Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

U.S. May Strike at Iran

Middle East Iran Nuclear Capability US Strike

  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#41 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 10:45 AM

Why do we have folks that just want to destroy?

Because that is all that we would do.  Especially with our current moronic administration in place.  

Right now our Administration is very scared because the election is over and now the Theocracy is about to start in Iraq.  And all because we wanted to 'do something'. :glare:
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#42 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 10:46 AM

Didn't Isreal take out one Iranian nuclear reactor back in the 80s?  :blink: I mean if they have to they'll take care of another one without our help if they really feel threatened by it.
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#43 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 10:55 AM

View PostDWF, on Jan 2 2006, 09:46 AM, said:

Didn't Isreal take out one Iranian nuclear reactor back in the 80s?  :blink: I mean if they have to they'll take care of another one without our help if they really feel threatened by it.
It was an Iraqi reactor in 1981.  Don't remember the name, but it permanently crippled Hussein's nuclear capability 'cause after that, he was embroiled in a 8 year war with Iran and couldn't get his program up and runnin' again.

View PostHibblette, on Jan 2 2006, 09:45 AM, said:

Why do we have folks that just want to destroy?

Because that is all that we would do.  Especially with our current moronic administration in place.
With radical Muslims like al-Qaeda, it has nothin' to do with what we do but more so to do with what haven't done.  These folks take Muhammed's practices of convert by the sword and apply them.  If the US were to fully accept Islam and become a Sharia state ruled by mullahs and ayatollahs then the attacks, on a large scale, would cease.  

Fact of the matter is, these folks see the "decadent West" (as Kohmeini often called us) as the source of all the troubles in the Islamic world--not 'cause we're militarily over there, but we are a culture that is: a.) seen as morally bankrupt accordin' to Islam, and b.) we're infidels with great influence over how people think, not only in the rest of the world but in the Islamic world; people want to emulate us.  They believe that by either destroyin' the US or forcibly convertin' every last one of us that they can solve their problems.  You can't reason with these radicals who've gone to the well and drunk it long and deep.  To them, dyin' in the cause is the highest honor and an automatic ticket to Paradise that they don't have to worry 'bout anymore.  There is no retreatin' from the Jihad in Islam.  Once you start, you either kill them or die tryin'.  That's how it is.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#44 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 12:04 PM

Nuclear sites in Iran could be too far away for Israel to hit unless their planes stopped first at a friendly base or aircraft carrier that was closer to the target, to strike from there instead of directly from home... or unless the Israeli pilots had no intention of flying their attack-planes back...

Sometimes I wonder if the amount of force and manpower it would take to keep Israel alive is going to exceed the number of lives to save in that little country's population. Other countries that have been on Israel's side are bound to eventually start thinking it's just not worth it to keep fighting the zillions of utter bloodthirsty maniacs that surround it and are so singlemindedly obsessed with that one little tiny goal of murdering everyone there.

* * *

It's been said here and elsewhere before that the Muslim terrorists don't hate the Occident because it's Christian; they hate us because they believe we're antireligious. Would helping a Muslim population that had been oppressed by a brutal secular regime establish their own Islamic state not help correct that image?

Edited by Delvo, 02 January 2006 - 02:18 PM.


#45 Timon

Timon
  • Islander
  • 170 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 12:27 PM

First of all I'd like to point out that the article says "The United States government reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack against Iran.". In other words, if such a scenario was to occur, it would be a NATO coordinated strike. Not a U.S. alone strike. That means there would be support for this strike from all the NATO countries. Which could possibly mean anything from letting us use their bases for refueling to all out military support. For the paper to imply that this would be a unilateral U.S. strike is irresponsible. But when one looks at the paper's source, it's not surprising. They quote the German paper Der Spiegel as one of it's main sources. Der Spiegel has a sensationalist FOX News approach to reporting news and is usually busy reporting on how the European Union is failing miserably and falling apart at the seams with a Chicken Little-like ferocity.

Personally I would expect each NATO country to submit their plans for preparations to attack any rogue country dabbling in nuclear weaponry. It would be incompetant not to prepare for all contingencies where nuclear powered weaponry is concerned. And when you consider that there are NATO countries like Turkey just a stone's throw from Iran, I strongly suspect that NATO may have requested a submission of such plans from the U.S.

#46 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 01:17 PM

All the concerns over US action against Iran is missing the big point.  If we sit on our hands then Israel will do what they have to do as they always have done.  Israel is not going to allow Iran to go nuclear and they will do anything in their power to prevent it.  That means even if Israeli airstrikes will only have a slim chance of success they will try them because it is their only option.  Iranís government is just dumb enough to launch back with missiles carrying chemical weapons.  In that case or even if Israel suspects a missile has special weapons onboard it we wonít be dealing with any fears of Iran messing around in Iraq.  

Israel is the 800 lb nuclear gorilla of the Middle East.  Iran and Tehran in particular will be glow in the dark radioactive parking lots.

Quote

Tennyson: Another option would be using B-2s from the US loaded with conventional weapons like concrete penetrating bombs and fuel air explosives to attack.
With the F-22A at IOC you can bet that the Raptor would probably be there to at least cover or potentially blow holes in Pakistanís defenses to cover the attack by the B-2s.  

Quote

Tennyson: Pakistan's nuclear facilities either immediately after the coup or at the first sign of the weapons being moved. All of thier nuclear missiles are aimed at India at the moment and only have the range to hit as far as northern India or Iran.
Once we have the ABL and SM-3 TMD systems both fully online we have another option of trying to halt any potential nuclear war by downing their missiles inflight.  

Quote

_ph: The worry is not an ICBM attack, the worry is that a terrorist will get hold of it, ship it via cargo container to a major US port city, and explode the sucker.
A nuclear weapon is not an item that you can easily smuggle into the country via ship, plane, or at the normal border crossings.  You are dealing with a positively massive in size weapon when it comes to the arsenal of a country like Pakistan.  This is not a suitcase nuke, which in reality is not a suitcase but more the size of a steamer trunk.

A nuclear weapon is highly radioactive it is going to trigger Geiger counters and other radiological detectors at the border crossings.  This isnít like a shipment of drugs that are hard to detect using various sensors but rather something that leaves a big footprint to detect.  These sensors are located at various border crossings.  If you check back over news stories there was a case where a freighter was detained off the coast of New Jersey.  It was detained when it triggered radiological sensors.  The source of the radiation was small traces of uranium in the floor tiles on one section of the vessel.  

Every major vessel of any size entering major US ports is greeted by a pilot vessel before it enters the harbor.  It would have been an easy matter for sensors to be fitted to those vessels and the New Jersey situation lends credence to that theory.  That theory has been floating around for sometime and it seems to be true that harbor security is pretty well covered against radiological threats.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#47 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 01:20 PM

As much as I'm sure we'd like to strike at Iran, I don't see that happening for a while.  Our troops are already spread too thin, and there's too much unfinished business going on.  We haven't even officially "won" Afghanistan yet, and Iraq's a long way from being settled - we're going to be pouring most of our available manpower and equipment into that fiasco for a long time.  

Attacking Iran is politically unviable and militarily nonfeasible.   I'm sure we've got a plan somewhere in the books, but that doesn't mean much.  You've always got a plan waiting for any hostile country.  

I think we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot going after Iran militarily right now, anyway, because it would undermine something that's already working.  The Iranian people are feeling a lot more friendly to America these days because they like our stuff.  They have a big hunger for American goods.  If we want to conquer that country, we shouldn't be sending in planes and tanks - we should be sending in Wal-Mart.   Get 'em hooked on the stuff they're so hungry for and that'll eventually infiltrate their culture, too.  It's hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#48 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 01:43 PM

zwolf said:

If we want to conquer that country, we shouldn't be sending in planes and tanks - we should be sending in Wal-Mart.

Oh, now that's just cruel.  Can't we at least manage Crate & Barrel?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#49 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 02:06 PM

View PostG1223, on Jan 2 2006, 10:16 AM, said:

I think Iran needs to be smashed down to the ground.

And how will that help our situation?  Have we learned nothing from the massive strategic failures of Iraq?  

Smashing Iran "down to the ground" would accomplsih nothing good for us.  It would create another failed state full of desperate people formerly sympathetic to the West but now baying for our blood.  In other words, a place that is ripe for terrorist recruitment, and for the building of new Qaeda power bases where before there were none.  

The only way Iran changes for the better is if we help her PEOPLE do it from within.  

Quote

As kind words are not going to stop them. Or put another way Luca Brazi will be there to make sure their signature or brains are on the document.

Ah, yes: the Tony Soprano School of Foreign Relations.  I'm sure the Five Families would be proud.

Quote

Why is it that we have folks who want to above all things sit back and do nothing? Then when it's time for an election come out of the woodwork with this as one of the topics of their complaint.

Everyone on this thread who has come out against a military strike on Iran has advocated helping the pro-Western forces within the country.  We can give them money, intel, spies, even arms.  But we cannot fight their battle for them -- not if we want the outcome to be a stable, friendly Iran.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#50 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 02:07 PM

View PostZwolf666, on Jan 2 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

I think we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot going after Iran militarily right now, anyway, because it would undermine something that's already working.  The Iranian people are feeling a lot more friendly to America these days because they like our stuff.  They have a big hunger for American goods.  If we want to conquer that country, we shouldn't be sending in planes and tanks - we should be sending in Wal-Mart.   Get 'em hooked on the stuff they're so hungry for and that'll eventually infiltrate their culture, too.  It's hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head.

Cheers,

Zwolf

And it should go without saying that the young Iranians, while mostly sick of the mullahs and wanting a more open, democratic society, are also for the most part fiercely patriotic and proud of their nation's ancient history.  By and large they see a nuclear program as a matter of national pride.  So don't expect them to rush to overthrow their government in the event of an American or (even more so) Israeli attack.  They're much more likely to rally around the hated mullahs out of nationalist feeling.

And once again, I have to say I find rather distasteful the nearly gleeful speculation about wiping an entire civilization off the map among our amateur Tom Clancys and armchair Donald Rumsfelds.  It both blithely dismisses the deaths of tens of millions and displays an appalling ignorance of the global consequences of such a conflagration.

Edited by MuseZack, 02 January 2006 - 02:12 PM.

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#51 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 02:46 PM

View PostLost Cause, on Jan 2 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

Is it a dangerous misconception when their philosophies are the same?

Their philosophies are not the same.  Hamas has done NOTHING to us.  al Aqsa has done NOTHING to us.  Hizbollah *has*, of course (they were resonsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1982), but in the nearly 25 years since we withdrew from Lebanon, they have left us alone.  These groups are focused ENTIRELY on Israel.    

I'm not saying they're great people--they are certainly the enemies of our friends--but our friends don't want or need our help in dealing with them.      

If the day comes when they start targeting us (again, in the case of Hizbollah), so be it: they will incur our wrath.  But that has not happened, and we have higher priorities: exterminating every last member of the group that DID attack us ON U.S. soil.  

I will never understand how so many of the hawks in this country could be persuaded that al Qaeda should be anything but Priority One.  And yet, here we are, four-plus years down the pike, and not only are bin Laden and Zawahiri still at large, but Qaeda is still capable of mounting massive bombings worldwide.  

Not only have we not exterminated those bastards, we've made them stronger by creating a new failed state in Iraq, a place where the power vacuum and chaos are so absolute that they've been able to filter in and create a new power base where before there was none.  (Who wants to bet that the next Qaeda attack on American soil, unlike the last one, WILL have its genesis in Iraq?  And that's progress?)  

Quote

They do tend to burn the US flag right along with Israeli flag.

[sarcasm]Oh, well, now I understand your point.  Flag burning IS on a par with murdering thousands of American citizens on our own soil.  [/sarcasm]

Quote

And I seem to recall that when the WTC were knocked down, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Aqsa Martyrs were celebrating in the streets.  I remember that 'cause it got my southern temper in a twist.

And I'm ashamed to admit that, as I watched the towers burn from my living room windows, as I woke up every morning for weeks with WTC soot up my nose, I said--repeatedly--that we should "kill em all!"  And I didn't mean just the Qaeda membership.  (Which shocked and, sad to say, delighted some of my conservative friends and coworkers).  

But, of course, I was insane with grief and anger.  And, equally obvious, we can't kill them all -- There are more than a billion of "them" -- and if we tried, we would be WORSE than they are when we're supposed to be better.  

I'm proud--very proud--to say that, in an incredibly short period of time, the vast majority of my fellow New Yorkers, the people who lived through the worst of it, came to agree that if we sacrifice our values in pursuit of revenge, then the terrorists have already won.  

That's why New Yorkers are so against the Bush Administration's weasley, dictator-like end-runs around the constitution--locking people up without charge; rendering suspects over to despotic regimes for torture; suspending habeus corpus; wiretapping Americans without a warrant; invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 because "they're all the same;" etc, etc, etc.  

This is EXACTLY the overreaction Qaeda sought to provoke--and we gave it to them, in spades.      

I can only hope that the rest of the country will come to realize it before too much more blood is spilled.

Edited by _ph, 02 January 2006 - 02:47 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#52 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 03:35 PM

You know I  :love: the Walmart plan.

We just really don't have the man power.

And brute force is really not what this country is about.

That was one of the things that our forefathers was rebelling against.  That brute force attitude of conquering and making people think like them.

I know, I know-we have took the same path (read on American Indian confrontations) but should we not learn from that.

The thing that we hate, supposedly, about these terrorist is their urge to push their religion and lifestyle on others.

When we go into a country to bring democracy we are no different.

Edited by Hibblette, 02 January 2006 - 03:36 PM.

"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#53 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 04:47 PM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on Jan 2 2006, 12:17 PM, said:

All the concerns over US action against Iran is missing the big point.  If we sit on our hands then Israel will do what they have to do as they always have done.  Israel is not going to allow Iran to go nuclear and they will do anything in their power to prevent it.  That means even if Israeli airstrikes will only have a slim chance of success they will try them because it is their only option.  Iranís government is just dumb enough to launch back with missiles carrying chemical weapons.  In that case or even if Israel suspects a missile has special weapons onboard it we wonít be dealing with any fears of Iran messing around in Iraq.  

Israel is the 800 lb nuclear gorilla of the Middle East.  Iran and Tehran in particular will be glow in the dark radioactive parking lots.
The Israelis have proven over and over again they will go to whatever lengths necessary to protect their people.  Ever since the Holocaust, I can't blame the Jews for having the "Kill 'em all; let God sort 'em out," attitude.  

One of my favorite books, it's a small one mind ya, is "90 Minutes at Entebbe."  Excellently written and told.  Without a doubt probably the most amazing spec op action ever conceived and executed, IMHO.  The Israelis proved that when it comes to protectin' their own, they'll even do the impossible.  That makes 'em mighty, to tell the truth.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#54 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 04:48 PM

HHHHMMMM When did we make Islam illegal in Iraq? That people on their won have gone there to act as missionaries is not an act of government sponsered anything. We have only attacked a couple of holy sites when it turned out they were being used as active points of resistance by terrorists.  Our troops are not out attacking Religous leaders in the street or doing any preaching in a offical way.

So this "how we pushing our faith on these people" is very lost to me. What we have tried to bring them is the idea that voting and for leaders you as a individual support is a better form of government over a crowd of men who herd everyone into the square and make them vote for Saddam or be shot. So that Saddam can later claim to be the people's elected ruler.

How else do you think Saddam's claims of getting 100% of the vote happened?
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#55 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 04:50 PM

Zack, are you refering to me in that condemnation? You should know by now that I do nothing "gleefully" and what I've said is to show just how things can go so that people will think about the consequences of the actions involved and hopefully understand the constraints that international relations have in the region. To understand something is not to wish it would happen.
In other issues Pakistan has its own native built missiles and medium range balastic missiles it recieved from China, they have a range of around 600 miles so they could reach say certain areas of Turkey and of course northern India and American troops would be in direct danger in Afghanistan but niether India or Pakistan's missiles could reach the US. Even China only has 20 ICBMs that could do that.
The Isreali air force does have the range to reach and strike Iran. They have thier own version of the F-15E deep strike fighter-bomber and in flight refueling aircraft to support it and its escourts. Back in 1981 at Osrik the Isrealis used F-16s and F-4s to destroy the Iraqi reactor. That's about as much as I'll mention on this now since I've already detailed all of Isreal's options before in another thread about rumors of war and I refer to that.
In response to another statement, my attitude on September 11th after I could think was a cold hard anger to kill those responsible. It was not some cliched and stupid kill all muslims thing but rather aimed directly at the specific people and organization responsible. I've never painted all people of the same grouping with the same brush and that didn't change anything.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#56 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 05:03 PM

If the reference to pushing religion is in regards to what I said about pushing Democracy-Democracy is a political thing.  And no where did I say we were abolishing Islamic religious practices.

It's not just Saddam that has practiced this "gather them in the square and shoot them" this is not new to these people and their ancestors.  That is something that was practiced going alllllll the way back to Nebuchadnezzar.

That is where the confusion comes in.  These people have no concept of seperation of church and state.  And how can we bring that idea to them even when right now we have factions in our own country that are trying to get that abolished from our ideology?

It's all well and fine to say we are bringing them Democracy but Democracy-Republic is not something that you can just give as a gift.  It is something that those people have to want, understand what it truly means (political vs religion aspect) and have to want to continuously work on.

Democracy-Republic is a hard thing to maintain.  You just don't dump it in the lap of a few elitist, power hungry, pseudo-godlike people and walk off or at least you shouldn't.  

This is something that a lot of us in this country are fast forgetting.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#57 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 05:10 PM

View Post_ph, on Jan 2 2006, 01:46 PM, said:

View PostLost Cause, on Jan 2 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

Their philosophies are not the same.  Hamas has done NOTHING to us.  al Aqsa has done NOTHING to us.  Hizbollah *has*, of course (they were resonsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1982), but in the nearly 25 years since we withdrew from Lebanon, they have left us alone.  These groups are focused ENTIRELY on Israel.  I'm not saying they're great people--they are certainly the enemies of our friends--but our friends don't want or need our help in dealing with them.
But given the silence, that means nothin'.  These radical Islamic groups all have the same roots--in Egypt, with a guy by the name of Sayyid Qatb.  Guy wrote a book that condemned everything non-Islamic and reiterated the belief that the world should be convered at the sword's edge.  From there, through a succession of leaders, Islamic Jihad grew and splintered until it expanded into pockets all over N. Africa and the Middle East.  

I'm of the mind if we want to fight the war against terrorism, we need to do it against all these elements because they have connections one with another 'cause we're in the cross-hairs.  Similarly, so is Israel.  It does us well to aid Israel in their fight, 'cause there's much we can learn from them.  They've been dealin' with the Arab nations around them (and their terrorist groups) since 1948.      

Quote

If the day comes when they start targeting us (again, in the case of Hizbollah), so be it: they will incur our wrath.  But that has not happened, and we have higher priorities: exterminating every last member of the group that DID attack us ON U.S. soil.  I will never understand how so many of the hawks in this country could be persuaded that al Qaeda should be anything but Priority One.  And yet, here we are, four-plus years down the pike, and not only are bin Laden and Zawahiri still at large, but Qaeda is still capable of mounting massive bombings worldwide.

Seems to me I've heard we've eliminated almost 75% of their leadership and greatly crippled their members.  Hell, their #3 spot keeps turnin' over every week 'cause we keep either killin' or capturin' the SOB in that spot.  (I've said it before, if I were in that group, I'd either decline the #3 spot, or put up an enemy for it.  Good politics.  :D)  'Sides, there hasn't been an attack on U.S. soil since 2001.  Now, that doesn't mean we oughtta be complacent.  But, it does mean:  a.) they're too weak to hit us again, or b.) our boys are interferin' with their capability to do so.  If it is the latter option, then I'd say we're on top of the enemy's mov'ts and plans.  

Quote

Not only have we not exterminated those bastards, we've made them stronger by creating a new failed state in Iraq, a place where the power vacuum and chaos are so absolute that they've been able to filter in and create a new power base where before there was none.  (Who wants to bet that the next Qaeda attack on American soil, unlike the last one, WILL have its genesis in Iraq?  And that's progress?)
That new friggin' state in Iraq is how old?  Less than two years?  Our country wasn't worth a fig in it's first two years as we hammered out issues with Article of Confederation, we couldn't keep the British from encroachin' in the Ohio River Valley, interal dissent over taxation resulted in a revolt that marked the end of the Articles (though at the time, that Founders were actually meetin' to revise the Articles, not create a new gov't).    


Quote

Quote

They do tend to burn the US flag right along with Israeli flag.

[sarcasm]Oh, well, now I understand your point.  Flag burning IS on a par with murdering thousands of American citizens on our own soil.  [/sarcasm]

If they lump us with those they consider the spawn of "monkeys and pigs," how do you think they view us?  Can't be all that good, which is why I brought that up.  'Sides, their copies of the US flag suck.  I always get a kick outta that fact.  

Quote

That's why New Yorkers are so against the Bush Administration's weasley, dictator-like end-runs around the constitution--locking people up without charge; rendering suspects over to despotic regimes for torture; suspending habeus corpus; wiretapping Americans without a warrant; invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 because "they're all the same;" etc, etc, etc.

I thought that was 'cause you're a Democrat.  ;)

Actually, I am appalled at the directions the neo-cons have taken us with national security.  I believe in nat'l security, but not at the expense of everything we treasure.  If you're gonna have classified wire-taps, etc, do it by the book.  Don't circumvent the 4th Amd't.

Edited to fix quote tags.  

Edited by Lost Cause, 02 January 2006 - 05:13 PM.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#58 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 07:37 PM

LC, let's try this on for size.  You're a Christian.  Obviously, therefore, you:

hate gay people and think they should be publicly executed;

believe women to be inferior to men intellectually and spiritually;

want to see Christianity established as the official religion of the United States;

want to make the ten commandments the official law of the United States;

believe in beating children into submission and executing them if that does't work;

hate Jews;

are a  racist;

and that's just for starters.

Now, I hope you're outraged at this point because I equally hope that none of the above is true about you.  But, see, you're a Christian, and Christians all go back to the same roots, that rabbi from Nazareth.  And Christians have a history of conversion by the sword from the early fourth century onward, and a history of pogroms against Jews almost as long.  They have a history, in the Americas and in Africa, of destroying cultures that won't convert (or at least, trying to) and of practicing and justifying slavery.  Some Christians still openly espouse the above beliefs today.  Therefore, since you're a Christian, and Christians are all related, you must agree  with them.

No?

But, see,  that's pretty much the line of reasoning you're using to lump Muslim groups together.  What's that bit about doing unto others as you'd like them to do to you?
Posted Image

#59 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 07:56 PM

Quote

Lost Cause: My only question is this: Do Pakistan's missles have the capability to reach the US mainland? If not, then the only delivery method would be ground-bound suitcase or dirty bombs.

That's worry enough for me.  :(
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#60 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 08:06 PM

^Only the most determined nation states with massive resources and years of experience in nuclear weapons can produce suitcase nukes.  Even then the often talked about Russian suitcase nukes are the size of a large steamer trunk and are tremendously heavy.  As I noted above radiological detectors make it very hard to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the country.  I would be more concerned about a dirty bomb being built inside the US and used there.  

Quote

MuseZack: And once again, I have to say I find rather distasteful the nearly gleeful speculation about wiping an entire civilization off the map among our amateur Tom Clancys and armchair Donald Rumsfelds. It both blithely dismisses the deaths of tens of millions and displays an appalling ignorance of the global consequences of such a conflagration.
I have to disagree with that statement on all levels.  Speculation of what is going to occur is the best way to consider potential courses of action.  If you always stand and consider the rosy picture of why we shouldnít fight and always go in expecting that you can avoid the fight, the worse case will catch up with you.  In this case, some of us are being realistic in realizing that if we donít deal with Iran, then Israel will deal with them.  That exchange will have a very real possibility of nuclear war.  Not considering these possibilities leaves you in no position to deal with them and spot them when they are coming.

Quote

Hibblette: When we go into a country to bring democracy we are no different.
There is a huge difference between trying to shove a tyrannical theocracy down someoneís throats and giving the people of a nation the option to choose their own path for better or worse.  A democracy might not be something that you can import over night but you have to start somewhere.  Japan and Germany both had to take a long path to democracy with fits and starts prior to the Allied occupation of both countries.  That said they did reach the point where both are now vibrant democracies.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 02 January 2006 - 08:10 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Middle East, Iran, Nuclear Capability, US Strike

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users