Warning Iran

[Diuretic]

I noticed

So it's not true after all...Americans really do understand irony...damn, another cherished stereotype bites the dust (courtesy of a cherished cliche)

 

[doniston]

LOL...

Begs the question: How many nukes should Iran be allowed to use before any other nation is justified in retaliating?

A better question would be, How much proof do we need that Iran is even trying to produce, or otherwise obtain Nuke weapons BEFORE we are justified in invading or erroneously retailiating against them (and presently, our imagination). Thus far we have NO such Proof.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A better question would be, How much proof do we need that Iran is even trying to produce, or otherwise obtain Nuke weapons BEFORE we are justified in invading or erroneously retailiating against them (and presently, our imagination). Thus far we have NO such Proof.

Yup France, Germany, England , Italy and all the Euro nations are wrong, or being duped by that master sleuth President Bush. The UN is also being duped as well. Ya sure thing.

 

[Paulie]

I must make a note here. Any "air strikes" or limited insertions into Iran, any direct attack on them will result in them attacking us directly in Iraq. IF we plan to bomb them we damn sure better be able to degrade their military to ineffective or we will be in a shooting war with their army in Iraq.

And that wouldn't be the least bit convenient for the Bush administration?

Air strikes alone don't benefit the admin...but the counter-attack by Iran does, in that it would eventually lead to us being able to accomplish invading and occupying them as well.

You just don't get it, Sarge. And i can't figure out how you don't, being that you have served in the military...The middle east is such a key geo-political area, in so many ways. We control Afghanistan, and Iraq...but there is someone in between those 2 who does not play ball, and oil and gas trade routes from Asia to Europe are hampered by that pesky little Ahmadinejad and his "non US-friendly" country.

You already have half of it figured out...we couldn't possibly JUST bomb a bunch of sites in Iran without engaging them into a full-out war.

But you go ahead and believe what you want. Eventually people are going to see that the Middle East is a prize the US will never give up on acquiring.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And that wouldn't be the least bit convenient for the Bush administration?

Air strikes alone don't benefit the admin...but the counter-attack by Iran does, in that it would eventually lead to us being able to accomplish invading and occupying them as well.

You just don't get it, Sarge. And i can't figure out how you don't, being that you have served in the military...The middle east is such a key geo-political area, in so many ways. We control Afghanistan, and Iraq...but there is someone in between those 2 who does not play ball, and oil and gas trade routes from Asia to Europe are hampered by that pesky little Ahmadinejad and his "non US-friendly" country.

You already have half of it figured out...we couldn't possibly JUST bomb a bunch of sites in Iran without engaging them into a full-out war.

But you go ahead and believe what you want. Eventually people are going to see that the Middle East is a prize the US will never give up on acquiring.

We do not have the capability to invade and occupy Iran, and no one in this government thinks we do. That is pure BULLSHIT.

 

[Paulie]

By next year they might have the capabilities to fit nuclear warheads in their Shahab range of missiles.

Where do you people get the information that leads you to come to these stupid fucking conclusions?

The IAEA has said that IF, and that's a big IF, Iran really is trying to produce nuclear weapons, they're "5-10 years away" from having something functional.

No one else who has the relevant credentials has said anything different.

It's only the fear-mongering war-hawks who say Iran will be nuking Israel by next year.

It's a baseless claim, and it's fucking beyond me how people buy into it.

They can threaten the strategic Straits Of Hormuz and disrupt oil supplies.

Who's oil supplies? THEIR OWN? Iran can do whatever the fuck they want with their own oil.

How about i come to your house and tell you that you are no longer allowed to drive your car down your own street, to your own house, to bring groceries in.

I'll bring a couple M-60's and RPG's with me just to make sure you can't argue with me.

Come on dude. You have no clue what you are talking about...stop listening to MSM talking heads try to teach you geo-politics.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where do you people get the information that leads you to come to these stupid fucking conclusions?

The IAEA has said that IF, and that's a big IF, Iran really is trying to produce nuclear weapons, they're "5-10 years away" from having something functional.

No one else who has the relevant credentials has said anything different.

It's only the fear-mongering war-hawks who say Iran will be nuking Israel by next year.

It's a baseless claim, and it's fucking beyond me how people buy into it.



Who's oil supplies? THEIR OWN? Iran can do whatever the fuck they want with their own oil.

How about i come to your house and tell you that you are no longer allowed to drive your car down your own street, to your own house, to bring groceries in.

I'll bring a couple M-60's and RPG's with me just to make sure you can't argue with me.

Come on dude. You have no clue what you are talking about...stop listening to MSM talking heads try to teach you geo-politics.

Actually from what I have read several countries in Europe believe Iran may have a bomb in 2 to 3 years, though the US believes 2015 is the earlyest likely time frame.

 

[Paulie]

We do not have the capability to invade and occupy Iran, and no one in this government thinks we do. That is pure BULLSHIT.

RGS, I already know that. As sad as it is that we would get embarrassed militarily by such a petty little "islamofascist" nation, we might still actually engage them by bombing their supposed nuclear facilities.

You might THINK that i want us to do it so i can say i was right, but i don't. Matter of fact, i PRAY that we leave them alone. I understand the consequences internationally if we were to do something like that.

But such a campaign is NOT off the table, so that means that Bush and Cheney are willing to risk it.

If they're so sure that Iran is trying to build nuke weapons, why don't they just fucking DO IT ALREADY? Quit rattling the already weak and over-extended sabre and just fucking DO IT.

If it's just to put the fear in Iran, it really doesn't seem to be working now does it? And nor should it. What would it say to the people of Iran if their president backed down to Bush? The majority of the Arab world hates Bush as it is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS, I already know that. As sad as it is that we would get embarrassed militarily by such a petty little "islamofascist" nation, we might still actually engage them by bombing their supposed nuclear facilities.

You might THINK that i want us to do it so i can say i was right, but i don't. Matter of fact, i PRAY that we leave them alone. I understand the consequences internationally if we were to do something like that.

But such a campaign is NOT off the table, so that means that Bush and Cheney are willing to risk it.

If they're so sure that Iran is trying to build nuke weapons, why don't they just fucking DO IT ALREADY? Quit rattling the already weak and over-extended sabre and just fucking DO IT.

If it's just to put the fear in Iran, it really doesn't seem to be working now does it? And nor should it. What would it say to the people of Iran if their president backed down to Bush? The majority of the Arab world hates Bush as it is.

It keeps the Europeans active and prevents them from just appeasing Iran.

 

[Paulie]

This is my bottom line...

Rule of Law for hundreds of years has always stated that engaging a would-be enemy in self defense PRE-EMPTIVELY, requires that the threat be IMMINENT.

Meaning, in this case, the nukes are built, they are fashioned to a missile, and they are aimed at us with someone at their controls ready to push the proverbial button, or turn the proverbial key.

Sound familiar?

I didn't see us pre-emptively invading the soviet union. They were a monster of their own, i'll admit it, which would have made it foolish to do so...but CUBA WASN'T. Cuba is pretty proportional to Iran, so why instead of scaring the shit out of the American public for so long about possible nuclear missiles coming at us, didn't they just pre-emptively invade them? The threat was IMMINENT.

It is most certainly NOT, now...and that includes Iraq, as well.

I find it to be severly dis-heartening that so many Americans are actually ok with the idea that we can just bomb whatever countries we don't agree with now...just because they're Arab, and could supposedly acquire a couple nuclear weapons that in 10 or 15 years may somehow be used against the US or it's interests.

The CIA has more then enough ability to covertly keep tabs on the military activities of a nation...we did with the soviets, and we most certainly could with a country like Iran.

All this said though...whats wrong with a little diplomacy? We won't even TALK to Iran. That's ridiculous.

What's Bush so afraid of? Being accused by Ahmadinejad of being involved in 9/11?

What a fucking little pussy.

 

[Gunny]

And that wouldn't be the least bit convenient for the Bush administration?

Air strikes alone don't benefit the admin...but the counter-attack by Iran does, in that it would eventually lead to us being able to accomplish invading and occupying them as well.

You just don't get it, Sarge. And i can't figure out how you don't, being that you have served in the military...The middle east is such a key geo-political area, in so many ways. We control Afghanistan, and Iraq...but there is someone in between those 2 who does not play ball, and oil and gas trade routes from Asia to Europe are hampered by that pesky little Ahmadinejad and his "non US-friendly" country.

You already have half of it figured out...we couldn't possibly JUST bomb a bunch of sites in Iran without engaging them into a full-out war.

But you go ahead and believe what you want. Eventually people are going to see that the Middle East is a prize the US will never give up on acquiring.

Tell me I DIDN'T just see you address a Marine Gunnery Sergeant as a f-ing "sarge" ....

How is anyone supposed to "get" your speculation?

 

[Paulie]

Tell me I DIDN'T just see you address a Marine Gunnery Sergeant as a f-ing "sarge" ....

How is anyone supposed to "get" your speculation?

get off your high horse. Even in the Air Force, "sarge" is considered taboo.

It was meant to be facetious.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Yup France, Germany, England , Italy and all the Euro nations are wrong, or being duped by that master sleuth President Bush. The UN is also being duped as well. Ya sure thing.

Is your normal M.O. on this board to lie and lie and repeat the same lie over and over?

I've already given you the link to the UN IAEA, in which they have never stated there's any proof Iran is building a bomb. The issue is about transparency and inspections. There's reason to suspect Iran; but there's no proof of a nuclear weapons program.

 

[Gunny]

get off your high horse. Even in the Air Force, "sarge" is considered taboo.

It was meant to be facetious.

Let me get this straight ... you act like a jackass and I'm on a high horse? I think not. It's an insult, and whatever benefit of doubt you HAD just went out the window with your admitting to knowing so.

 

[Gunny]

Is your normal M.O. on this board to lie and lie and repeat the same lie over and over?

I've already given you the link to the UN IAEA, in which they have never stated there's any proof Iran is building a bomb. The issue is about transparency and inspections. There's reason to suspect Iran; but there's no proof of a nuclear weapons program.

How is he lying? This is the same IAEA that said Saddam had no WMDs, right? The same IAEA that STILL has not reconciled where all the WMDs Saddam has on record with them as being in his possession? The same Saddam who gassed Kurds and Iranians?

But you're going to stick to the blind leading the blind just because you hate Bush, right? Or is it that you just hate all Republicans and/or conservatives?

Anyone who thinks Iran is going to gain nuclear power and NOT develop nuclear weapons needs a reality check. Only by doing it your way, "I told you so" doesn't seem like nearly enough when it's too late. Does it?

 

[DeadCanDance]

How is he lying? This is the same IAEA that said Saddam had no WMDs, right? The same IAEA that STILL has not reconciled where all the WMDs Saddam has on record with them as being in his possession? The same Saddam who gassed Kurds and Iranians?

But you're going to stick to the blind leading the blind just because you hate Bush, right? Or is it that you just hate all Republicans and/or conservatives?

Anyone who thinks Iran is going to gain nuclear power and NOT develop nuclear weapons needs a reality check. Only by doing it your way, "I told you so" doesn't seem like nearly enough when it's too late. Does it?

If you'd turn off the rush limbaugh show, you might learn that IAEA are nuclear inspectors. They inspect nukes. They don't do chem bio weapons.

Everything IAEA said before Bush invaded Iraq, was TRUE: There was no evidence saddam had a nuke weapons program. And IAEA was stone cold right about that. In contrast, to Bush and his supporters who said Iraq had a nuke weapons program.

IAEA: 1 Bush Supporters: 0


I'll be trusting the IAEA from now on, not Bush.

 

[Gunny]

If you'd turn off the rush limbaugh show, you might learn that IAEA are nuclear inspectors. They inspect nukes. They don't do chem bio weapons.

Everything IAEA said before Bush invaded Iraq, was TRUE: There was no evidence saddam had a nuke weapons program. And IAEA was stone cold right about that. In contrast, to Bush and his supporters who said Iraq had a nuke weapons program.

IAEA: 1 Bush Supporters: 0


I'll be trusting the IAEA from now on, not Bush.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. Think I've been around where he was on two-maybe-three times, so try again.

You can call them IAEA, or Hans Blix, or whoever you choose. The fact is, Saddam was accused of having WMDs, and he did. I did not include nukes in "WMD's" ... the media did. In the military they are referred to as nuclear, checmical and biological weapons, and specifically identified.

No matter what you choose to call the lackeys of the UN, only some on the left/Bush haters appear to have faith in their ability to do a damned thing. I'd as soon trust the 3 years old next door to tell me whether or not Iran had nukes as trust any of these completely ball-less, paper tiger international committees on jerking off.

edit: I haven't told anyone to trust Bush. You're making it an either or. I trust the facts, logic and common sense before I trust any one person or agency. None of them support your argument.

 

[Paulie]

Let me get this straight ... you act like a jackass and I'm on a high horse? I think not. It's an insult, and whatever benefit of doubt you HAD just went out the window with your admitting to knowing so.

You know, to tell you the truth, you're about a month late on this subject anyway. I've had multiple exchanges with RGS since I've been a member, and while referring to him sometimes as "sarge", I've also referred to him as RGS, and the more proper "Sargeant", as well, as I have also served in the military. It just depends on how playful a mood i'm in at the time. Even he HIMSELF has never bitched about it, because i'm sure he realized the nature of it, and the fact that I'm not a Marine, and not one of his subordinates. So you would do well to just mind your own business about that part of the discussion...especially since you weren't even involved to begin with.

You constantly talk down to anyone on here who you don't agree with, and carry an attitude that your opinions are the only RIGHT ones. It's pretty ridiculous, really...your condescending nature at least, anyway. Especially since you are a mod. I mean, I believe MY opinions are the only right ones, but you don't see me labelling everyone who doesn't share them as "kooks" or "nuts", or in need of meds.

I don't personally have a problem with anyone on this board, probably because I don't KNOW anyone on this board. Differing political views ALONE are just not enough to decide I don't like someone. Not even RGS, not even RSR, and not even you.

I hope we've cleared up this stupid ass exchange.

 

[Gunny]

You know, to tell you the truth, you're about a month late on this subject anyway. I've had multiple exchanges with RGS since I've been a member, and while referring to him sometimes as "sarge", I've also referred to him as RGS, and the more proper "Sargeant", as well, as I have also served in the military. It just depends on how playful a mood i'm in at the time. Even he HIMSELF has never bitched about it, because i'm sure he realized the nature of it, and the fact that I'm not a Marine, and not one of his subordinates. So you would do well to just mind your own business about that part of the discussion...especially since you weren't even involved to begin with.

You constantly talk down to anyone on here who you don't agree with, and carry an attitude that your opinions are the only RIGHT ones. It's pretty ridiculous, really...your condescending nature at least, anyway. Especially since you are a mod. I mean, I believe MY opinions are the only right ones, but you don't see me labelling everyone who doesn't share them as "kooks" or "nuts", or in need of meds.

I don't personally have a problem with anyone on this board, probably because I don't KNOW anyone on this board. Differing political views ALONE are just not enough to decide I don't like someone. Not even RGS, not even RSR, and not even you.

I hope we've cleared up this stupid ass exchange.

Doesn't look very clear to me, but let me help you out.

I will post whatever I want, wherever I want and whenever I want. Oh, and I've been saying that since YEARS before I was a mod, so you can try to work THAT crutch elsewhere.

If you don't like my posting style, don't read it. Personally, I think you're full of shit and your accusations baseless.

Who you do and do not like, or have a personal problem with doesn't mean jack to me.

btw ... until you decided to respond with a smartass. condescending remark of your own, my original comment to you was in jest. So YOU called this dance, not me.

Hope THAT clears it up for YOU.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You know, to tell you the truth, you're about a month late on this subject anyway. I've had multiple exchanges with RGS since I've been a member, and while referring to him sometimes as "sarge", I've also referred to him as RGS, and the more proper "Sargeant", as well, as I have also served in the military. It just depends on how playful a mood i'm in at the time. Even he HIMSELF has never bitched about it, because i'm sure he realized the nature of it, and the fact that I'm not a Marine, and not one of his subordinates. So you would do well to just mind your own business about that part of the discussion...especially since you weren't even involved to begin with.

You constantly talk down to anyone on here who you don't agree with, and carry an attitude that your opinions are the only RIGHT ones. It's pretty ridiculous, really...your condescending nature at least, anyway. Especially since you are a mod. I mean, I believe MY opinions are the only right ones, but you don't see me labelling everyone who doesn't share them as "kooks" or "nuts", or in need of meds.

I don't personally have a problem with anyone on this board, probably because I don't KNOW anyone on this board. Differing political views ALONE are just not enough to decide I don't like someone. Not even RGS, not even RSR, and not even you.

I hope we've cleared up this stupid ass exchange.

It bothers me, but I am not active duty nor are you, so I let it go. It is not worth fighting over. When I was a Marine SSGT on an Army base you can bet I did not let army troops call me Sgt. Nor did any of the GySgts or MSgts. In fact I never called an army SSGT , SFC or MSgt Sgt either.

Your right it is petty in most threads to bring it up, we have other more important things to argue about. But that is my take on it, I can see why Gunny L would have a different one.