|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Stonewall |
U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
By James Rosen
WASHINGTON — A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.
Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.
The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.
The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.
[German Embassy spokesman Ulrich Sante told FOX News on Wednesday that Germany fully supports the ongoing U.N. process, saying the meeting in Berlin "was evidence we are seeking further progress…. The issue is being moved ahead."]
Germany's withdrawal from the allied diplomatic offensive is the latest consensus across relevant U.S. agencies and offices, including the State Department, the National Security Council and the offices of the president and vice president. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, the most ardent proponent of a diplomatic resolution to the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions, has had his chance on the Iranian account and come up empty.
Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.
Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.
The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.
On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran's known nuclear targets.
Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever. Other considerations include the likelihood of Iranian reprisals against Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers; and the effects on American troops in Iraq. There, officials have concluded that the Iranians are unlikely to do much more damage than they already have been able to inflict through their supply of explosives and training of insurgents in Iraq.
The Bush administration "has just about had it with Iran," said one foreign diplomat. "They tried the diplomatic process. China is now obstructing them at the U.N. Security Council and the Russians are tucking themselves behind them.
"The Germans are wobbling …There are a number of people in the administration who do not want their legacy to be leaving behind an Iran that is nuclear armed, so they are looking at what are the alternatives? They are looking at other options," the diplomat said.
Vice President Cheney and his aides are said to be enjoying a bit of "schadenfreude" at the expense of Burns. A source described Cheney's office as effectively gloating to Burns and Rice, "We told you so. (The Iranians) are not containable diplomatically."
The next shoe to drop will be when Rice and President Bush make a final decision about whether to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and/or its lethal subset, the Quds Force, as a terrorist entity or entities. FOX News reported in June that such a move is under consideration.
Sources say news leaks about the prospective designation greatly worried European governments and private sector firms, which could theoretically face prosecution in American courts if such measures became law and these entities continued to do business with IRGC and its multiple financial subsidiaries.
If the Bush administration moves forward with such a designation, sources said, it would be an indication that Rice agrees that Burns' approach has failed. Designation of such a large Iranian military institution as a terrorist entity would also be seen, sources said, as laying the groundwork for a public justification of American military action.
© 2007 FOX News Network
Fox News |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
| Doesn't seem like something that would leak out unless they wanted it to. In other words, the White House wants to make it clear to Iran that the hammer will be dropped if they continue to defy the world community, thus once again try to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapon program without having to use force. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Doesn't seem like something that would leak out unless they wanted it to. In other words, the White House wants to make it clear to Iran that the hammer will be dropped if they continue to defy the world community, thus once again try to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapon program without having to use force. |
The problem is a bombing strike will have little or no effect. The best I have heard is it will only set them back 3 years or so.
Also, maybe they are no longer working on a nuke. They got caught with their pants down and it is possible they have mothballed the program till brighter days.
Or, it might make them actually create and then use a bomb on the U.S..
It's a very risky business and little or no value coming from it. |
|
|
| Reed Rothchild |
| The other part of this is that an attack by us on Iran would cause Hezbollah to step up their activities against us. Right now, Israel has their full attention; American bombers over Iran would give US their full fucking attention. Richard Armitage called these guys the "A-Team of terrorists", al Queda being the "B" team. Whatever their capabilities, we would be busy in Iran, Iraq, and would probably have to go into Lebanon and Syria to tangle with them, and we all saw how that worked out for Israel last year. |
|
|
| Abba |
This is absolutely ridiculous.
Don't be an American for a second. What the fuck gives US the right to demand inspections and sanctions against Iran?
Do we allow Iranian inspectors to inspect US or British Nuclear facilities? In addition, MANY other countries have the Bomb. Israel, Pakistan, and India, to name a few. Why don't we force inspections of their nuclear infrastructure and safeguards. Both Israel and Pakistan have a fanatic segment of their population who would also easily use Nuclear weapons to massacre their enemies. No inspections for them, though.
Does anyone get yet why we have ZERO credibility? We have not been endowed by an invisible man in the sky as the Earth's administrator. The world didn't vote us in as the arbiter of all things.
If we attack Iran and they suprise us by taking out some of our aircraft, what would happen then? Would people be pissed because they fought back against us? Would the war get wider, thrusting the remaining handful of soldiers we have left into Iran for a short lived and disastrous ground war?
Finally, a consideration. The Bushies have been nothing but wrong about Iraq's WMD's, so how are we to trust their assesments on Iran's weaponry? It is no secret that Iran has some energy problems, and there is the possibility that they are developing nuclear power for civilian use. |
|
|
| Bist Meshugeh |
Quote: Originally posted by Abba
This is absolutely ridiculous.
Don't be an American for a second. What the fuck gives US the right to demand inspections and sanctions against Iran?
Do we allow Iranian inspectors to inspect US or British Nuclear facilities? In addition, MANY other countries have the Bomb. Israel, Pakistan, and India, to name a few. Why don't we force inspections of their nuclear infrastructure and safeguards. Both Israel and Pakistan have a fanatic segment of their population who would also easily use Nuclear weapons to massacre their enemies. No inspections for them, though.
Does anyone get yet why we have ZERO credibility? We have not been endowed by an invisible man in the sky as the Earth's administrator. The world didn't vote us in as the arbiter of all things.
If we attack Iran and they suprise us by taking out some of our aircraft, what would happen then? Would people be pissed because they fought back against us? Would the war get wider, thrusting the remaining handful of soldiers we have left into Iran for a short lived and disastrous ground war?
Finally, a consideration. The Bushies have been nothing but wrong about Iraq's WMD's, so how are we to trust their assesments on Iran's weaponry? It is no secret that Iran has some energy problems, and there is the possibility that they are developing nuclear power for civilian use. |
Good excuse to kill them. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
China and Russia will not like it if we try to blow up Iran.
I doubt that they would just sit and watch. |
|
|
| Tomofnnh |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
China and Russia will not like it if we try to blow up Iran.
I doubt that they would just sit and watch. |
Im sure Russia will be more than happy to sell Iran their "father of all bombs" |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Abba
This is absolutely ridiculous.
Don't be an American for a second. What the fuck gives US the right to demand inspections and sanctions against Iran?
Do we allow Iranian inspectors to inspect US or British Nuclear facilities? In addition, MANY other countries have the Bomb. Israel, Pakistan, and India, to name a few. Why don't we force inspections of their nuclear infrastructure and safeguards. Both Israel and Pakistan have a fanatic segment of their population who would also easily use Nuclear weapons to massacre their enemies. No inspections for them, though.
Does anyone get yet why we have ZERO credibility? We have not been endowed by an invisible man in the sky as the Earth's administrator. The world didn't vote us in as the arbiter of all things. |
We do allow IAEA inspections and we have safeguard agreements with them. Iran is in breach of their safeguard agreements and the NPT.
Israel, India, and Pakistan have not joined the NPT. Countries that do not join the NPT can create whatever nuclear program they want. But, NPT nations cannot help them with technology.
If Iran is allowed to break the NPT Treaty then it means anyone can do so and will do so and probably should do so.
Quote: Originally posted by Abba
If we attack Iran and they suprise us by taking out some of our aircraft, what would happen then? Would people be pissed because they fought back against us? Would the war get wider, thrusting the remaining handful of soldiers we have left into Iran for a short lived and disastrous ground war?
Finally, a consideration. The Bushies have been nothing but wrong about Iraq's WMD's, so how are we to trust their assesments on Iran's weaponry? It is no secret that Iran has some energy problems, and there is the possibility that they are developing nuclear power for civilian use. |
Certainly there will be a price to pay for trying to turn back Iran's nuclear program. At the same time at some point there will be a price either way. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
I don't know if this plausible or not but if we attack Iran it could touch off a small world war.
Syria would be probably attack Israel and our forces.
Russian may send in troops, that a stretch but they would certainly send in weapons and if we tried to blockade Russian vessels, the shit could hit fan. Putin is up to something.
China would tank our economy and perhaps withhold exports.
Venezuela could embargo it's oil.
North Korea could slip a few nukes to Syria and or Iran.
Throw in an Islamist coup in Pakistan and then it's really on.
I don't think this will end well for us. :( |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I don't know if this plausible or not but if we attack Iran it could touch off a small world war.
Syria would be probably attack Israel and our forces.
Russian may send in troops, that a stretch but they would certainly send in weapons and if we tried to blockade Russian vessels, the shit could hit fan. Putin is up to something.
China would tank our economy and perhaps withhold exports.
Venezuela could embargo it's oil.
North Korea could slip a few nukes to Syria and or Iran.
Throw in an Islamist coup in Pakistan and then it's really on.
I don't think this will end well for us. :( |
It does not end well for us in any position we take. This is a no-win situation.
Russia and China will do nothing but complain. They depend on us much more than they do Iran. Syria will do nothing because they are dealing with a military that is circa 1980. And, even then they could not beat Israel. Terror is their only weapon.
Hezballah will attack and other Iranian terror.
It will not really effect the Iran nuclear program, not the one we are worried about which is hidden. If it exists at all at this point. Once busted they may have mothballed it. Either way the best I have heard is that a military strike will only set them back 3 years. That was in a hearing in Congress and is the Administrations view. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It does not end well for us in any position we take. This is a no-win situation.
Russia and China will do nothing but complain. They depend on us much more than they do Iran. Syria will do nothing because they are dealing with a military that is circa 1980. And, even then they could not beat Israel. Terror is their only weapon.
Hezballah will attack and other Iranian terror.
It will not really effect the Iran nuclear program, not the one we are worried about which is hidden. If it exists at all at this point. Once busted they may have mothballed it. Either way the best I have heard is that a military strike will only set them back 3 years. That was in a hearing in Congress and is the Administrations view. |
I don't believe the main importers of Iran's oil and gas will sit there and merely complain.
You take away Iran's oil from China and I'm quite sure China will have more than just a complaint for us. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I don't believe the main importers of Iran's oil and gas will sit there and merely complain.
You take away Iran's oil from China and I'm quite sure China will have more than just a complaint for us. |
What else can they do? They cannot war with the U.S.. They don't have a blue water Navy. Their nation would be destroyed in a war with the U.S.. I hardly think they will go for self destruction simply because Iran is not allowed an illegal nuclear program.
They depend on the U.S.. Go to any store and you can see that.
Like I said, I am not for a strike on Iran.
My position is pull out of all Muslim lands and let the world enjoy a nuclear Iran and Al Qaeda and all they promise. We should stop being big brother to the world. Stop being the thing that stands in the way of madmen. That will only lead to our destruction and the world will have it's madmen in the end anyway.
We have problems here to solve. We need to get off the China tit. Begin getting our economy back in proper condition, end globalization. Bring the jobs home. Secure our technology. The list is long, very long. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
China can cripple us without firing a shot and I can't think of a good enough they wouldn't if we destroy a significant source of their energy.
We would cripple China by destroying Iran so why wouldn't they bite back? Why would China sit there and not do anything. That makes no sense. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
China can cripple us without firing a shot and I can't think of a good enough they wouldn't if we destroy a significant source of their energy.
We would cripple China by destroying Iran so why wouldn't they bite back? Why would China sit there and not do anything. That makes no sense. |
Yes they can cripple us, but doing so will destroy themselves.
Plus, it would be nuclear sites targeted, not oil.
Again, an air strike is a bad idea. Regardless of China's non-response to it. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Radical Christians ought to be dancing in the streets with this news. Armageddon is on the way!
Fuck all you idiots who put this Administration in power.
:fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: |
|
|
| curleydan |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I don't know if this plausible or not but if we attack Iran it could touch off a small world war. |
good, lets get this this over with sooner rather than later. in the process we can cleanse this earth of the worthless muslim. |
|
|
| curleydan |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Radical Christians ought to be dancing in the streets with this news. Armageddon is on the way!
Fuck all you idiots who put this Administration in power.
:fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: |
eat shit and die |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by curleydan
eat shit and die |
What's the matter, sheep?
I hit a nerve, didn't I? |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by curleydan
good, lets get this this over with sooner rather than later. in the process we can cleanse this earth of the worthless muslim. |
Are you being sarcastic or proving how stupid Texans are? |
|
|
| curleydan |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
What's the matter, sheep?
I hit a nerve, didn't I? |
you didnt hit any bigger nerve with me than i hit with you for voting for bush. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by curleydan
you didnt hit any bigger nerve with me than i hit with you for voting for bush. |
Didn't hit a nerve here, either.
You realize, don't you, that the two biggest killers of American GI's were both from Texas?
Bush the Cowardly Liar and LBJ. |
|
|
| curleydan |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Didn't hit a nerve here, either.
You realize, don't you, that the two biggest killers of American GI's were both from Texas?
Bush the Cowardly Liar and LBJ. |
you forgot eisenhower. but then again, isnt it really lincoln and davis? |
|
|
| Abba |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
China can cripple us without firing a shot and I can't think of a good enough they wouldn't if we destroy a significant source of their energy.
We would cripple China by destroying Iran so why wouldn't they bite back? Why would China sit there and not do anything. That makes no sense. |
The REAL reason Japan sought to expand during WWII was energy and resource needs. The Home Island have nothing, and Japan's economy was fucked. We, of course, denied them those resources, and thus you have the War in the Pacific.
Some say World War 2 started in late 1931 with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. This is sometimes referred to as the Mukden Incident. The major invasion of China by Japan was in 1937.
Japan had long been coveting mainland resources, invading China and (en route) Korea for centuries. Under the guise of The Co-Prosperity Sphere (8-Lands Under One Umbrella), Japan plotted an imperial takeover of Asia and the Pacific in the style of Western imperialism less than a century earlier.
The US opposed this movement and placed embargoes on Japan. Searching for supplies and rebelling against US intervention, Japan embarked on its Oriental conquest. Hoping to keep the US Air Force out of Japan's way, Admiral Yamamoto led the attack on Pearl Harbor. Unfortunatley they opened fire 30 minutes before the proclamation of war was officially delivered, so many viewed it as a violation of military convention (Adm. Yamamoto regretted this fact; he admired Western military practices).
Note that one reason many people say WWII started in 1939 by Hitler's invasion of Poland instead of by Japan in 1937 is because the former is the moment when the first main Allied nation declared war on an Axis nation (Britain declares war on Germany). Rather than be specific and say the first shots of origin started with Japan's invasion, it is pointed out that no main Allied nation had declared war at that time. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by curleydan
you forgot eisenhower. but then again, isnt it really lincoln and davis? |
Eisenhower sent advisors to Nam but Johnson was really responsible for escalating the war. A good book, if you can find it, is "A Texan Looks At Lyndon Johnson." The book talks about all the interests the Johnsons had in the war machine and accuses him of escalating the war for private gain.
But, dammit, you got me with the Lincoln/Davis reference.
By the way, no hard feelings. This is a ball-busting forum and the name-calling flies fast and furious. I used to try to be kinder and more enlightened on this forum but the Stern Nation beat me into submission and, consequently, I'm the same kind of name-calling asshole that the majority of posters seem to be. |
|
|
| JTProcess |
If the US starts bombing Iran the people of this country should go to washington with torches and burn it down.
I'm not kidding. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Abba
The REAL reason Japan sought to expand during WWII was energy and resource needs. The Home Island have nothing, and Japan's economy was fucked. We, of course, denied them those resources, and thus you have the War in the Pacific. |
Who is "we"? Lebanon?
"We, of course, denied them those resources, and thus you have the War in the Pacific." |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by curleydan
eat shit and die |
Fuck you, coward.
Go enlist, internet tough guy. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
If the US starts bombing Iran the people of this country should go to washington with torches and burn it down.
I'm not kidding. |
Let me grab my belongings first. :D
We at least know one group of sheep wont. they'll be glued to faux news waiting to be told what to do next.
pathetic, really, how they are so desperate to defend a criminal republican administration. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
If the US starts bombing Iran the people of this country should go to washington with torches and burn it down.
I'm not kidding. |
Eventually we will be at full scale war with Iran. It'll just be after they have acted out so badly that the U.S. has no choice in the matter. Like Al Qaeda. That is really all the Iranian regime is, a terrorist organization. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Eventually we will be at full scale war with Iran. It'll just be after they have acted out so badly that the U.S. has no choice in the matter. Like Al Qaeda. That is really all the Iranian regime is, a terrorist organization. |
In death, we have allied ourselves with Saddam. How ironic.
Maybe, after all is said and done, we'll find that all that was wrong the whole time was that Bush is bi-polar and meds would have avoided this shitstorm. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
In death, we have allied ourselves with Saddam. How ironic.
Maybe, after all is said and done, we'll find that all that was wrong the whole time was that Bush is bi-polar and meds would have avoided this shitstorm. |
While the thought that Bush is the problem is a belief that provides comfort, as relief will come when he leaves office. I'm sorry to inform you that it will not. Iran has been attacking us on a regular basis for a couple decades now. Just like Al Qaeda was attacking before Bush came to office.
In fact India was fighting Jihad before Bush. The Philippines were fighting Jihad before Bush. Serbia... oh thats right we were on Jihad's side that time. Algeria, Russia, Ethiopia, and many other places.
The only thing Bush did was invade Afghanistan and Iraq. If we reverse Iraq and Afghanistan and we turn the clock back to 9/10/01... we still get slammed into buildings the next day.
The Khobar Towers still get bombed. The first WTC attack is still there. The USS Cole. The East African Embassy attacks. The Iranian Hezballah attacks in Lebanon during the 1980's. The numerous hijackings and blown up planes.
So, we can count down to Bush leaving office and we can all enjoy a small period of fantasyland, but eventually reality will smack us around once more. Just like it did to Bush. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
While the thought that Bush is the problem is a belief that provides comfort, as relief will come when he leaves office. I'm sorry to inform you that it will not. Iran has been attacking us on a regular basis for a couple decades now. Just like Al Qaeda was attacking before Bush came to office.
In fact India was fighting Jihad before Bush. The Philippines were fighting Jihad before Bush. Serbia... oh thats right we were on Jihad's side that time. Algeria, Russia, Ethiopia, and many other places.
The only thing Bush did was invade Afghanistan and Iraq. If we reverse Iraq and Afghanistan and we turn the clock back to 9/10/01... we still get slammed into buildings the next day.
The Khobar Towers still get bombed. The first WTC attack is still there. The USS Cole. The East African Embassy attacks. The Iranian Hezballah attacks in Lebanon during the 1980's. The numerous hijackings and blown up planes.
So, we can count down to Bush leaving office and we can all enjoy a small period of fantasyland, but eventually reality will smack us around once more. Just like it did to Bush.
|
The problem is not nor has it ever been that Bush reacted to 9/11.
The problem is that he completely reacted inappropriately.
No one with any sense can accuse Bush of 9/11. Come to think of it, it's almost as big a stretch as when he accused Saddam of 9/11.
But, Bush and Co have totally mismanaged the military SINCE 9/11. That's why we're happy to see him go. |
|
|
| Abba |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Who is "we"? Lebanon?
"We, of course, denied them those resources, and thus you have the War in the Pacific." |
Yeah, numbnuts, Lebanon denied Japan resources during WWII. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Abba |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
We do allow IAEA inspections and we have safeguard agreements with them. Iran is in breach of their safeguard agreements and the NPT.
Israel, India, and Pakistan have not joined the NPT. Countries that do not join the NPT can create whatever nuclear program they want. But, NPT nations cannot help them with technology.
If Iran is allowed to break the NPT Treaty then it means anyone can do so and will do so and probably should do so.
Certainly there will be a price to pay for trying to turn back Iran's nuclear program. At the same time at some point there will be a price either way. |
Thanks to our brilliant stratagery, we have taught the world one vaulable lesson.
Get a nuke, and we won't attack you. At this time, and for the foreseeable future, we have troops on wither side of Iran. We have a history of actively working against Iran, and have been fucking with them for far longer than they've been fucking with us.
We are also Israel's bitches, and it's well known that this war was faught in large part for Israel. Iran is currently Israel's greatest threat. By the very astute logic, it's in IRAN'S best interest to develop nuclear weapons.
WE taught them that lesson. WE lumped them in the Axis of Evil, effectively taking the sea of goodwill towards us and the public outpouring of condolences and sympathy after 9/11 and shutting it down.
You must be seriously brain damaged or something. You have this obsession with a boogeyman and a fantasy demon and no matter what the facts are, they can be crowbarred into your very dimwitted and narrow viewpoint.
Seriously, the only emotion you ellicit from me is a very palpable sense of pity. You are the type of pathetic person that psychomike would be happy to associate with. |
|
|
| lao tzu |
| A WHOLE HEAP OF YOU PUSSY REDNECK RIGHT WING APOLGISTS SHOULD START MOVING NORTH IMMEDIATELY, THE DRAFT IS IMMINENT IF THIS EVER HAPPENEDS WHICH I DOUBT IT EVER WILL, LUCKILY FOR YOU COWARDS..... |
|
|
| JTProcess |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Eventually we will be at full scale war with Iran. It'll just be after they have acted out so badly that the U.S. has no choice in the matter. Like Al Qaeda. That is really all the Iranian regime is, a terrorist organization. |
But Stonewall... the same could be said of several other regimes that we actively support and do business with.
It is insane to treat Iran differently than a country like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. |
|
|
| JTProcess |
Quote: Originally posted by ChaseDC
Let me grab my belongings first. :D
We at least know one group of sheep wont. they'll be glued to faux news waiting to be told what to do next.
pathetic, really, how they are so desperate to defend a criminal republican administration. |
The founding fathers are rolling in their graves. |
|
|
| Cojayc |
Quote: Originally posted by Abba
This is absolutely ridiculous.
Don't be an American for a second. What the fuck gives US the right to demand inspections and sanctions against Iran?
Do we allow Iranian inspectors to inspect US or British Nuclear facilities? In addition, MANY other countries have the Bomb. Israel, Pakistan, and India, to name a few. Why don't we force inspections of their nuclear infrastructure and safeguards. Both Israel and Pakistan have a fanatic segment of their population who would also easily use Nuclear weapons to massacre their enemies. No inspections for them, though.
Does anyone get yet why we have ZERO credibility? We have not been endowed by an invisible man in the sky as the Earth's administrator. The world didn't vote us in as the arbiter of all things.
If we attack Iran and they suprise us by taking out some of our aircraft, what would happen then? Would people be pissed because they fought back against us? Would the war get wider, thrusting the remaining handful of soldiers we have left into Iran for a short lived and disastrous ground war?
Finally, a consideration. The Bushies have been nothing but wrong about Iraq's WMD's, so how are we to trust their assesments on Iran's weaponry? It is no secret that Iran has some energy problems, and there is the possibility that they are developing nuclear power for civilian use. |
Is there anything more annoying than a person as ignorant as Abba posting? Speaking? Exisitng?
For one thing it isnt the U.S. demand for inspections that Iran is refusing to comply with, its the UN/IAEA. But why would this sorry excuse for a human know or mention that little "fact"?
Our remaining handful of soldiers? The estimated strength of Army, NG and Reserve is over One million. That doesnt include the Marines which increases that number by over 200,000.
Despite what the media and imbeciles like Abba try to propagate, the truth is we have very good relations with the large majority of nations on earth and they continue to look at us as an inspiration. So much for ZERO credibility.
Abba, you really arent worth debating because you dont use facts, you use dramatic myths and misnomers. Juvenile. |
|
|
| fastfingersfunk |
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
But Stonewall... the same could be said of several other regimes that we actively support and do business with.
It is insane to treat Iran differently than a country like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. |
its insane to say its insane to treat your allies and enemies the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
