Thank G_d It Can't Be Proved!

[CTRLALTDEL]

We are NOT stretched -- except in the old-fashioned military sense. It's time our military stop fighting with its hands tied behind its back if we truly wish to win. We have the most advanced military machine in the world, yet we continue to fight a war matching their lowly conventional level. Our vast air power sits idly by while we send in foot soldiers.

We could end things next week if we only had the political will. Instead we are allowing the enemy time to develop modern weapons equal to ours which will end in a much more devastating war between two nuclear powers.

I agree with SE. The only way to save/liberate the Iraqis is to KILL THEM ALL with Carpet bombs. If we can't win thier hearts and minds.........LET'S CARVE IT OUT AND TAKE IT.

 

[Bullypulpit]

we are at the breaking point because of political correctness, where the truth is suppressed in the hopes of not offending others. We are engaging a wwI style war, over in iraq, and along our troops to be used as target practice because to some americans, its better our boys die, then innocent iraqis, and the terrorists who hide out among them, mean while, the terrorists are killing the innocent iraqis, so, either we can save some of the innocent iraqis, or let um all die, by having no political will.

Political correctness has nothing to do with this. What does bear directly on the situation in Iraq, however, is the Bush administration's mishandling of Iraq from the first air-strikes to the utter lack of foresight and planning with regards to the occupation.

Responsibility for the situation in Iraq, with out troops caught in the middle of an increasingly bloody civil war, lies nowhere but at the feet of George W. Bush and his cabinet. It was they who decided, on the flimsiest of intelligence, to launch a war of aggression against a nation which, by all accounts including their own in 2001, posed no threat to anyone beyond its own borders. It was President Bush and his cabinet, who disregarded the recommendations of its commanders and went in with too few troops to secure the peace once the war was won. It was President Bush and his cabinet who appointed the US administrators in Iraq based on their loyalty to party and president rather than competence in those areas needed for reconstructing Iraq's infrastructure. It was President Bush and his cabinet who failed our troops in the field and the Iraqi people...Not the Democrats...Not Bill Clinton...Nor anyone else they and their supporters may try to blame.

The callous disregard shown by President Bush and his cabinet for the sacrifices made by our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and their families in the course of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is matched only by their disconnect from reality and their insistence on a military victory which even their top commanders say is no longer possible.

Political correctness is not the issue here. Incompetence and malfeasance on the part of George W. Bush and his cabinet are.

 

[akiboy]

There is nothing one can do about Iran acquiring a nuke within a few years. The U.N wont be able to do a thing. Nor will the Chinese or the Russians lift a finger. AS One Domino pointed out if the U.S ignores Iran now later Iran might have a nuclear missile which could threaten U.S bases in the region as well as traditional U.S allies. And if an Islamic coup takes place in that nation(the chances are very high) then there would be a rain of missiles towards Tel Aviv. And a terror group might acquire the weapons and start off a "Holy War" and crap like that trying to screw themselves as well as the world.

 

[onedomino]

Political correctness has nothing to do with this. What does bear directly on the situation in Iraq, however, is the Bush administration's mishandling of Iraq from the first air-strikes to the utter lack of foresight and planning with regards to the occupation.

Responsibility for the situation in Iraq, with out troops caught in the middle of an increasingly bloody civil war, lies nowhere but at the feet of George W. Bush and his cabinet. It was they who decided, on the flimsiest of intelligence, to launch a war of aggression against a nation which, by all accounts including their own in 2001, posed no threat to anyone beyond its own borders. It was President Bush and his cabinet, who disregarded the recommendations of its commanders and went in with too few troops to secure the peace once the war was won. It was President Bush and his cabinet who appointed the US administrators in Iraq based on their loyalty to party and president rather than competence in those areas needed for reconstructing Iraq's infrastructure. It was President Bush and his cabinet who failed our troops in the field and the Iraqi people...Not the Democrats...Not Bill Clinton...Nor anyone else they and their supporters may try to blame.

The callous disregard shown by President Bush and his cabinet for the sacrifices made by our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and their families in the course of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is matched only by their disconnect from reality and their insistence on a military victory which even their top commanders say is no longer possible.

Political correctness is not the issue here. Incompetence and malfeasance on the part of George W. Bush and his cabinet are.

Bully, you are big on assigning blame and microscopic on suggesting solutions. Regarding Iran, I will ask you again: when negotiations and sanctions fail, what do we do then? Maybe you actually believe that the Mullahs are enriching uranium only for electric power generation. Almost all analysts believe otherwise. Do we take out the Mullahs and their nuke weapons program, or do we let them have nuclear weapons so they can terrorize everyone within 3000km of Tehran and possibly deliver weapons to the likes of Hezbollah? Or would you suggest that we rely on mutually assured destruction, as we did with the Soviets? Would you bet Civilization on the rationality of violent religious fanatics? Should we get the UN to pass a resolution asking the Iranians not shoot their nukes at anyone? Bully, let’s hear your suggestions for what we should do if negotiations and sanctions fail to stop Iranian unranium enrichment.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, you are big on assigning blame and microscopic on suggesting solutions. Regarding Iran, I will ask you again: when negotiations and sanctions fail, what do we do then? Maybe you actually believe that the Mullahs are enriching uranium only for electric power generation. Almost all analysts believe otherwise. Do we take out the Mullahs and their nuke weapons program, or do we let them have nuclear weapons so they can terrorize everyone within 3000km of Tehran and possibly deliver weapons to the likes of Hezbollah? Or would you suggest that we rely on mutually assured destruction, as we did with the Soviets? Would you bet Civilization on the rationality of violent religious fanatics? Should we get the UN to pass a resolution asking the Iranians not shoot their nukes at anyone? Bully, let’s hear your suggestions for what we should do if negotiations and sanctions fail to stop Iranian unranium enrichment.

You are assuming that negotiations will fail. What is the basis of that assumption, beyond the Bush administration's rhetoric?

 

[Chips Rafferty]

We are NOT stretched -- except in the old-fashioned military sense. It's time our military stop fighting with its hands tied behind its back if we truly wish to win. We have the most advanced military machine in the world, yet we continue to fight a war matching their lowly conventional level. Our vast air power sits idly by while we send in foot soldiers.

We could end things next week if we only had the political will. Instead we are allowing the enemy time to develop modern weapons equal to ours which will end in a much more devastating war between two nuclear powers.

Oh I don't know. In the 1945 to 1989 era, most of which America wasn't militarily stretched in the slightest, it always found an excuse not to take out the "evil" atheistic "Chicoms" and Russians, despite countless cases of casus belli justifying it to do so.

During this time, both the USSR and China developed WMD and threatened and/or invaded tyrannical regimes friendly to America, as satanic Saddam did to “poor little” Kuwait.

Just as America never hesitated to heroically "kick ass" in powerless Lilliputian coral atolls and basket-case countries. Or overthrow sickeningly sycophantic satraps like AUStralia, whenever they dared to FREELY elect a supposed soshallust government.

In fact, even John Wayne’s Gratingest Generation only ran defence for China and Russia while they overcame the “evil” Japs and Krauts in WW2.

 

[onedomino]

You are assuming that negotiations will fail. What is the basis of that assumption, beyond the Bush administration's rhetoric?

You answer a question with a question? Cute. This might come as shock to you, but not everything is about Bush. The Iranian nuclear weapons program existed before Bush and will exist after he is no longer President. In response to your question, I am not assuming that negotiations will fail. There might be some level of extortion and appeasement that will succeed. It is the Iranians, however, that say it is their legitimate right to possess the “full nuclear fuel cycle,” and this means uranium enrichment. Moreover they insist they are determined to achieve this. It is transparently obvious they are hell-bent on obtaining nukes: to the point of sneering at two sets of UNSC sanctions thus far. There is nothing that the terrorist regime in Tehran wants more than nuclear weapons because they will ensure its survival. Further, the Iranians will then be free to set Hezbollah on any course they want because no degree of conventional military threat will mean anything.

Bully, please answer the question I asked. Assume that negotiations and sanctions do not deter the Iranians. What then?

 

[Bullypulpit]

You answer a question with a question? Cute. This might come as shock to you, but not everything is about Bush. The Iranian nuclear weapons program existed before Bush and will exist after he is no longer President. In response to your question, I am not assuming that negotiations will fail. There might be some level of extortion and appeasement that will succeed. It is the Iranians, however, that say it is their legitimate right to possess the “full nuclear fuel cycle,” and this means uranium enrichment. Moreover they insist they are determined to achieve this. It is transparently obvious they are hell-bent on obtaining nukes: to the point of sneering at two sets of UNSC sanctions thus far. There is nothing that the terrorist regime in Tehran wants more than nuclear weapons because they will ensure its survival. Further, the Iranians will then be free to set Hezbollah on any course they want because no degree of conventional military threat will mean anything.

Bully, please answer the question I asked. Assume that negotiations and sanctions do not deter the Iranians. What then?

In the long term, there is no reason to assume such talks will fail. Regardless of whether they succeed or fail, is irrelevant. What happens afterwards is. Five or ten years down the road, the political picture in America will, hopefully, have changed for the better...As in less bellicose and more given to thoughtful, reasoned action than the current. This will, in turn lead Iran to return to the path of moderation it was on before Bush started babbling about his "Axis of Evil". Iran will then be more amenable to opening its facilities to IAEA inspection.

As for Hezbollah, they have been caught up in the political process and as a result, they will become less and less the revolutionary organization and more and more the political one. We need look no further than the PLO for proof of that pudding. Once revolutionaries have tasted the sweet fruit of political power, the harsh ways of their revolutionary past seem but a distant and disturbing memory.

 

[onedomino]

In the long term, there is no reason to assume such talks will fail. Regardless of whether they succeed or fail, is irrelevant. What happens afterwards is. Five or ten years down the road, the political picture in America will, hopefully, have changed for the better...As in less bellicose and more given to thoughtful, reasoned action than the current. This will, in turn lead Iran to return to the path of moderation it was on before Bush started babbling about his "Axis of Evil". Iran will then be more amenable to opening its facilities to IAEA inspection.

As for Hezbollah, they have been caught up in the political process and as a result, they will become less and less the revolutionary organization and more and more the political one. We need look no further than the PLO for proof of that pudding. Once revolutionaries have tasted the sweet fruit of political power, the harsh ways of their revolutionary past seem but a distant and disturbing memory.

In this thread, I challenged you three times to answer the question: Assume that negotiations and sanctions do not deter the Iranians. What then? The first time you ignored the question. The second time you answered the question with a question. The third time you gave a non-answer that included the statement that Iran might "return to the path of moderation." Implying that Iran had at one point been on such a path. Absurd. Anyway, Bully, I will not waste time asking you to answer the question a fourth time. You win. I give up.

 

[Bullypulpit]

In this thread, I challenged you three times to answer the question: Assume that negotiations and sanctions do not deter the Iranians. What then? The first time you ignored the question. The second time you answered the question with a question. The third time you gave a non-answer that included the statement that Iran might "return to the path of moderation." Implying that Iran had at one point been on such a path. Absurd. Anyway, Bully, I will not waste time asking you to answer the question a fourth time. You win. I give up.

If you can make absurd assumptions, so can I. But in the 1990's, under President Hashemi Rafsanjani, there was a real moderating of the hard line mullah's working towards economic reforms and a more diplomatic approach to foreign relations. None of which was aided by the Clinton administration's failure to back these moderating influences.

 

[onedomino]

If you can make absurd assumptions, so can I. But in the 1990's, under President Hashemi Rafsanjani, there was a real moderating of the hard line mullah's working towards economic reforms and a more diplomatic approach to foreign relations. None of which was aided by the Clinton administration's failure to back these moderating influences.

Why is it an absurd assumption that Iran will disregard negotiations and sanctions and continue its drive to obtain nuclear weapons? Iran sees the possession of nuclear weapons as a guarantor of the future of the theocracy. I thought you opposed theocracies. What would be absurd is having no action plan if Iran continues its development of the "fuel nuclear fuel cycle," i.e., nuclear weapons. Your admiration for Rafsanjani is remarkably ill-informed:

1991
Iranian nuclear physicist and senior intelligence officer of the Iranian General Command headquarters, Dr. Mahdi Chamran, visits Kazakhstan. While in Kazakhstan, Chamran supposedly meets with a high-ranking Kazakh official with access to both the Kurchatov Institute (Moscow) and the Semipalatinsk nuclear test and development site. Upon his return to Iran, Chamran reports to the office of President Hashemi-Rafsanjani. Chamran tells Rafsanjani that if Iran so desired, it could renew its efforts to procure nuclear weapons. According to a US House of Representative report on Iran's strategy and nuclear capabilities, Rafsanjani convenes a "high-level commission to study the validity of the offer, and if found viable, means to implement it." http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/1825_1864.html

Check out the NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative) website founded by Ted Turner and Sam Nunn (severe critics of Bush, incidentally) to read about the chronology of Iran's attempt to develop nukes. It includes references to reports from the US House of Representatives and other organizations. There are many other websites that detail Iranian "full nuclear fuel cycle" development.

7 July 1991
After meeting with Chinese Premier Li Ping, Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani says Iran will complete the Bushehr nuclear power plant despite the German government's refusal to allow a German company to take part in the project. "We are determined to complete this major project, and will do so with the help of God," Rafsanjani says in a letter to the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. [Note: See June 1991 entry for Germany's announcement that it will not allow continuation of the Bushehr project.

I have highlighted these passages because you mentioned Rafsanjani as an Iranian "moderating influence." The NTI website also references recent events in Iran's attempt to obtain nuclear weapons. Tell me Bully, if Rafsanjani was an Iranian moderate, what is Ahmadinejad, who has continued the drive to obtain nuclear weapons, and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map?" How absurd were my assumptions?

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Why is it an absurd assumption that Iran will disregard negotiations and sanctions and continue its drive to obtain nuclear weapons? Iran sees the possession of nuclear weapons as a guarantor of the future of the theocracy. I thought you opposed theocracies. What would be absurd is having no action plan if Iran continues its development of the "fuel nuclear fuel cycle," i.e., nuclear weapons. Your admiration for Rafsanjani is remarkably ill-informed: Check out the NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative) website founded by Ted Turner and Sam Nunn (severe critics of Bush, incidentally) to read about the chronology of Iran's attempt to develop nukes. It includes references to reports from the US House of Representatives and other organizations. There are many other websites that detail Iranian "full nuclear fuel cycle" development.I have highlighted these passages because you mentioned Rafsanjani as an Iranian "moderating influence." The NTI website also references recent events in Iran's attempt to obtain nuclear weapons. Tell me Bully, if Rafsanjani was an Iranian moderate, what is Ahmadinejad, who has continued the drive to obtain nuclear weapons, and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map?" How absurd were my assumptions?

Pardon me putting my pennethworth in boys, but I agree with Onedomino.

I am equally appalled that that dry-drunken dyslexic and religiously insane war criminal, Dimwit, who self-appointed himself as God's co-regent, ALREADY has his feeble-minded finger on the world's Doomsday button.

I mean, who in fuck do Americans and their sycophantic Proddie satraps think they are, holding the whole planet to ransom with their nuclear weapons, while denying 99.9% of the rest of the world the same divine prerogative, just because they aren't uber arrogant Calvinazis?

Personally, I can't wait until the Russians install nukes in Central America, just to see America's typically hysterical reaction.

How many here know that the Cuban misile confrontation was caused by Russia's justified reaction to the US installing ICBMS, aimed at the USSR, directly on Russia's border with Turkey?

Talk about the proverbial "Murphy's Dog" - who loved to dish out the punishment, but squealed like a stuck pig the only time it was on the receiving end!

(Just thought I better start getting my points across before, as usual, the Christian "patriots" get me banned as a fifth columnist un-Umerican Commie!)

 

[onedomino]

Pardon me putting my pennethworth in boys, but I agree with Onedomino.

I am equally appalled that that dry-drunken dyslexic and religiously insane war criminal, Dimwit, who self-appointed himself as God's co-regent, ALREADY has his feeble-minded finger on the world's Doomsday button.

I mean, who in fuck do Americans and their sycophantic Proddie satraps think they are, holding the whole planet to ransom with their nuclear weapons, while denying 99.9% of the rest of the world the same divine prerogative, just because they aren't uber arrogant Calvinazis?

Personally, I can't wait until the Russians install nukes in Central America, just to see America's typically hysterical reaction.

How many here know that the Cuban misile confrontation was caused by Russia's justified reaction to the US installing ICBMS, aimed at the USSR, directly on Russia's border with Turkey?

Talk about the proverbial "Murphy's Dog" - who loved to dish out the punishment, but squealed like a stuck pig the only time it was on the receiving end!

(Just thought I better start getting my points across before, as usual, the Christian "patriots" get me banned as a fifth columnist un-Umerican Commie!)

Please, do me a favor and never agree with anything I say. I think your comments are bizarre to say the least. You have, apparently, misunderstood the points I have tried to raise in this thread. Try reading the thread again; carefully. I think that America, and sane nations everywhere, should suppress the desire of the violent religious fanatics that control Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Please, do me a favor and never agree with anything I say. I think your comments are bizarre to say the least. You have, apparently, misunderstood the points I have tried to raise in this thread. Try reading the thread again; carefully. I think that America, and sane nations everywhere, should suppress the desire of the violent religious fanatics that control Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons.

onedominus said,

I think that America, and sane nations everywhere, should suppress the desire of the violent religious fanatics that control Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons.

You might try policing your own biblically brainwashed backyard first. The only religious fanatics that are threatening the entire world at the moment are your homegrown Amricans.

Like most Americans, you have, apparently, never mastered irony. Otherwise you would have realised I was taking the piss out of your utterly uniformed comments.

BTW, "bizarre" doesn't even begin to describe American's atrocious behaviour since the start of the seventeenth century!

 

[red states rule]

Pardon me putting my pennethworth in boys, but I agree with Onedomino.

I am equally appalled that that dry-drunken dyslexic and religiously insane war criminal, Dimwit, who self-appointed himself as God's co-regent, ALREADY has his feeble-minded finger on the world's Doomsday button.

I mean, who in fuck do Americans and their sycophantic Proddie satraps think they are, holding the whole planet to ransom with their nuclear weapons, while denying 99.9% of the rest of the world the same divine prerogative, just because they aren't uber arrogant Calvinazis?

Personally, I can't wait until the Russians install nukes in Central America, just to see America's typically hysterical reaction.

How many here know that the Cuban misile confrontation was caused by Russia's justified reaction to the US installing ICBMS, aimed at the USSR, directly on Russia's border with Turkey?

Talk about the proverbial "Murphy's Dog" - who loved to dish out the punishment, but squealed like a stuck pig the only time it was on the receiving end!

(Just thought I better start getting my points across before, as usual, the Christian "patriots" get me banned as a fifth columnist un-Umerican Commie!)

So what country do you live in?

Next time you need help, we will know to ignore the call

 

[Chips Rafferty]

So what country do you live in?

Next time you need help, we will know to ignore the call

In Um-er-ica's arse-licking Mini Me of a country, AU.S.tralia.

 

[red states rule]

In Um-er-ica's arse-licking Mini Me of a country, AU.S.tralia.

To much sun

that explains alot

 

[Chips Rafferty]

To much sun

that explains alot

Yeah, just as your Calvinazi inculcators taught you when you were in the rabid ranks of the Ronnie Raygun Jugend, we are all goddamn Christ-killin' "Carmmies" down here!

 

[red states rule]

Yeah, just as your Calvinazi inculcators taught you when you were in the rabid ranks of the Ronnie Raygun Jugend, we are all goddamn Christ-killin' "Carmmies" down here!

Like most assholes overseas - you idiots hate America but you love the US dollar and the protection we provide

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Like most assholes overseas - you idiots hate America but you love the US dollar and the protection we provide

....and our mothers wear combat boots!