Some wars need to be fought

[tigerbob]

I'm not convinced there's been a war since the Revolutionary War that we've needed to fight.

Well, nobody ever really needs to fight a war, do they? It all comes down to whether one considers one's way of life to be valuable enough to fight for, or whether one considers allies to be expendable.

America is defended primarily not by any super-weapon, missile or plane. It is defended by several thousand miles of water, making the invasion of America extremely unlikely until foreign powers are able to 'beam' armies to their desired combat zone a la Star Trek. As such, one has to ask where one draws the line. Is it, for example, planes flying into the WTC? Or planes bombing Pearl Harbor? Nether event in isolation is going to result in the USA being overrun.

As I said, nobody needs to fight a war. It is always possible to capitulate instantly to the demands of anyone who is more militaristically minded. Like the Brits were 200 years ago.

I'm not convinced our way of life has been threatened since the Revolutionary War.

I won't try to convince you, but I certainly disagree.

 

[Xenophon]

Every war ever fought was a 'war of choice'.

The choices simply change.

The USA has no need to fight anyone, enough with the Imperial policeman FDR shit.

 

[sealybobo]

Some wars need to be fought

If we would have not got into the Revolutionary war... ....would that have worked well?

If we would have stayed out of World War II...........would that have worked well?

According to the liberals leader Obama, the war with Iraq was a war of choice and it worked well getting rid of Saddam.

So, when Obama says we don't want to meddle in with Iran, tells us that the liberals don't really understand that some wars need to be fought. Their analogy is that don't confront that mad-man because we don't want to make them mad at us.

You're a God Damned Fool, no two ways around it.

Nam, unnecessary
Iraq 1, not necessary
Kosovo (necessary because Clinton said so) But GOP said wag the dog.
Iraq 2, total blunder.

We haven't faught a necessary war since WW2 you fucking idiot. You need to die for oil. We will remember you, for about a day. And then we will continue to live for 60 more years and you'll be dead, for Hunt Oil and Blackwater and PNAC you stupid cock sucker.

I get so made because you are a piece of shit American. PLEASE go die for me. Please go and think you are going to die for my freedom. Stupid bitch.

Obama is handling Iran perfectly. You want to war with them? You're insane. Bring on the debate you ignorant bastard.

Man, the GOP used to be really good at picking their battles. Today, they're on the wrong side of every single issue. I should love it.

 

[sealybobo]

Every war ever fought was a 'war of choice'.

The choices simply change.

The USA has no need to fight anyone, enough with the Imperial policeman FDR shit.

The Iatola said Britain was enemy number 1. Jon Stewart was so happy that we were no longer number one, but then the British guy on the Daily Show was upset. Funny stuff.

But they still chanted Death To America.

So now the American Right Wingers should see how similar they are to the hard liners in Iran. The ones backing Amadenijad are the neo con's of Iran. They are the elite. They are the rich. They are the good old boys.

Now you see that 2/3'rds of Iran are people just like us liberal democrats. The majority.

And like in Iran, we don't have control of the voting machines.

The only difference in America is that the GOP didn't have the balls to steal a landslide election. They could steal the close ones against Gore and Kerry, but there would have been massive riots here too had they stolen the 09 election. Bloodshed too.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

do you truly believe that we, the USA alone, should send our men and women to die in droves... in a war with a heavily armed, militaristic iran, because of all of this going on in their country with their election?

what are you, empirialistic and cold as ice at the same time? No one in our military should be forced to fight and die in a war that has nothing to do with our own imminent danger or safety imo!

THE rebellion WITHIN this country, IS the BEGINNING of well needed change, that THEY WANT....the beginnings of a revolution....that will some day, play out.

CARE is right!

It's not like there is any evidence that where Thugs are allowed to thumb their nose at the rest of the world that if just left to their own devices, that they'll cause any real problems...

I'm sure that Iran, who's swore to annihilate Israel will not use their looming Nuclear capability to the detriment of the free world... I mean just because they lead by the insane loons of Islam, and have fostered international terrorism against every free nation on earth that we've nothing to worry about and likely will not suffer any problems from a heavily armed nation of radical Islamics... They're a peaceful people, just like us...

And besides, our glorious leader is preparing to open their clinched fist and hold hands with them... what bad can come from that?

I mean it's unlikely that all this 'peace in our time' crap will turn on US, as it has always done in the past to everyone whose ever tried it... and there's simply no reason to believe that Radical Islam is not comprised of reasonable people who want the same thing as we want.

So don't sweat it...

And I'm sure that all those who are demanding that we just let the Islamic world do what they want will be perfectly prepared to accept responsibility for their position, should it turn out that their advocacy turns to catastrophe...

Be cool... no one is out to get us man... don't be so paranoid.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So, when Obama says we don't want to meddle in with Iran, tells us that the liberals don't really understand that some wars need to be fought. Their analogy is that don't confront that mad-man because we don't want to make them mad at us.

I think some trigger-happy "conservatives" should understand that not every war has to be fought.

FFS, if America has had trouble taming Iraq, it will be 10x worse in Iran.

ROFLMNAO...

Oh yeah... thats right, because Iran is like THE FOURTH LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD!

LOL... (remember that one kids? Always a gas.)

Iran fought IT'S NEIGHBOR, Iraq for a DECADE... and managed to conclude that contest with a rather undecisive tie...

Now we managed to fly forces half way around the planet and take Iraq in 100Hours the first time and in a few weeks the second time, despite the administration foolishly deciding to take to the battle, essentially up one highway from Kuwait.

So, while we are all aware of the immense power of the battle hardened Iranians... It' unlikely that in a given contest, that they'd amount to much more of a fight than the Iraqis...

Their Airforce would splat just as quickly as the Iraqi AF did, their Missile defense system would go down just as quickly, if not quicker than the Iraqis... and their tanks would toast up under the Abrams and A-10s just as quickly as the Iraqis... and their Army would crumble under the loss of central command, just as did the Iraqis...

But we've got no business entering any war with Iran, if we intend to just remove the government... if we're not prepared to wage war in the Iranian people... forget it.

Let them make the first strike and when we're prepared to wage war on the WHOLE nation, until that nation surrenders unconditionally; until it no longer possesses the collective will to struggle... leave then the hell alone.

No more wars to remove a government and prop up a people who lack the balls to do so themselves.

Which shouldn't be interpreted to mean that we don't reserve the right to kick them in the balls when necessary, towards helping them to better understand their place in the international community... But ground troops pounding towards Tehran? Not until we'r prepared to take down anyone that standing without a white flag in their hands when we get there.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

So, when Obama says we don't want to meddle in with Iran, tells us that the liberals don't really understand that some wars need to be fought. Their analogy is that don't confront that mad-man because we don't want to make them mad at us.

I think some trigger-happy "conservatives" should understand that not every war has to be fought.

FFS, if America has had trouble taming Iraq, it will be 10x worse in Iran.

ROFLMNAO...

Oh yeah... thats right, because Iran is like THE FOURTH LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD!

LOL... (remember that one kids? Always a gas.)

Iran fought IT'S NEIGHBOR, Iraq for a DECADE... and managed to conclude that contest with a rather undecisive tie...

Now we managed to fly forces half way around the planet and take Iraq in 100Hours the first time and in a few weeks the second time, despite the administration foolishly deciding to take to the battle, essentially up one highway from Kuwait.

So, while we are all aware of the immense power of the battle hardened Iranians... It' unlikely that in a given contest, that they'd amount to much more of a fight than the Iraqis...

Their Airforce would splat just as quickly as the Iraqi AF did, their Missile defense system would go down just as quickly, if not quicker than the Iraqis... and their tanks would toast up under the Abrams and A-10s just as quickly as the Iraqis... and their Army would crumble under the loss of central command, just as did the Iraqis...

Yeah, because everybody knows that once the Iraqi Army was defeated, the war was over.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I think some trigger-happy "conservatives" should understand that not every war has to be fought.

FFS, if America has had trouble taming Iraq, it will be 10x worse in Iran.

ROFLMNAO...

Oh yeah... thats right, because Iran is like THE FOURTH LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD!

LOL... (remember that one kids? Always a gas.)

Iran fought IT'S NEIGHBOR, Iraq for a DECADE... and managed to conclude that contest with a rather undecisive tie...

Now we managed to fly forces half way around the planet and take Iraq in 100Hours the first time and in a few weeks the second time, despite the administration foolishly deciding to take to the battle, essentially up one highway from Kuwait.

So, while we are all aware of the immense power of the battle hardened Iranians... It' unlikely that in a given contest, that they'd amount to much more of a fight than the Iraqis...

Their Airforce would splat just as quickly as the Iraqi AF did, their Missile defense system would go down just as quickly, if not quicker than the Iraqis... and their tanks would toast up under the Abrams and A-10s just as quickly as the Iraqis... and their Army would crumble under the loss of central command, just as did the Iraqis...

Yeah, because everybody knows that once the Iraqi Army was defeated, the war was over.

ROFL... The Iraqi army was defeated and the war was over... I think you're probably confusing the war with the post war insurgency which came as a result of the President's failure to declare war on the NATION of IRAQ in it's entirety...

Again, let's remember that he wanted to run a kindler, gentler war, wherein he allowed the defeated Army of Iraq to simply melt into the general population.

The post to which you're responding, specifically asserted that we should not engage in any war with Iran, unless and until we are prepared to go to war with Iran ENTIRELY...

Where the Military of Iran would be eviscerated, the will of it's people crushed and where hostilities would not cease until there remained no desire among anyone in Iran to attack anyone else.

Had Bush done so in Iraq, we'd have likely been out of there by mid 05... and there'd have been 'no insurgency'...