Iran Promises "80 Seconds Of Hell!"

[Fluffybunny]

Then again, charging into Iran may actually help stabilize things in Iraq.

256489[/snapback]

We don't have enough troops or resources to do that though...we are spread extremely thin as is. I think we can only overthrow one country at a time.

I personally think that Iran was more of a "grave and gathering" threat to us than was Iraq...So is Saudi Arabia. Oh yeah, lets not forget syria...Egypt has been p***ing me off too so we might as well include them.

Personally if we are going to be running around the world taking over countries we should do it right and take over everybody in the middle east and flat out take thier oil so that we can make back some of the billions that we are spending on trying to rebuild these other countries after we invade. No "installing a democracy" BS...we throw out the old government and out our people in charge. We take all of the oil and sell it for a profit that we keep.

Geez, if we are going to send out boys out to die in other countries we might as well get somthing for our troubles...

Edited September 6, 2004 by Fluffybunny

[Velikovsky]

I'm glad I already did my service time sounds like the draft is coming back.

I always supported an invasion of Iran or North Korea. Iraq was just such a waste of time.

The simple fact is if you want to make threats you'd better back them up.

I say as of right now we send in some missiles about every other day and seriously impair their military.

See how well they can back up their threats then.

Force a surrender without ever sending a single troop into the country. Then force them to pay back the cost of every missile we had to waste on them.

[bathory]

I always supported an invasion of Iran or North Korea.

why don't we invade china while we are at it

iraq was part of a bigger plan

[thebarman]

A regime change maybe, mass murder no.

A regime change...

hang on, that rings a bell, isn't that what we tried to do in Iraq? And look where that got us.

Besides, Bush won't nuke them, he's stupid but not that stupid he's not going to nuke someone when they're sitting on top of a huge oil supply.

Edited September 6, 2004 by thebarman

[bathory]

hang on, that rings a bell, isn't that what we tried to do in Iraq? And look where that got us.

yeah, Iraq is now in a position to move forward into the 21st century

Besides, Bush won't nuke them, he's stupid but not that stupid he's not going to nuke someone when they're sitting on top of a huge oil supply.

get a clue thanks

[thebarman]

yeah, Iraq is now in a position to move forward into the 21st century

Really? Perhaps our ideas of a 21st century society differ somewhat but Iraq has a long way to come. The country is still torn between Saddam loyalists and Saddam haters, how is that a position to move into the 21st Century?

get a clue thanks

Perhaps you'd give me a clue here as to what you mean? By all means retort against my arguement that's what the forums are for, but at least explain yourself aswell...

[bathory]

eally? Perhaps our ideas of a 21st century society differ somewhat but Iraq has a long way to come. The country is still torn between Saddam loyalists and Saddam haters, how is that a position to move into the 21st Century?

i said it is in a position to move forward, as opposed to where it was under the heel of saddam, i don't think that really needs explaining, there is a long way to go, noone is saying it will be done in a few months or something.

Perhaps you'd give me a clue here as to what you mean? By all means retort against my arguement that's what the forums are for, but at least explain yourself aswell...

well it was in response to what was essentially a load of nonsense

Besides, Bush won't nuke them, he's stupid but not that stupid he's not going to nuke someone when they're sitting on top of a huge oil supply.

thats not an arguement, its a load of sh** riding on the coattails on a reasonable comment.

[thebarman]

thats not an arguement, its a load of sh** riding on the coattails on a reasonable comment.

OK, so which bit don't you agree with, the bit about the most powerful man in the world being an absolute pea brain or the bit about him not being stupid enough to annihilate Iraq.

My statement was my opinion which I am entitled to, and as long as it is my opinion then I'll argue the cause - which makes it my argument.

You are of course entitled to your opinion about my arguement, but I'd rather here you reply with your actual opinion, rather than put mine down.

[bathory]

he's stupid but not that stupid he's not going to nuke someone when they're sitting on top of a huge oil supply.

ok

1) prove he is stupid (gaffs while public speaking don't count thanks)

2) one nuke isn't going to destroy the whole of iraq, he could easily nuke portions of iraq and avoid the oil fields if he so wanted to, so not nuking them because of the oil feilds is a non-sensical arguement

the above is simply on par with Bush = Hitler idiocy, its irrelevant and its uncalled for

[thebarman]

1) prove he is stupid (gaffs while public speaking don't count thanks)

Of course they do, public speaking should be high up on any leaders priority list and it's important to get it right. When Bush speaks publically this is how the rest of the world sees him, making a "gaff" in public is a prime example of his ignorance and poor judgement.

2) one nuke isn't going to destroy the whole of iraq, he could easily nuke portions of iraq and avoid the oil fields if he so wanted to, so not nuking them because of the oil feilds is a non-sensical arguement

OK, well if that is the case then I change my argument to Bush IS stupid enough to nuke Iraq after all, thanks for putting me straight.

[LoPar]

This thread is about a potential preemptive attack on Iran.......

The current state of world affairs certainly poses problems in regards to a strike on Iran. Any and all Islamic states would support Iran.

A more logical move would be to stablize Iraq and install the pro-USA government. Leave a huge force there to 'support'.

Then have Iraq strike Iran. I am sure the spin doctors can come up with some logical propaganda to convince the media. USA can then support Iraq. I don't think the Russians will be supporting Iran in any conflict against the USA.

[Talon]

When i say i'm against the invasion, and against preemption, i'm pointing towards your stance on the Iraq war (i'm assuming you were against it) I'm trying to demonstrate that what we have is essentially the lead up to Iraq all over again, awesome.

Actually I was for the war, its that the fact that the invasion was the most ill-thought out nonsense I've even seen is why I criticise it.

I personally think that Iran was more of a "grave and gathering" threat to us than was Iraq...So is Saudi Arabia. Oh yeah, lets not forget syria...Egypt has been p***ing me off too so we might as well include them.

A but none of them ever tried to kill Bush's dad

Personally if we are going to be running around the world taking over countries we should do it right and take over everybody in the middle east and flat out take thier oil so that we can make back some of the billions that we are spending on trying to rebuild these other countries after we invade. No "installing a democracy" BS...we throw out the old government and out our people in charge. We take all of the oil and sell it for a profit that we keep.

Geez, if we are going to send out boys out to die in other countries we might as well get somthing for our troubles...

Well, it would an honest view of whats happening in Bush's head.

I always supported an invasion of Iran or North Korea.

North Korea, dear god know, they have a nuclear program, we'd best keep them at arms length.

hang on, that rings a bell, isn't that what we tried to do in Iraq? And look where that got us.

Besides, Bush won't nuke them, he's stupid but not that stupid he's not going to nuke someone when they're sitting on top of a huge oil supply.

I mean hypothetically, this nukes and regeme change where on the table.

thats not an arguement, its a load of sh** riding on the coattails on a reasonable comment.

Really? I thought Barnman's coment was pretty acurate myself.

the above is simply on par with Bush = Hitler idiocy, its irrelevant and its uncalled for

But we don't . Its that gorilla with the IQ of 91 that we compare him with

[Talon]

The current state of world affairs certainly poses problems in regards to a strike on Iran. Any and all Islamic states would support Iran.

Actually we still have some allies out there.

A more logical move would be to stablize Iraq and install the pro-USA government. Leave a huge force there to 'support'.

Then have Iraq strike Iran. I am sure the spin doctors can come up with some logical propaganda to convince the media. USA can then support Iraq. I don't think the Russians will be supporting Iran in any conflict against the USA.

Oh yeah, cause nobody would see the puppet strings in work

And btw, the cold war is over, Russia is not likely going to be actively helping the Iranians if the US is on its way to conquering it.

[zukie&jim]

humm how much of this is "posturing" and how much of the threat is real ?

way back when i was stationed in south korea--we would hear propaganda like this every day!

north korea going to nuke then overrun south korea- , nuke japan-ect-ect.

iran is a problem in the reigon but i don't see how iran could strike outside the AO with nukes. and even if they could --the small number and low yeild would guarentee nothing but the complete and utter distruction of iran . 3 or 4 a-bombs can make a mess no lie--but compared to a h-bomb there firecrackers.

these kind of statements (made by iran ) i don't think were intended for "world" consumption. i think they were made to pacify a local and rabid minority.

[LoPar]

The current state of world affairs certainly poses problems in regards to a strike on Iran. Any and all Islamic states would support Iran.

Actually we still have some allies out there.

Who arte the allies?

A more logical move would be to stablize Iraq and install the pro-USA government. Leave a huge force there to 'support'.

Then have Iraq strike Iran. I am sure the spin doctors can come up with some logical propaganda to convince the media. USA can then support Iraq. I don't think the Russians will be supporting Iran in any conflict against the USA.

Oh yeah, cause nobody would see the puppet strings in work

And btw, the cold war is over, Russia is not likely going to be actively helping the Iranians if the US is on its way to conquering it.

256765[/snapback]

That is what I meant in regards to the Russians. Historically the Russians and USA were supporting opposite sides in any war. This would be counterproductive in combating terror in Islamic countries. But since Russia itself is a target of the terrorists, they would likely support USA.

Has seeing the puppet strings has been a problem in the past?

[Talon]

Has seeing the puppet strings has been a problem in the past?

Sure, cause we all see them, and it'll defeat the whole purpose of trying to make it an Iraq/Iran issue.

[+joc]

One of the endearing problems of the thinking on the Left is a lack of patience. No one said Iraq would be transformed over night. No one said it would not be a bloody mess. As a matter of fact we were told it would be. Be patient with Iraq. Trust President Bush. He isn't stupid. He has a plan to wage war on terrorism.

Patience is a virtue. Perserverance is a virtue and democracy will triumph in the middle east. But then what do you on the Left really care about that? You want the government to tell you what you can and can't do. Can't have guns, can't smoke. Can't take care of a threat against an evil dictator until he almost destroys you. Can't, Can't, Can't.

Well, Can't is not a part of my vocabulary.

[Talon]

One of the endearing problems of the thinking on the Left is a lack of patience.

Lack of patience? Dude we've been waiting 200 years for the revolution, thats patience

[bathory]

Of course they do, public speaking should be high up on any leaders priority list and it's important to get it right. When Bush speaks publically this is how the rest of the world sees him, making a "gaff" in public is a prime example of his ignorance and poor judgement.

oh please

we are talking about his intelligence, not his ability as a public speaker,

as for that photo, again, it doesn't say anything about his intelligence, oh geez he didn't check to see if the cap was on, he must be dumb! we should be worried if he didn't realise the covers were on, not that they were on when he looked through it. So again i ask, evidence that demonstrates Bush is stupid, remember the fellow does have degrees, and i doubt daddy was connected to all his professors.

OK, well if that is the case then I change my argument to Bush IS stupid enough to nuke Iraq after all, thanks for putting me straight.

and this goes back to your lack of actual evidence regarding Bush's intelligence

Check Mate MF

Actually I was for the war, its that the fact that the invasion was the most ill-thought out nonsense I've even seen is why I criticise it.

how so?

A but none of them ever tried to kill Bush's dad

bigger picture kids

Well, it would an honest view of whats happening in Bush's head.

surely it would have been easier and more profitable to just kiss and make up with saddam?

[Talon]

how so?

Well first they drove straight to Bagdad, wizzing by all these people shooting at them, who have now been left alive to start a gorilla war.

They destoryed Iraq's military and police, leving it defenseless and making many of them turn to terrorism because they don't have jobs. They should have told the military and police that if they stand bck and although the Ba'th party to be arrested and swear to follow the new government, then their posistions, money, power, pensions etc will be honoured. It would mean having some nasty people still around, but it would mean Iraq would have had an army and police force from day 1. TRhe democracy then could have phased out those who worked for Saddam over a few years, after it had cemented its power.

bigger picture kids

Tell that Bush Jr.

surely it would have been easier and more profitable to just kiss and make up with saddam?

Why settle for that when you directly control his oil and wipe out a old family enemy.

[wunarmdscissor]

The coment was just saber rattling by Iran.

There aint a chance they would attack us , if they launched an all out attack on us pre-emptivley we would simply lay their country to waste.

Much quicker and much more efficiently than they could do to us.

its all talk.

[thebarman]

oh please

we are talking about his intelligence, not his ability as a public speaker,

as for that photo, again, it doesn't  say anything about his intelligence, oh geez he didn't check to see if the cap was on, he must be dumb! we should be worried if he didn't realise the covers were on, not that they were on when he looked through it. So again i ask, evidence that demonstrates Bush is stupid, remember the fellow does have degrees, and i doubt daddy was connected to all his professors.

256802[/snapback]

I beg to differ, how can you say someone's ability as a public speaker is not an important factor in being a leader. How can you command respect in your subordinates if you make "Gaffs" like the one pictured? I think I've given enough eveidence that Bush is as thick as two planks and I'm sure if I reaserched it I could give a lot more, you yourself must know how many anti-Bush sites there are, but I think this thread has strayed way off topic already.

and this goes back to your lack of actual evidence regarding Bush's intelligence

256802[/snapback]

I've yet to see any evidence whatsover from you SUPPORTING his intelligence with respect to leading his country. Yes he's got a degree from Yale and an IQ of 125, but if you're not doing a decent job of leading your country then who cares.

Check Mate MF

256802[/snapback]

Not yet it isn't, I'm not done

[bathory]

Well first they drove straight to Bagdad, wizzing by all these people shooting at them, who have now been left alive to start a gorilla war.

They destoryed Iraq's military and police, leving it defenseless and making many of them turn to terrorism because they don't have jobs. They should have told the military and police that if they stand bck and although the Ba'th party to be arrested and swear to follow the new government, then their posistions, money, power, pensions etc will be honoured. It would mean having some nasty people still around, but it would mean Iraq would have had an army and police force from day 1. TRhe democracy then could have phased out those who worked for Saddam over a few years, after it had cemented its power.

wizzing by all the people shooting at them?

hardly, i think they wizzed by because people weren't shooting at them, they weren't encountering heavy resistance.

as for the 2nd point, i guess its a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, disbanding the army caused problems, but by the same token, having them sitting around could also lead to some not so nice problems:)

I beg to differ, how can you say someone's ability as a public speaker is not an important factor in being a leader. How can you command respect in your subordinates if you make "Gaffs" like the one pictured? I think I've given enough eveidence that Bush is as thick as two planks and I'm sure if I reaserched it I could give a lot more, you yourself must know how many anti-Bush sites there are, but I think this thread has strayed way off topic already.

that wasn't the assertion, you didn't say "Bush was a bad leader", you said Bush was stupid. Sorry kiddo but i asked for evidence showing that Bush was stupid as in, Bush lacks intelligence. Don't they call this a strawman arguement? I say one thing, you make it out as though i'm saying something else and argue that point?

I've yet to see any evidence whatsover from you SUPPORTING his intelligence with respect to leading his country. Yes he's got a degree from Yale and an IQ of 125, but if you're not doing a decent job of leading your country then who cares.

goal posts --------------------------------------------> |--|

wow you moved them pretty far, i wasn't arguing his capability as a leader, you've shown it yourself, Bush is intelligent 'iq 125, degrees' that was my point of contention, thank you for proving my point, whether or not he is a capable leader is another thing.

Not yet it isn't, I'm not done

whats that? are you going to argue another point i didn't make?

Edited September 6, 2004 by bathory

[+joc]

They destoryed Iraq's military and police, leving it defenseless and making many of them turn to terrorism because they don't have jobs.

Crock! "Oh, I can't find job...I will now go be terrorist"....that is just daffy.

Yet somewhat humerous. Leaving the military defenseless was the whole idea...duh....

[wunarmdscissor]

Crock! "Oh, I can't find job...I will now go be terrorist"....that is just daffy. 

Yet somewhat humerous. Leaving the military defenseless was the whole idea...duh.... 

Not if allied to the fact you've lost your job your wife and kids where killed during "shock and awe".

Foregt our side of it look it frm that side, i know what i would do.

Especially if i had been raised as a moslem to hate all westerns, jews and christians from birth.