the fevered pitch now?
bb- Do you honestly believe that 1) our managing so much oil there 2) our invasion of iraa 3) our threatening iran, has NOTHING to do with why they hate us?
I think the only reasons we didn't have terrorist attacks 50 years ago are we are an ocean away and they simply were not sophisticated enough. They have also changed. Suicide terrorists were not nearly as common 50 years ago. I believe that if we removed every single American service member from the Middle East, they would still hate us. They have hated us regardless of who are president was and regardless of which party was in control.
In response to your questions:
1. The U.S. government is not managing oil in Iran, which is the subject of this thread. I'm unaware of the U.S. government managing oil in Iraq either.
2. If you meant to say Iraq, no I don't believe they started hating us in 2002. I recall seeing Iranian children burn American flags and chant "death to America" about 25 years ago.
3. As I said, their hatred predates our threats by many years.
Now, does our presence there and threatened military action help fuel preexisting hatred? Yes.
-
1. The U.S. government is not managing oil in Iran, which is the subject of this thread. I'm unaware of the U.S. government managing oil in Iraq either.
I can't respond muich now - but - the Hunt Corp of texas just signed all iraqi oil exploration rights of the kurds. no matter what govt is in place, the us-based firm now controls all oil and revenue, and pays the kurds a stipend for what they find once they recoup their costs for installing a pipeline.
IMO, this was the goal all along, and I"m a-okay with it lol... but we can no longer say "it's not about the oil" - cause we sure didn't let the lowest bidder have that contract. We told them which company would be doing it.
-
The U.S. experts say that metal disks used in the bombs are precision-engineered and bear Iranian serial numbers. And, U.S. officials say, the EFPs are known to have been used only by Shiites — the majority religion in Iran.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7371750
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/iran-in-iraq/?resultpage=1%26
The last one is the Official DOD slideshow brief to media about Iranian involment in Iraq.
That may be so but there are also Russian weapons being used in Iraq.
Are the Russians arming the insurgents too?
Or does the Black Market sell whatever items it may have?
The same goes for British weapons.
-
Just a point, this is the same bullshit Bush pulled with Iraq.
Remember the ironclad UN presentation Powell gave which sealed the deal for invasion of Iraq?
The obvious WMDs and ongoing working relationship with Al Qaeda was proven for many by a proponderance of the evidence.
Bush and his handpicked experts cannot be trusted.
They've proven that conclusively.
-
I'm back now.
OKay, yes, we are now managing the top third of Iraqi oil. And we're trying to split up Iraq into 3 states (against their wishes) so we can have more control over all 3 of the chunks when it comes to decision making - hence why al-maliki is going apeshit this morning, complaining about the congressional resolution to split iraq.
The claim that Iran's weapons are being used - being enough to go to war - well, we all know it's just a pretext. We're going to bomb the shit out of them very soon. THe goal, as smart people have been saying for the last 2 years, is oil. We WILL be managing Iranian oil inside of 5 years. If you don't believe me, go back 2 years to my posts saying we will be managing Iraqi oil. Then realize that yes, it happened lol. The WMD, the insurgents - those are small things that nations normally don't declare war for... unless of course, there is 50 tril in oil under the nation - then you attack them by all means.
So when you say:
1. The U.S. government is not managing oil in Iran, which is the subject of this thread. I'm unaware of the U.S. government managing oil in Iraq either.
Realize that
1) we control oil-ruch kurdish iraq's oil now.
2) we are splitting the nation up to do the same to the rest of them - requirement as kurd oil is now NO LONGER controlled by central iraqi govt!
3) if/when we bomb iran, we'll be "helping" them rebuild their oil infrastructure, using US firms, just like we're doing in iraq.
4) We own all afghan oil pipelines to the caspian sea now, and have for years since invading. We just took the bitch over. Karzai, the man we installed as president, was an Bush I oil executive in Unocal. Making sense yet? ;) LOL
-
I'm back now.
OKay, yes, we are now managing the top third of Iraqi oil. And we're trying to split up Iraq into 3 states (against their wishes) so we can have more control over all 3 of the chunks when it comes to decision making - hence why al-maliki is going apeshit this morning, complaining about the congressional resolution to split iraq.
The claim that Iran's weapons are being used - being enough to go to war - well, we all know it's just a pretext. We're going to bomb the shit out of them very soon. THe goal, as smart people have been saying for the last 2 years, is oil. We WILL be managing Iranian oil inside of 5 years. If you don't believe me, go back 2 years to my posts saying we will be managing Iraqi oil. Then realize that yes, it happened lol. The WMD, the insurgents - those are small things that nations normally don't declare war for... unless of course, there is 50 tril in oil under the nation - then you attack them by all means.
So when you say:Realize that
1) we control oil-ruch kurdish iraq's oil now.
2) we are splitting the nation up to do the same to the rest of them - requirement as kurd oil is now NO LONGER controlled by central iraqi govt!
3) if/when we bomb iran, we'll be "helping" them rebuild their oil infrastructure, using US firms, just like we're doing in iraq.
4) We own all afghan oil pipelines to the caspian sea now, and have for years since invading. We just took the bitch over. Karzai, the man we installed as president, was an Bush I oil executive in Unocal. Making sense yet? ;) LOL
You are a well-read guy. And I respect that. However, I find your acceptance of the invasion of Iraq/Iran for oil repulsive. I still believe in fighting the good fight where people count for something in this world.
Maybe someday I will become as cynical as you. But not today.
The apparatus of the law, in the UN's case, comprehends a type of morality that still has respect for human life. It's a weak organization and in America we have a political faction (Bush republicans) that would love to see it disappear b/c it is a hindrance to their plans to kill more people for oil. It can be shown under International law that the Bush Administration has engaged in war crimes. That's a messy sticking point for this true blue administration.
As for the political reality of plunder for oil, do you think that the Russians (Iran's ally) already cut a deal with the US to divide up Iranian oil or do you think that this could become contentious btn the two superpowers?
-
That was a Michael Moore propaganda story...over. Karzai, the man we installed as president, was an Bush I oil executive in Unocal.....When did he have time for that? International Law...when every other country follows it, then get back to me. Those that follow it, hide behind it because they can't do anything else. They have seen the rise of the US and their own power diminish.
-
That was a Michael Moore propaganda story...over. Karzai, the man we installed as president, was an Bush I oil executive in Unocal.....When did he have time for that? International Law...when every other country follows it, then get back to me. Those that follow it, hide behind it because they can't do anything else. They have seen the rise of the US and their own power diminish.
LOL! Karzai developed the pipeline plan at Unocal thru 98. The taleban pulled the plug in july 2001 and chose an argentian firm, keeping out 43 million deposit. Fuckers. Remember the 'choose a carpet of gold, or carpet of bombs' thing? LOL... The pipeline plans stayed active thru the invasion and his installation. Then in 2002 he selected Unocal as the firm to build the pipeline, and used afghan reconstruction funds to do it.
Colossal ownage that we later saw quite similarly with cheney/haliburton.
what part of that is facually incorrect, hh6?
-
You are a well-read guy. And I respect that. However, I find your acceptance of the invasion of Iraq/Iran for oil repulsive. I still believe in fighting the good fight where people count for something in this world.
Maybe someday I will become as cynical as you. But not today.
The apparatus of the law, in the UN's case, comprehends a type of morality that still has respect for human life. It's a weak organization and in America we have a political faction (Bush republicans) that would love to see it disappear b/c it is a hindrance to their plans to kill more people for oil. It can be shown under International law that the Bush Administration has engaged in war crimes. That's a messy sticking point for this true blue administration.
As for the political reality of plunder for oil, do you think that the Russians (Iran's ally) already cut a deal with the US to divide up Iranian oil or do you think that this could become contentious btn the two superpowers?
decker, it was only last week that you discovered that stock trading before 9/11 shows that some people knew it was going to happen. I'd encourage you to read more. The more I read, the more it made me sick. I don't believe there is a good fight to fight anymore. There is no respect for life. There is no right/wrong - there is only a set of states vying for resources following utilitarian belief systems, using war and fear as a tool in this war. Russia knows it - and you've heard them leak all sorts of stuff about us invading Iran. They don't like it. But what can they do? They can buddy up with china and make the alliance with Iran as they did. They're a dangerous timebomb. But how can they stop us from hitting iran after the next 'shady' incident? We have forces and boats there. We'll have half their army pinkmisted before anyone knows what happened. It's life, and it's unstoppable. All we can do it watch.
-
LOL! Karzai developed the pipeline plan at Unocal thru 98. The taleban pulled the plug in july 2001 and chose an argentian firm, keeping out 43 million deposit. Fuckers. Remember the 'choose a carpet of gold, or carpet of bombs' thing? LOL... The pipeline plans stayed active thru the invasion and his installation. Then in 2002 he selected Unocal as the firm to build the pipeline, and used afghan reconstruction funds to do it.
Colossal ownage that we later saw quite similarly with cheney/haliburton.
what part of that is facually incorrect, hh6?
Look...based on his Bio and alot of other facts..I would need to see where he worked at UNOCAL. He had close ties with the CIA and his point of contact with the CIA was a guy who had contacts with the current administration.
Some stuff.....
According to Fahrenheit, Afghanistan's new President, Hamid Karzai, was a Unocal consultant. This is false. Sumana Chatterjee and David Goldstein, "A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," Knight-Ridder newspapers, July 2, 2004. The origin of the claim appears to be a December 6, 2001 story in the center-left French newspaper Le Monde. The story does not cite any source for its claim. (The story is available on-line from Le Monde's website; registration and payment are required.) Unocal has denied that Karzai was ever a consultant.
Hamed Karzai, 44, comes from a respectable family, which has influence in the ranks of Pashtuns, who make up the majority in Afghanistan. His grandfather was speaker of the parliament in the monarchical era. On the other hand, his father was a deputy and assumed several high-level posts during the rule of King Mohammad Zaher Shah. Hamed Karzai's relationship with the Americans started in the mid-1980s, when he was living in Pakistan during the years of Afghan jihad against the Soviets. At the time, he acted as an intermediary and link between the groups of Afghan mojahedin [fighters] and the Americans. As a result, he helped secure the delivery of various kinds of weapons and aid to those mojahedin. Karzai's relationship with the CIA started at that time, since the CIA was a major party that was assigned to follow up the Afghan file.
Since then, Karzai's ties with the Americans have not been interrupted. At the same time, he established ties with the British and other European and international sides, especially after he became deputy foreign minister in 1992 in the wake of the Afghan mojahedin's assumption of power and the overthrow of the pro-Moscow Najibollah regime. Karzai found no contradiction between his ties with the Americans and his support for the Taleban movement as of 1994, when the Americans had - secretly and through the Pakistanis - supported the Taleban's assumption of power to put an end to the civil war and the actual partition of Afghanistan due to the failure of Borhanoddin Rabbani's experience in ruling the country. At the time, Karzai worked as a consultant for the huge US oil group Unocal, which had supported the Taleban movement and sought to construct a pipeline to transport oil and gas from the Islamic republics of Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan. However, Karzai's relationship with the Taleban did not last long, since he moved away from the movement immediately after it assumed power in 1996 and turned down the movement's offer to appoint him as its ambassador to the United Nations. The same sources disclosed to Al-Watan that Karzai began to work against the Taleban regime in 1997, and it was then, in his talks with US officials and diplomats, that he began to stress that "Usamah Bin-Ladin and the Arabs have occupied Afghanistan and become the decision-makers in this country". He also began to strongly suggest that the Americans provide real support to an armed Afghan movement, which would work from the inside to overthrow the Taleban regime and get rid of Bin-Ladin and his men "before a big disaster happens". Since 1999, Karzai has expressed his willingness to enter Afghanistan secretly and to work, in secret coordination and cooperation with the Americans, to ignite a popular uprising, especially within the ranks of the Pashtuns, against the Taleban regime. The Americans, however, rejected his request. Despite this US rejection, Karzai started making contacts with the Pashtun tribal chiefs and leaders from his place of residence in Pakistan to incite them against the Taleban regime. As a result of Karzai's secret activity, armed men of the Taleban assassinated his father, Abdol Ahad, in 1999.
-
Regardless...my definition of "worked for Unocal" and yours or that idiot Moore's maybe completely different. I don't buy into the fact that we invaded for the pipeline either. Iraq...sure but Afghanistan...everything is harder there...much harder. If they get the pipline up...great....but having been there etc....scratching ur ass is tougher there.
-
decker, it was only last week that you discovered that stock trading before 9/11 shows that some people knew it was going to happen. I'd encourage you to read more. The more I read, the more it made me sick. I don't believe there is a good fight to fight anymore. There is no respect for life. There is no right/wrong - there is only a set of states vying for resources following utilitarian belief systems, using war and fear as a tool in this war. Russia knows it - and you've heard them leak all sorts of stuff about us invading Iran. They don't like it. But what can they do? They can buddy up with china and make the alliance with Iran as they did. They're a dangerous timebomb. But how can they stop us from hitting iran after the next 'shady' incident? We have forces and boats there. We'll have half their army pinkmisted before anyone knows what happened. It's life, and it's unstoppable. All we can do it watch.
I've known about the trading for some time. Knowing about it and studying it in depth are two different things. The 9/11 Commission concluded that the trading was not suspicious.
Russia should concern the US. The entire "we won the cold war" bravado is crapola. The Russians still have enough ICBMs pointed at the US to destroy us 20 times over.
Russia stood much to gain with the Iraqi venture. But that's not the case with Iran. The Russians have invested money and resources in developing the domestic nuclear capability of the Iranians. They have billions on the line. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4301889.stm
Based on that, I'm not sure Russia will roll over for an Iranian invasion.
On a side note, where are all the "bomb Iran" people considering these remarks by Putin:
"Vladimir Putin accused the United States of igniting a global arms race and blasted those "who want to dictate their will to all others regardless of international norms and law" -- a comment clearly aimed at the United States. That comes on top of Putin's remarks earlier this spring, in which he appeared to liken the United States to Germany's Third Reich."
Sound like Putin means business. There are Russian weapons in Iraq. Maybe we should bomb Russia too?
-
There are Russian weapons everywhere...hell I carried the airborne version of the AK , with the folding stock for about a week after we got in contact. The shit is everywhere.
Decker..why is America the badguy no matter what. Putin is on the road to becoming a dictator. Chavez is a dictator. Iran is rulled by religious nutjobs who'd like to nuke us...and we're the bad guy? Bush will be out of office and we'll have a new government. And guess what..nothing will change because the Dems will realize that u can't deal rationally with some of these people. We'll deal with Russia. They are too interested in become closer with the West, no matter what the rhetoric.
-
There are Russian weapons everywhere...hell I carried the airborne version of the AK , with the folding stock for about a week after we got in contact. The shit is everywhere.
Decker..why is America the badguy no matter what. Putin is on the road to becoming a dictator. Chavez is a dictator. Iran is rulled by religious nutjobs who'd like to nuke us...and we're the bad guy? Bush will be out of office and we'll have a new government. And guess what..nothing will change because the Dems will realize that u can't deal rationally with some of these people. We'll deal with Russia. They are too interested in become closer with the West, no matter what the rhetoric.
America is the bad guy as long as the Bush Administration keeps manufacturing wars. I'm all for self defense, defense of another, defense of our property and interests. But Bush uses the american military like it's his personal security/military staff.
Bush takes advantage of military soldiers by exploiting what it means to be a soldier. He uses the military's reputation (particularly that which was won in WWII) and increased signing bonuses to rope in more people for his illegal wars. That makes me sick.
Putin, Ahmadinejad, Hussein, and Khamene'i are our political opponents but they are/were not irrational men...especially where it comes to self-preservation.
This constant effort by you and Bush supporters to paint these people as gibbering murderous animals incapable of reason or negotiation is unfortunate not to mention plain wrong.
I think you are dead on with your estimation of Russia and it's inclination to do business with us.
That's why I can't get a good read on Russia's position on an Iranian invasion.
-
I'm back now.
OKay, yes, we are now managing the top third of Iraqi oil. And we're trying to split up Iraq into 3 states (against their wishes) so we can have more control over all 3 of the chunks when it comes to decision making - hence why al-maliki is going apeshit this morning, complaining about the congressional resolution to split iraq.
The claim that Iran's weapons are being used - being enough to go to war - well, we all know it's just a pretext. We're going to bomb the shit out of them very soon. THe goal, as smart people have been saying for the last 2 years, is oil. We WILL be managing Iranian oil inside of 5 years. If you don't believe me, go back 2 years to my posts saying we will be managing Iraqi oil. Then realize that yes, it happened lol. The WMD, the insurgents - those are small things that nations normally don't declare war for... unless of course, there is 50 tril in oil under the nation - then you attack them by all means.
So when you say:Realize that
1) we control oil-ruch kurdish iraq's oil now.
2) we are splitting the nation up to do the same to the rest of them - requirement as kurd oil is now NO LONGER controlled by central iraqi govt!
3) if/when we bomb iran, we'll be "helping" them rebuild their oil infrastructure, using US firms, just like we're doing in iraq.
4) We own all afghan oil pipelines to the caspian sea now, and have for years since invading. We just took the bitch over. Karzai, the man we installed as president, was an Bush I oil executive in Unocal. Making sense yet? ;) LOL
If you are defining "we" as the U.S. government, then I disagree. "We" don't control anything. Private companies are not the U.S. government.
-
If you are defining "we" as the U.S. government, then I disagree. "We" don't control anything. Private companies are not the U.S. government.
That's a great point. Private Multi-national corps have no allegiance to any country. The only "we" are the corps with subsidiaries.
-
If you are defining "we" as the U.S. government, then I disagree. "We" don't control anything. Private companies are not the U.S. government.
Since the pvt companies 1) are controlled by US laws 2) pay tax dollars into the US economy and 3) dump the oil into US controlled reserves, not Chinese reserves, 4) are str8 outta texas...
I'll consider their presence there over a Chinese firm a victory.
-
Since the pvt companies 1) are controlled by US laws 2) pay tax dollars into the US economy and 3) dump the oil into US controlled reserves, not Chinese reserves, 4) are str8 outta texas...
I'll consider their presence there over a Chinese firm a victory.
None of this changes the fact that private companies are not the U.S. government, which completely undercuts your claim that the U.S. government controls Iraq's oil or will control Iran's oil.
What exactly are these "tax dollars" being paid on? Oil that private companies purchase from foreign countries, at a significant profit to foreign countries?
On what basis do you claim that oil purchased by private U.S. companies are dumped into the "U.S. controlled reserves." Proof?
-
None of this changes the fact that private companies are not the U.S. government, which completely undercuts your claim that the U.S. government controls Iraq's oil or will control Iran's oil.
They have all exploration rights, independent of the iraqi govt. In other word, no future iraqi govt can kick us out. They are building complete nat'l infrastructure, and the kurds were not allowed to take bids from any firms not from the USA.
What exactly are these "tax dollars" being paid on? Oil that private companies purchase from foreign countries, at a significant profit to foreign countries?
Us firms that make profits worldwide pay taxes to Uncle Sam. When exxon mobil made $10B in one quarter, the US govt received a nice piece of that in tax dollars. Just like the rest of us. They pay their taxes.
On what basis do you claim that oil purchased by private U.S. companies are dumped into the "U.S. controlled reserves." Proof?
BB, we can spend hours doing that, but it's pointless. Just quote me, call me crazy, and in 6 months when more info comes out, I can say I told you so. If you believe that a TX oil company is going ot put the oil into Russian, chinese, or venezuela reserves, well, you can believe that. THe rest of us know it's coming to the US, as they're a US firm.
Remember, guys. We had this argument 18 months ago, and many of you argued til you were blid in the face that "we're not there for the oil". I admire people like I-one, who now admits that getting their oil was part of it. BB, if you still believe that "it's about giving them freedom", then god bless ya. I'm sure you sleep better supporting it. But the facts are facts. We invaded, then we took oil rights from the kurds. Just like you said we wouldn't do.
-
...
Us firms that make profits worldwide pay taxes to Uncle Sam. When exxon mobil made $10B in one quarter, the US govt received a nice piece of that in tax dollars. Just like the rest of us. They pay their taxes.
...
That's not necessarily true.
U.S.-based oil and gas companies have nearly 900 subsidiaries located in tax haven countries, such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.
Why do they do that? The weather? No. They do it to hide profits.
"Bob McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a government watchdog that has studied the issue, said that big companies with tax haven subsidiaries are able to conduct complex transactions that shelter their profits. Since the transactions are kept within the company, he said they are next to impossible to detect."
“The more these companies can bounce things around offshore, the more profit that can be kept offshore and tax free,” McIntyre said. “They shouldn’t get away with it, but it is really hard to police.”http://www.budgetcorporaterenewals.com/How_Big_Oil_Doesnt_Pay_Taxes.htm
-
Yes Decker...but the alot of these issues arose long before Bush was in power...he may have pissed some folks off..ripped off some scabs etc but these folks have had problems with us for along time. As for Russia..they are caught as they have always been...gate way to the East and all that. I think they want to have access to the EU and become more euro centric....but at the same time they have lost an empire and prominance. I think we underestimate the pride factor in all of this..much like I think ur doing in regards Iran and ur line about rational behavior. I don't find Iran's remarks about Israel very rational based on the fact that the Israeli's love to bomb arabs...really love to bomb arabs and love first strikes etc. Maybe its my Western view, but with all that money they're siting on, I'd be very content if I were Iran. No Saddam, no other regional threats.
-
Yes Decker...but the alot of these issues arose long before Bush was in power...he may have pissed some folks off..ripped off some scabs etc but these folks have had problems with us for along time. As for Russia..they are caught as they have always been...gate way to the East and all that. I think they want to have access to the EU and become more euro centric....but at the same time they have lost an empire and prominance. I think we underestimate the pride factor in all of this..much like I think ur doing in regards Iran and ur line about rational behavior. I don't find Iran's remarks about Israel very rational based on the fact that the Israeli's love to bomb arabs...really love to bomb arabs and love first strikes etc. Maybe its my Western view, but with all that money they're siting on, I'd be very content if I were Iran. No Saddam, no other regional threats.
I'm just pointing out that even when an opponent of ours (Soviets) had an official policy to destroy our capitalist way of life, we still routinely engaged in diplomatic relations with them. The Soviets were crazy but not insane and they still came to the negotiation table.
I don't think Iran is complaining now that the invasion of Iraq has turned Iraq into a defacto Shia satellite of Iran. I think the Saudis will become spooked now that the Iraqi buffer zone btn SA and Iran is now gone.
-
The Soviets wanted to win any war with us, they had a country and a way of life that they sought to preserve. I don't think the Soviets were crazy, they were shrewd at times but they were also very paranoid, internally and externally. Read The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the K G B....great read. Anyway Iran and Saudi Arabia...exactly. They, Jordan and a ton of other countries are not thrilled with a nuclear Iran. We've been working with various arab states for the last few months, coordinating Air Forces, flight plans etc, in case we strike.
-
They have all exploration rights, independent of the iraqi govt. In other word, no future iraqi govt can kick us out. They are building complete nat'l infrastructure, and the kurds were not allowed to take bids from any firms not from the USA.
Us firms that make profits worldwide pay taxes to Uncle Sam. When exxon mobil made $10B in one quarter, the US govt received a nice piece of that in tax dollars. Just like the rest of us. They pay their taxes.
BB, we can spend hours doing that, but it's pointless. Just quote me, call me crazy, and in 6 months when more info comes out, I can say I told you so. If you believe that a TX oil company is going ot put the oil into Russian, chinese, or venezuela reserves, well, you can believe that. THe rest of us know it's coming to the US, as they're a US firm.
Remember, guys. We had this argument 18 months ago, and many of you argued til you were blid in the face that "we're not there for the oil". I admire people like I-one, who now admits that getting their oil was part of it. BB, if you still believe that "it's about giving them freedom", then god bless ya. I'm sure you sleep better supporting it. But the facts are facts. We invaded, then we took oil rights from the kurds. Just like you said we wouldn't do.
Where exactly did I say "we" wouldn't take "oil rights from the kurds"? You making stuff up again?
You are all over the place. So, is the U.S. government in control of Iraq's oil or not? Point me to the specific U.S. government entity that controls Iraq's oil.
Your tax claim is way off base. See Decker's comments.
Any "rights" are held by private companies who answer to the Iraqi government. Whatever contracts they have signed govern their relationships. I haven't read those contracts and I doubt you have either.
I'm sorry, but the argument that "we" (meaning the U.S. government) is in control of Iraq's oil has no factual basis. "We" are paying for whatever oil we get from Iraq.
-
"We" are paying for whatever oil we get from Iraq.
*AT* market value?
;)
therein lies the theft. When you tell someone you will pay $X for the oil, and they can only sell to you, it's strongarming. I'm okay with it. Just be honest.
-
*AT* market value?
;)
therein lies the theft. When you tell someone you will pay $X for the oil, and they can only sell to you, it's strongarming. I'm okay with it. Just be honest.
I see. So now "we" aren't stealing their oil because "we" aren't managing a pipeline, drilling, etc., but "we" are stealing their oil because "we" purchase at less than market value? Proof?
You also ignored the rest of my post, including the part about you making up a comment about me making a statement about the Kurds. What is your response to this:
Where exactly did I say "we" wouldn't take "oil rights from the kurds"? You making stuff up again?
You are all over the place. So, is the U.S. government in control of Iraq's oil or not? Point me to the specific U.S. government entity that controls Iraq's oil.
-
I'm just pointing out that even when an opponent of ours (Soviets) had an official policy to destroy our capitalist way of life, we still routinely engaged in diplomatic relations with them. The Soviets were crazy but not insane and they still came to the negotiation table.
I don't think Iran is complaining now that the invasion of Iraq has turned it into a defacto Shia satellite of Iran. I think the Saudis will become spooked now that the Iraqi buffer zone btn SA and Iran is now gone.
so lets start 24/7 B-52 sorties to the Iranian border.....because that, and not negotiations, is what kept Russia quiet. You for that? I'm sure the world would be much more accepting of nuclear laden planes flying 24/7 (this is for you 240) ::) ::) ::)
-
I was just looking at the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, found here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/Iran%20amendment.pdf
And I have to say, I have not seen such a pile of BS in some time.
Talk about your conspiracy addle-minded nonsense.
It defines the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as not being part of the Iranian military (although it is) b/c it is defined as a foreign terrorist organization part of a global conspiracy in league with Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and probably the League of Women Voters...if they oppose the Bush regime.
What this amendment is not: an authorization to use force against Iran.
There's a fella named Jim Webb who looks like a solid politician b/c he proposed Senate Bill 759 (found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.759: ) which explicitly prohibits the president from attacking Iran w/out Congressional consent. We don't want a repeat of the Iraq illegality.
But this amendment is being held up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Here's more on Webb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb
If he were running for president, I'd give him consideration.
-
so lets start 24/7 B-52 sorties to the Iranian border.....because that, and not negotiations, is what kept Russia quiet. You for that? I'm sure the world would be much more accepting of nuclear laden planes flying 24/7 (this is for you 240) ::) ::) ::)
I think our ICBMs are more than sufficient to keep Iran in check. It worked against the Soviets.
-
I think our ICBMs are more than sufficient to keep Iran in check. It worked against the Soviets.
If all we needed were ICBMs which were introduced in 1959, then why did we waste 40+ year of 24/7 flying? Maybe you should have been SecDef all this time. Imagine the money in jet fuel we could have saved.
-
We spent 40+ years using a 3 pronged approach.
1. ICBM's
2. Submarines
3. Strategic Bombers
We did this to counter Russia stock pile of nuclear weapons which were in those there categories also.
Decker is kind of right.
Iran doesn't have jack to counter ICBM's, hence, that's all we need until such time they develop a stockpile worthy of greater attention. In the mean time we should keep our current set up of bombers, ICBM and subs.
Regarding Iran,
I think there is much more fear in Iran about what we can do to them then there is fear about what they can do to us at the moment. Flying b-52's is already something they know we can do at a moments notice.
-
If all we needed were ICBMs which were introduced in 1959, then why did we waste 40+ year of 24/7 flying? Maybe you should have been SecDef all this time. Imagine the money in jet fuel we could have saved.
I wasn't aware that Iran has posed a "threat" to the US since 1959. We also have submarines, trucks and missile silos w/ ICBM launch capability.
You're right. Let's disarm the ICBMs b/c they are not necessary. A few flybys with MM69 at the helm of B-29 is a sure reminder to our enemies that Mutual Assured Destruction is viable and ready to go at a moment's notice.
C'mon, you know the ICBMs are the bigboys for MAD, without them, we have conventional warfare or WWII style fighting...that's not MAD.
-
We spent 40+ years using a 3 pronged approach.
1. ICBM's
2. Submarines
3. Strategic Bombers
We did this to counter Russia stock pile of nuclear weapons which were in those there categories also.
Decker is kind of right.
Iran doesn't have jack to counter ICBM's, hence, that's all we need until such time they develop a stockpile worthy of greater attention. In the mean time we should keep our current set up of bombers, ICBM and subs.
Regarding Iran,
I think there is much more fear in Iran about what we can do to them then there is fear about what they can do to us at the moment. Flying b-52's is already something they know we can do at a moments notice.
That's a great post.
-
I wasn't aware that Iran has posed a "threat" to the US since 1959. We also have submarines, trucks and missile silos w/ ICBM launch capability.
You're right. Let's disarm the ICBMs b/c they are not necessary. A few flybys with MM69 at the helm of B-29 is a sure reminder to our enemies that Mutual Assured Destruction is viable and ready to go at a moment's notice.
C'mon, you know the ICBMs are the bigboys for MAD, without them, we have conventional warfare or WWII style fighting...that's not MAD.
1959 is in reference to Russia clown....
-
1959 is in reference to Russia clown....
I know, I'm just funning you.
-
MM 69 is right. ICBM's are out of sight and out of mind..besides..there is no way in hell that we'd ever launch an ICBM at Iran...none..no way ever. The Russians would freak and we'd all be glowing inside of 30 mins. ICBM's are for the Russians and China. As far as MAD goes. My dad was a BUFF pilot and flew those Fail Safe missions before he went to Vietnam. They were ready to go around the clock...once the nukes were launched...they could get up and begin to hit Russian cities. We were'nt convinced we'd be able to launch all our ICBM's before the silo's were hit. Subs were the other wild card...Besides if any of u guys have ever been on the ground when a fullly loaded B-52 flies over....its friggen awsome. If ur the bad guy...like Iran..a squadron doing race tracks on ur border will give u pause for sure.
-
MM 69 is right. ICBM's are out of sight and out of mind..besides..there is no way in hell that we'd ever launch an ICBM at Iran...none..no way ever. The Russians would freak and we'd all be glowing inside of 30 mins. ICBM's are for the Russians and China. As far as MAD goes. My dad was a BUFF pilot and flew those Fail Safe missions before he went to Vietnam. They were ready to go around the clock...once the nukes were launched...they could get up and begin to hit Russian cities. We were'nt convinced we'd be able to launch all our ICBM's before the silo's were hit. Subs were the other wild card...Besides if any of u guys have ever been on the ground when a fullly loaded B-52 flies over....its friggen awsome. If ur the bad guy...like Iran..a squadron doing race tracks on ur border will give u pause for sure.
ICBMs are vehicles that deliver a nuclear payload. That payload will be delivered in Iran if some of the strategizing by the Bush people comes to be. It won't be delivered by ICBM but it will be delivered.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2523/is_200303/ai_n7614702
-
Again...we won't launch nuclear weapons from the US..as in from US soil via ICBM. Subs...bombers....ships. .sure as in the case of ur article. Launching from US soil would make the Russians and Chinese very very nervous. We have better options....alot closer to the problem.
-
either was you look at it, Diplomacy ALONE will not work..no way no how
-
either was you look at it, Diplomacy ALONE will not work..no way no how
You are right.
The US never had the intention to resolve problems diplomatically with Iran.
This will be another war of aggression on Bush's resume.
-
You are right.
The US never had the intention to resolve problems diplomatically with Iran.
This will be another war of aggression on Bush's resume.
Show me times in History that diplomacy ALONE, has been the deterent of conflict.
-
Show me times in History that diplomacy ALONE, has been the deterent of conflict.
I suggest you do a little research on the matter. But here's an example from the Bush Administration (which loathes diplomacy):
Bush calls for diplomacy on N. Korea crisis http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13704198
Bush Defends North Korea Nuclear Deal http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-14-voa57.cfm?CFID=139293975&CFTOKEN=92857421
Well look at that! We have compliance with our demands and we didn't have to bomb Korea to hell.
-
If diplomacy didn't work we'd have had WW3,WW4,WW5,WW6,WW7, AND WW8 by now. We'd have been in a military conflict at least once every 3 or 4 years.
-
I suggest you do a little research on the matter. But here's an example from the Bush Administration (which loathes diplomacy):
Bush calls for diplomacy on N. Korea crisis http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13704198
Bush Defends North Korea Nuclear Deal http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-14-voa57.cfm?CFID=139293975&CFTOKEN=92857421
Well look at that! We have compliance with our demands and we didn't have to bomb Korea to hell.
no no simpleton, diplomacy ALONE...you think the U-2, F-16 flights on/over the 38th parallel plus the 50,000+ troops in South Korea didn't play a role in keeping NK quiet?
You too OzmO, I'm talking diplomacy alone. We always show force (whether you realize it or not) when faced with crisis.
-
no no simpleton, diplomacy ALONE...you think the U-2, F-16 flights on/over the 38th parallel plus the 50,000+ troops in South Korea didn't play a role in keeping NK quiet?
You too OzmO, I'm talking diplomacy alone. We always show force (whether you realize it or not) when faced with crisis.
Diplomacy involves negotiation, and Military might plays a BIG role in that......of course.
But there is a distinction between using military force to solve a problem by attacking or bombing or starting a war or just invading a country Versus showing military force in a negotiation for a diplomatic settlement.
-
Diplomacy involves negotiation, and Military might plays a BIG role in that......of course.
But there is a distinction between using military force to solve a problem by attacking or bombing or starting a war or just invading a country Versus showing military force in a negotiation for a diplomatic settlement.
Sounds like you and MM are saying the same thing: diplomacy without the very real threat of military force often isn't enough.
-
Show me times in History that diplomacy ALONE, has been the deterent of conflict.
Fall of the Iron curtain in 89.
Czech Republic and Slovakia splitting up, no conflict, no threats. Just diplomacy.
EU.
-
Sounds like you and MM are saying the same thing: diplomacy without the very real threat of military force often isn't enough.
Yeah, so is decker. :)
We three are really saying the same thing. Imagine.
Military threat, especially now a days is a given.
-
no no simpleton, diplomacy ALONE...you think the U-2, F-16 flights on/over the 38th parallel plus the 50,000+ troops in South Korea didn't play a role in keeping NK quiet?
You too OzmO, I'm talking diplomacy alone. We always show force (whether you realize it or not) when faced with crisis.
What sort of a vacuum do you live in?
I'm just wondering b/c the questions you raise are like those of a child. Do I have to remind you that your incessant oversimplification of issues does nothing but illustrate your ham-handed grasp of the topic discussed?
Diplomacy alone as the deterrent of a conflict? The Cuban Missile Crisis. Or does the fact that weapons existed in the US and SU remove that example? Do you see how foolish your contention is?
Let me explain to you what diplomacy means: The art of negotiation. What is negotiation? Bargaining. What are weapons? Tools of destruction. How does that fit into diplomacy? It's another tool for bargaining one's position.
Negotiation is how the world does business and politics, i.e., diplomacy. Yes, we always show force...we can't help it, we own weapons and have an army. You can't divorce one from the other...except in your world re 'diplomacy'.
-
What sort of a vacuum do you live in?
I'm just wondering b/c the questions you raise are like those of a child. Do I have to remind you that your incessant oversimplification of issues does nothing but illustrate your ham-handed grasp of the topic discussed?
Diplomacy alone as the deterrent of a conflict? The Cuban Missile Crisis. Or does the fact that weapons existed in the US and SU remove that example? Do you see how foolish your contention is?
Let me explain to you what diplomacy means: The art of negotiation. What is negotiation? Bargaining. What are weapons? Tools of destruction. How does that fit into diplomacy? It's another tool for bargaining one's position.
Negotiation is how the world does business and politics, i.e., diplomacy. Yes, we always show force...we can't help it, we own weapons and have an army. You can't divorce one from the other...except in your world re 'diplomacy'.
your overcomplicating of things in an attempt to sound smart is the problem here son.
In the event an invasion of Cuba became necessary, TAC deployed F-84, F-100, F-105, RB-66, and
KB-50 aircraft to numerous bases in Florida. Meanwhile, SAC prepared for general war by dispersing
nuclear-capable B-47 aircraft to approximately 40 airfields in the United States and keeping numerous B-52
heavy bombers in the air ready to strike.Meanwhile, President Kennedy and his advisors on the national security team debated the most
effective course of action. Many on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) favored invasion, but President Kennedy
took the somewhat less drastic step of imposing a naval blockade of the island, which was designed to
prevent any more materiel from reaching Cuba. Still technically an act of war, the blockade nevertheless had
the advantage of not turning the cold war into a hot one.
the cuban missle crisis was from from pure negotiation. You think Kennedy wasn't sitting at the table telling Castro we would bomb the fuck out of him? crazy ass, nieve
-
your overcomplicating of things in an attempt to sound smart is the problem here son.
In the event an invasion of Cuba became necessary, TAC deployed F-84, F-100, F-105, RB-66, and
KB-50 aircraft to numerous bases in Florida. Meanwhile, SAC prepared for general war by dispersing
nuclear-capable B-47 aircraft to approximately 40 airfields in the United States and keeping numerous B-52
heavy bombers in the air ready to strike.Meanwhile, President Kennedy and his advisors on the national security team debated the most
effective course of action. Many on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) favored invasion, but President Kennedy
took the somewhat less drastic step of imposing a naval blockade of the island, which was designed to
prevent any more materiel from reaching Cuba. Still technically an act of war, the blockade nevertheless had
the advantage of not turning the cold war into a hot one.
the cuban missle crisis was from from pure negotiation. You think Kennedy wasn't sitting at the table telling Castro we would bomb the fuck out of him? crazy ass, nieve
What is your preoccupation with me and “trying to sound smart...” I've seen accusations like yours before...in a movie:
Otto West: Look, you obviously don't know anything about intelligence work, lady. It's an X-K-Red-27 technique.
Wendy: My father was in the Secret Service, Mr. Manfredjinsinjin, and I know perfectly well that you don't keep the general public informed when you are "debriefing KGB defectors in a safe house."
Otto: Well, would you like to know what you'd be without us, the good ol' U.S. of A. to protect you? I'll tell you. The smallest fucking province in the Russian Empire, that's what. So don't call me stupid, lady. Just thank me.
(See, this sort of discussion has already happened in A Fish Called Wanda)
Otto: Don't call me stupid!
Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
Otto: You know your problem? You don't like winners.
Archie: Winners?
Otto: Yeah. Winners.
Archie: Winners, like North Vietnam?
Otto: Shut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie.
_______________________________________________________________________
But seriously....How many any casualties resulted from the Cuban Missile Crisis? None? I would say that Diplomacy did carry the day. Sometimes bargaining turns into a pissing contest. I believe you even reference “Kennedy wasn't sitting at the table telling Castro we would bomb the fuck out of him?” That’s negotiation. That's Diplomacy. Read about the diplomatic relations btn the US and the SU and the peaceful conclusion to the affair.
Speaking of pissing contests, when are you going to abandon your absurd notion of PURE DIPLOMACY. What does that mean? I guess you didn’t read my last post where I explain what ‘diplomacy’ means.
Thank you for the history lesson and making my point that diplomacy works.
-
simply talking to Castro wouldn't have done shit if those bombers weren't pre positioned.....
pure diplomacy would have been them talking without bombers over Kennedy's shoulder
-
Diplomacy seems to have done wonders between both North Korea & South Korea these past few days.
-
Don't forget the DMZ. We have had troops on the North/South Korean border for decades. Locked and loaded I believe.
-
Don't forget the DMZ. We have had troops on the North/South Korean border for decades. Locked and loaded I believe.
"Locked & Loaded" is a far cry from "Shooting & Bombing".
-
"Locked & Loaded" is a far cry from "Shooting & Bombing".
The point is diplomacy is easier with the threat of military force. The fact we keep a division on the border near the DMZ helps make North Korea a little more willing to listen. When you are dealing with countries like North Korea, talks without the threat of "shooting and bombing" have no teeth.
-
The point is diplomacy is easier with the threat of military force.
I understand that point, ...however I do not think it applies in the case of the USA & Iran.
How does this make diplomacy easier when Bush refuses to talk to the leaders of Iran?
In this case, the USA's ability to exercise military force has hurt the cause of diplomacy.
talks without the threat of "shooting and bombing" have no teeth.
Talks without the threat of "shooting and bombing" are called negotiations.
Talks WITH the threat of "shooting & bombing" are called intimidation & coercion.
-
I understand that point, ...however I do not think it applies in the case of the USA & Iran.
How does this make diplomacy easier when Bush refuses to talk to the leaders of Iran?
In this case, the USA's ability to exercise military force has hurt the cause of diplomacy.
Talks without the threat of "shooting and bombing" are called negotiations.
Talks WITH the threat of "shooting & bombing" are called intimidation & coercion.
Sure it applies to Iran. If Iran doesn't sincerely believe we will drop a bomb or two, they will not listen to a word we say.
Reminds me of our invasion of Haiti to restore Aristide. Colin Powell was negotiating with the military coup leader, while our planes were in the air. He quickly agreed to safe passage out of the country.
We don't need threats to negotiate with countries like Australia and Mexico. We need threats when we "negotiate" with countries like Iran and North Korea.
-
Sure it applies to Iran. If Iran doesn't sincerely believe we will drop a bomb or two, they will not listen to a word we say.
Your leader refuses to even come to the table to talk to Iran.
Iran is willing to talk, Bush isn't.
-
Sure it applies to Iran. If Iran doesn't sincerely believe we will drop a bomb or two, they will not listen to a word we say.
We have not said a word to Iran in almost 25 years.
You're almost dangerously misinformed here, BB.
I'm embarassed for you. The US refuses to talk to Iran. No negotiations. Are you making this up as you go, or is there a magic 8 ball driving your decision making process?
-
We have not said a word to Iran in almost 25 years.
You're almost dangerously misinformed here, BB.
I'm embarassed for you. The US refuses to talk to Iran. No negotiations. Are you making this up as you go, or is there a magic 8 ball driving your decision making process?
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/shocked.gif)
Almost?!!! Surely you jest!
-
We have not said a word to Iran in almost 25 years.
You're almost dangerously misinformed here, BB.
I'm embarassed for you. The US refuses to talk to Iran. No negotiations. Are you making this up as you go, or is there a magic 8 ball driving your decision making process?
What the heck are you talking about? Who said we were in active talks with Iran? This is a theoretical discussion son. ::) Look that word up.
-
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/shocked.gif)
Almost?!!! Surely you jest!
Don't you have snake oil you should be selling right about now?
-
Don't you have snake oil you should be selling right about now?
Attempting to lower the standards on this board again by diverting the issue again are you?
Rather than attacking others with diversionary tactics, why don't you back up your assinine statements?
-
Attempting to lower the standards on this board again by diverting the issue again are you?
Rather than attacking others with diversionary tactics, why don't you back up your assinine statements?
::)
-
We have not said a word to Iran in almost 25 years.
You're almost dangerously misinformed here, BB.
I'm embarassed for you. The US refuses to talk to Iran. No negotiations. Are you making this up as you go, or is there a magic 8 ball driving your decision making process?
I think the last time our executive branch spoke in earnest with the Iranian government was when Reagan/Bush sold weapons to Iran to use the proceeds to fund wars in Nicaragua.
The Iran/Contra Affair. Trading with our enemy, subverting the constitutional process, and funding death squads....all in a day's work.
-
i wish he'd get on with the bombing already...either you do it, or you don't..don't dick around---i need gas to be a 1.12 a gallon again...
-
where's your evidence that saudi arabia has reached peak oil? some say they are, some say they aren't? do you have firsthand knowledge of this or are you taking al gore's word for it?
-
We just have to make sure that MAD is sustained
MAD only works if all parties are reasonably rational. For those with a strong desire to meet Allah and claim their 72 virgins, the doctrine is useless.
-
Saudi Arabia has reached peak oil, Iraq & Iran are too instable thanks to Bush, NIgeria has it's own challenges,
...and Bush messed up relations with Venezuela. That leaves US & Canadian oil deposits.
In order to get at North American deposits, you need to pay the oil workers a decent liveable wage.
Nah, you just need to truck in 250,000 or so mexican laborers.
Hey, the north american union would be pretty good for getting all our own oil out of those freezing regions. You want american citizenship? work in alaska for ten years.
-
MAD only works if all parties are reasonably rational. For those with a strong desire to meet Allah and claim their 72 virgins, the doctrine is useless.
I can't think of one world leader at the moment that would forgo survival to take attack the US. Even the 'crazy' Saddam Hussein wouldn't have done that.