And people will see you as who you are, a 14 year old failing history in the Irish public school system who can't back up his statements with facts.JahManRed wrote:
Major_Spittle
I dont really need to say anthing more. I think folks on this forum will see you for you for who you are after the last few posts. Educated by google, lol, very sad.
keep ur heads cool ppl... no flame wars...Major_Spittle wrote:
And people will see you as who you are, a 14 year old failing history in the Irish public school system who can't back up his statements with facts.JahManRed wrote:
Major_Spittle
I dont really need to say anthing more. I think folks on this forum will see you for you for who you are after the last few posts. Educated by google, lol, very sad.
I guess israel will have multiple airstrikes in nuclear facilities
I predict that Israel will bomb Iran within 3 years if Iran continues its threats and military build up. All it takes is a few missles with nevre agent and Millions will die.
It will be interesting to see how the next American President deals with these radical countries in the Middle East. What ever they do I hope they don't continue bankrupting America to try to "fix" a society that can only be fixed by a military enforcing freedom of religion and equal protection under the law for all people for an entire generation or so. This is of course the one thing the US/Iraq Government is not doing, but instead has our military bowing before Islamic law and being treated like the subordinate infidels that they take us for thus reinforcing the ratical Islamic beliefs that all none Muslims are less that human and thus weak. They use this perceived weakness to recruit more terrorists and Reinforce the notion that Islam is the true religion and all none Muslims can be defeated by their Jihad. There are a lot of uneducated sand turds over there that know nothing but Allah and Islamic law. Freedom and tolerance are not even in their vocabulary.
Go Ahead and Karma me to death...... I will be banned and become a Conservative Myrter.
It will be interesting to see how the next American President deals with these radical countries in the Middle East. What ever they do I hope they don't continue bankrupting America to try to "fix" a society that can only be fixed by a military enforcing freedom of religion and equal protection under the law for all people for an entire generation or so. This is of course the one thing the US/Iraq Government is not doing, but instead has our military bowing before Islamic law and being treated like the subordinate infidels that they take us for thus reinforcing the ratical Islamic beliefs that all none Muslims are less that human and thus weak. They use this perceived weakness to recruit more terrorists and Reinforce the notion that Islam is the true religion and all none Muslims can be defeated by their Jihad. There are a lot of uneducated sand turds over there that know nothing but Allah and Islamic law. Freedom and tolerance are not even in their vocabulary.
Go Ahead and Karma me to death...... I will be banned and become a Conservative Myrter.
Israel would not use nerve agents, that would be the end of their country, imo. They have too much to lose by means of support to use nerve gas.Major_Spittle wrote:
I predict that Israel will bomb Iran within 3 years if Iran continues its threats and military build up. All it takes is a few missles with nevre agent and Millions will die.
It will be interesting to see how the next American President deals with these radical countries in the Middle East. What ever they do I hope they don't continue bankrupting America to try to "fix" a society that can only be fixed by a military enforcing freedom of religion and equal protection under the law for all people for an entire generation or so. This is of course the one thing the US/Iraq Government is not doing, but instead has our military bowing before Islamic law and being treated like the subordinate infidels that they take us for thus reinforcing the ratical Islamic beliefs that all none Muslims are less that human and thus weak. They use this perceived weakness to recruit more terrorists and Reinforce the notion that Islam is the true religion and all none Muslims can be defeated by their Jihad. There are a lot of uneducated sand turds over there that know nothing but Allah and Islamic law. Freedom and tolerance are not even in their vocabulary.
Go Ahead and Karma me to death...... I will be banned and become a Conservative Myrter.
As far as bankrupting the US with a war... we have plenty of social programs (welfare, food stamps, etc....) that are destroying the system from the inside out. A senate and congress whose spending is out of control. They try and placate the poor and lower middle class with "programs" designed to help them, but does nothing more than keep them poor and uneducated, thus they can't think for themselves and elect the same people over and over again.
I agree, and I ment all it takes is Iran getting a hold of nerve agent and using it. Yes, Israel is not into genocide or their would not be Arab Palestinians.Erkut.hv wrote:
Israel would not use nerve agents, that would be the end of their country, imo. They have too much to lose by means of support to use nerve gas.Major_Spittle wrote:
I predict that Israel will bomb Iran within 3 years if Iran continues its threats and military build up. All it takes is a few missles with nevre agent and Millions will die.
It will be interesting to see how the next American President deals with these radical countries in the Middle East. What ever they do I hope they don't continue bankrupting America to try to "fix" a society that can only be fixed by a military enforcing freedom of religion and equal protection under the law for all people for an entire generation or so. This is of course the one thing the US/Iraq Government is not doing, but instead has our military bowing before Islamic law and being treated like the subordinate infidels that they take us for thus reinforcing the ratical Islamic beliefs that all none Muslims are less that human and thus weak. They use this perceived weakness to recruit more terrorists and Reinforce the notion that Islam is the true religion and all none Muslims can be defeated by their Jihad. There are a lot of uneducated sand turds over there that know nothing but Allah and Islamic law. Freedom and tolerance are not even in their vocabulary.
Go Ahead and Karma me to death...... I will be banned and become a Conservative Myrter.
As far as bankrupting the US with a war... we have plenty of social programs (welfare, food stamps, etc....) that are destroying the system from the inside out. A senate and congress whose spending is out of control. They try and placate the poor and lower middle class with "programs" designed to help them, but does nothing more than keep them poor and uneducated, thus they can't think for themselves and elect the same people over and over again.
Way way out of line. Is that the canned Fall back response when someone says Israel is To heavy handed " make some reference to the holocaust?Major_Spittle wrote:
Why would you even state that??? Seems kind of Nazi-ish.
Classic Racism. But Sorry not German. Made up lies?Major_Spittle wrote:
Response: When you intentionally make up lies about how Israel is "Exterminating" Palestinians I can hear your German accent.
Typical of the actions in the Area.
A hamas bomber kills himself and aprox. Ten people around him With 20 lbs of High explosive.
Page 1 New York Daily News
israel Respondes with a flight of F16 fighter Bombers running an Air strike. using Mk 82 bombs
( one Ton Each ) Page 14 New York Daily News
This is what I read about once a month in a Pro israel NYC paper. Is it correct ? Do I paint an acurate picture, or do I exagerate? Who acted and who Counter acted.
In attacks and counter attacks israel has aprox. a 17:1 K/D ratio. Start keeping track right now and you will see it adds up to about this. I am not saying its right, wrong, justified or not. I am saying It is as it reads.
I would not have Vacationed in Japan during 1944 Nor would I have carried in American or British Flag in Germany at that time. There is something of a War on. Really now, WHO is acting stupid ?Major_Spittle wrote:
Reply: You should move to Mecca and put the star of David on your door since you are so stupid you don't understand the significance of that point. Then you can give me a stupid look when you are Beheaded by the government for subversion. I bet you can find Jews, Asians, English, and European people of all religions everywhere on this planet in significant numbers..... except one region. I can see it now, a family of Jews going on vacation in Iran.
I noticed you have sunk to insults. Arguments are running thin?
Everyone here could see my intent, I believe ( Hope ) you are being deliberately dense in this case,Major_Spittle wrote:
Reply: If I did the search without the word hate it would be "Why muslims jews"???? That would have been a sucky search.
In any event I did a google search using just that. Here are the results. From top of page.
Christian History Corner: Hajj, Feasts, and Pilgrimage ...
Why Muslims, Jews, and Christians still yearn for their holy places.
By Steven Gertz | posted 02/21/2003. The death of 14 Muslims made news last week when ...
Funny what you come across when you don't have a Bias. ^ Ahem..
" there are a (significant number) of Islamic fundamentalists " I notice slight change in your theme here.Major_Spittle wrote:
It is sad when a person can't distinguish evil when he sees it all the time, there are a significant number of Islamic fundamentalists in this world that are just plain evil and would like nothing more than to kill you and me because of our beliefs.
Evil? Yes ,misguided? Yes, mislead? Yes, enraged? Yes, frustrated? Yes, Fixable? maybe,
Bearing the total responsibility for the situation? No.
Alone in their crimes? No.
People can read what I said and your responses.
A reoccurring point is that backed into a corner and facing anialation, ( by Northern European Settlers )
The American Indian responded the same.
In fact the biggest deference between the American Indian and some Terror group is that
"When captured by Terrorists, You prayed that they didn't cut off your head "
"When captured by American Indian's, You prayed that they did "
Interestingly enough revisionist history has Re Written the American Indian as a Hero.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-21 08:13:55)
At least from the news reports Ive seen from BBC news and other international news sources the US seems to have a reputation for heavy handed meddling. And at least in their eyes the US only cares about the oil. So taking actions that cause undue suffering to the general populace in Iran, like cutting off funding for their basic services would follow with that belief.Horseman 77 wrote:
I think they blame israel. That's what they say at least. They know that is why we are aligned against them. Other than that we have no problem with them and we want the "Arab Oil. "ShotgunFacelift wrote:
With no foreign aide pouring into Iran their basic services are shutting down. People are going hungry, getting sick and generally not having a good time. as a result the general populace becomes more and more radical, as they have less and less to lose. And in their eyes every reason to blame the godless heathens in the west.
So it looks to them, that we are a country politically aligned against them, and taking actions that are negatively affecting their lives. Which makes the US just as much of a target as Israel.
Its my opinion that as soon as any nuclear device goes off, every single nuclear capable country is going to goto Defcon five. Back to the Cuban Missle crisis, hand hovering over the launch key.Horseman 77 wrote:
Why should The US invade? If they as a Nation are against us, The USA can fight them as a Nation. This means we can fight them like we fought Japan and Germany. Not house to house looking for individual Guerillas allegedly belong to a certain Group. Germany fought harder longer and Fanatics waged a Guerilla war after the hostilities formally ended. The only difference is Hollywood and the Liberal left didn't cheer them on. They would have been hung for it back then. the last Japanese soldier finally gave up in 1974.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Eventually theyl nuke somebody, Israel, the US, or somewhere in Europe.......and then the US invades.
Stability between the most dangerous of the nuclear capable countries would be paramount. Because nobody wants doomsday. (The movie "The Day After" is one of the better examples of what would become of us.)
So Iran, a small country that has made public statements legitimizing terrorist attacks on soft targets, and a willingness to do anything to achieve its objectives. Would be considered a dangerously unstable influence. Thats why I think the US would invade, or at least spear head the invasion.
Though I dont ever think that the US would be able to fight them as a nation. The war would remain a low intensity conflict, no pitched battles, only guerilla fighting. Because they wouldnt be fighting another military/political organization, but an Quasi-political/religious/cultural organization. With no hard targets to attack, and no central chain of command to break.
Recent happenings in the US elections and the justification for entering into the Iraque conflict have sullied my views of US voters "knowing what they want". When they unquestionably support an administration that has, if not "lied", at least "misinformed" the public numerous times and gotten away with it.Horseman 77 wrote:
As a voter, I can say " I know what I want." Perhaps you don't know what "you want " our only " thought " you wanted something. Most voters know what they want. If you are implying a sense of superiority or moral high ground it is misplaced. Speak for yourself only please.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Because thats what the voters think they want,
- The mobile chemical weapons factories that ceased to exits as soon as we entered the country.
- The Iraqie nuclear weapons program that had tried to buy enriched uranium from Africa. The British intelligence reports that the Bush administration used as its proof of Saddam's nuclear weapons program were unreliable. The British intelligence services stated that numerous time in the inquiry that Tony Blair suffered shortly after the Iraque conflict.
- The intelligence leaks that Bush had been implicated in that exposed Valerie Plame the wife of one of Bush's political rivals.
It just seems to me that the Bush Administration is very adept at manipulating public opinion through misinformation. That, once the misinformation is discovered it quickly gets shuffled under the rug and somebody gets scape goated. Like Lewis "Scooter" Libby in relation to the CIA leak. While the administration goes on.
Combined with a media that tries to sensationalize violent current events to increase their ratings, and extremelly biased reporting depending on the political denomination of their primary financial supporters. (Fox News = Republican News. CNN = News for people who want to look like they care about world events.)
So I dont think US voters know what they want. Because the primary sources of information they use to make their decisions has been compromized.
Im not sure where your getting your information but the iraq war is costing us $177M a day, right now the Iraq conflict has cost the US about 274 billion and counting. The Vietnam War cost the US 111 Billion in adjusted dollars (source:http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm)Horseman 77 wrote:
As all the Wars in history go, I am not sure I remember a smoother, faster, less costly one. What we are accomplishing there is worthy.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
then theyll get stuck in another clusterfu*@ like Iraque.
In the Past two years they went from
Fighting
to guerilla fighting
to Suicide bombing
to Leaving a bomb on the side of the road and hoping they hurt someone,.. Anyone.
The insurgents do not have the backing of the Iraqi people. Yes, the War would have been smaller and exponentially less costly if clinton had address the issue after WTC 93. He had other thongs* on his mind. 20/20 hind sight.
Smooth? Smooth if your sitting in the American suburbs I guess. I dont call daily bombings, kidnappings and civil unrest smooth.
The US and allies are still fighting guerilla elements, which according to troops on the ground are becoming bolder and attacking bigger targets. Staging coordinated attacks on US and allied bases. Their road side bombs have become bigger an more sophisticated, now able to damage or destroy armored elements such as tanks and APC's.
The general impression Im getting from these reports are that the insurgents are getting more support from oustide sources, and are getting better at coordinating and attacking targets.
While the CLinton jibe is well placed, he was the president that pushed for better diplomatic relations with the middle east. Perhaps if the US had maintained a better dialogue with Iran we might have been able to play as a third party between Israel and Iran. Instead we are viewed as part of their problem. While diplomatic relations for the Bush administration is relegated to sabre rattling, "Do this or else......"
Clinton might have been a sleazy guy, but at least he admitted to dodging the draft. Instead of using family connections to get a cushy non-combat role, and then trying to play it off like he knows what the troops are facing on the ground.
.
I hope china wont ally against the US. Its unlikely, we both have too much to gain in economic terms from each other. But China is spending huge sums of money building up its military. Being the size that china is, its standing army will dwarf most first world nations active forces.Horseman 77 wrote:
We are fighting " the entire ( militant ) Muslim world, "ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Except this time they'll be fighting the entire militant Muslim world.I can see no reason for China to allying against The USA.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
It may even start WWIII, depending on who gets involved. Especially if China takes one side and the US takes the other.
I just think that the US would feel threatenned by it.
Im saying hostilities are possible, not probable.
I agree this will never happen, there is too much diplomatic history between the US and Israel, in addition to the large Jewish support base in the US.Horseman 77 wrote:
A third possibility is The USA says We owe israel nothing and no longer support them. Sorry for all past transgressions. Here is the billions and Billions per year in aid that we formally gave to israel for reasons unknown.
It all Stops on dime. This will never happen.
To sum it all up, the Bush administration has involved us in a conflict that has been going on for centuries. One that we are unlikely to ressolve. We have made more enemies in the middle east than friends, and managed to sully our reputation on the world stage. Through geneva convention violations, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, aswell as the embarasment of our handling of the New Orleans disaster.
Iran views think us as a meddlesome ally of their sworn enemy. The US's direct involvement will only make the situation worse.
BTW, this is huge post......sorry
There are actually around 8 million Jews in the US and 7 mil in Israel, if I remember rightly. And 300k in England (I'm one of em).I agree this will never happen, there is too much diplomatic history between the US and Israel, in addition to the large Jewish support base in the US.
To my point, there is no way the US or England are going to not support Israel in this conflict.Talon wrote:
There are actually around 8 million Jews in the US and 7 mil in Israel, if I remember rightly. And 300k in England (I'm one of em).I agree this will never happen, there is too much diplomatic history between the US and Israel, in addition to the large Jewish support base in the US.
Didnt realize there were more Jews in the US than in Israel though.
Horseman77 wrote:
" there are a (significant number) of Islamic fundamentalists " I notice slight change in your theme here.
Evil? Yes ,misguided? Yes, mislead? Yes, enraged? Yes, frustrated? Yes, Fixable? maybe,
Bearing the total responsibility for the situation? No.
Alone in their crimes? No.
People can read what I said and your responses.
A reoccurring point is that backed into a corner and facing anialation, ( by Northern European Settlers )
The American Indian responded the same.
In fact the biggest deference between the American Indian and some Terror group is that
"When captured by Terrorists, You prayed that they didn't cut off your head "
"When captured by American Indian's, You prayed that they did "
Interestingly enough revisionist history has Re Written the American Indian as a Hero.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Ok, what is your obsession with American Indians????
Maybe there were wars between settlers and natives over land and that is just how certain tribes acted towards enemies (pretty primative and barbaric huh, of course because some of the natives were)...hmmmm.
This is just how some Tribes fought (even each other before the settlers), just like Beheading is nothing new, it is biblical and a technique that Mohammad used to punish an entire village of infidels as I recall. This is how many Muslims fight and administer justice in many countries still today.
Don't use a primitive Indian's behavior 2 centuries ago to justify a terrorist flying a plane into a building full of civilians because a sand turd told them they will get laid in heaven for doing it
A Black Foot Indian cutting out the heart of his live enemy and eating it to gain strength from his enemy to use in battle does not justify a Retarded 12 year old boy putting on a vest of C4 and ball bearings because Yassar Arafat gave his family $500. These acts are mutually exclusive, and understanding that is the first step in having logic.
ie. Although Al McHogan is dead, only one class of dead people is Al McHogan, or If all fish live under water and Salmon are fish then...... Salmon live under water. Not if you buy Kipper it will rain.
" there are a (significant number) of Islamic fundamentalists " I notice slight change in your theme here.
Evil? Yes ,misguided? Yes, mislead? Yes, enraged? Yes, frustrated? Yes, Fixable? maybe,
Bearing the total responsibility for the situation? No.
Alone in their crimes? No.
People can read what I said and your responses.
A reoccurring point is that backed into a corner and facing anialation, ( by Northern European Settlers )
The American Indian responded the same.
In fact the biggest deference between the American Indian and some Terror group is that
"When captured by Terrorists, You prayed that they didn't cut off your head "
"When captured by American Indian's, You prayed that they did "
Interestingly enough revisionist history has Re Written the American Indian as a Hero.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Ok, what is your obsession with American Indians????
Maybe there were wars between settlers and natives over land and that is just how certain tribes acted towards enemies (pretty primative and barbaric huh, of course because some of the natives were)...hmmmm.
This is just how some Tribes fought (even each other before the settlers), just like Beheading is nothing new, it is biblical and a technique that Mohammad used to punish an entire village of infidels as I recall. This is how many Muslims fight and administer justice in many countries still today.
Don't use a primitive Indian's behavior 2 centuries ago to justify a terrorist flying a plane into a building full of civilians because a sand turd told them they will get laid in heaven for doing it
A Black Foot Indian cutting out the heart of his live enemy and eating it to gain strength from his enemy to use in battle does not justify a Retarded 12 year old boy putting on a vest of C4 and ball bearings because Yassar Arafat gave his family $500. These acts are mutually exclusive, and understanding that is the first step in having logic.
ie. Although Al McHogan is dead, only one class of dead people is Al McHogan, or If all fish live under water and Salmon are fish then...... Salmon live under water. Not if you buy Kipper it will rain.
Last edited by Major_Spittle (2006-04-21 13:52:42)
Its a parallel, a historical event that mirrors the current one, Again, are you deliberately trying to appear "Easily confused " for some reason?Major_Spittle wrote:
Horseman77 wrote:
" there are a (significant number) of Islamic fundamentalists " I notice slight change in your theme here.
Evil? Yes ,misguided? Yes, mislead? Yes, enraged? Yes, frustrated? Yes, Fixable? maybe,
Bearing the total responsibility for the situation? No.
Alone in their crimes? No.
People can read what I said and your responses.
A reoccurring point is that backed into a corner and facing anialation, ( by Northern European Settlers )
The American Indian responded the same.
In fact the biggest deference between the American Indian and some Terror group is that
"When captured by Terrorists, You prayed that they didn't cut off your head "
"When captured by American Indian's, You prayed that they did "
Interestingly enough revisionist history has Re Written the American Indian as a Hero.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Ok, what is your obsession with American Indians????.
?? wtf does this mean.Major_Spittle wrote:
Not if you buy Kipper it will rain.
On israels behalf and they know this.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
At least from the news reports Ive seen from BBC news and other international news sources the US seems to have a reputation for heavy handed meddling.
No, we care about israel and their oil. If it wasn't for there oil they would wouldn't care about them at all.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
And at least in their eyes the US only cares about the oil.
No kidding we are politically aligned against them. We are allied with israel. " Why " is the question. We need oil. That should drive our alliances.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
So it looks to them, that we are a country politically aligned against them, and taking actions that are negatively affecting their lives. Which makes the US just as much of a target as Israel.
Why should The US invade? If they as a Nation are against us, The USA can fight them as a Nation. This means we can fight them like we fought Japan and Germany. Not house to house looking for individual Guerillas allegedly belong to a certain Group. Germany fought harder longer and Fanatics waged a Guerilla war after the hostilities formally ended. The only difference is Hollywood and the Liberal left didn't cheer them on. They would have been hung for it back then. the last Japanese soldier finally gave up in 1974.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Eventually theyl nuke somebody, Israel, the US, or somewhere in Europe.......and then the US invades.
What do you base this on ?ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Its my opinion that as soon as any nuclear device goes off, every single nuclear capable country is going to goto Defcon five. Back to the Cuban Missle crisis, hand hovering over the launch key.
True but this is not New thought. It applies to every day life since The Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Sold the USSR our atomic secrets in 1947ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Stability between the most dangerous of the nuclear capable countries would be paramount. Because nobody wants doomsday.
No, it isn't and if you get your information from budget TV movies from 1980 our conversation is nearing an End.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
(The movie "The Day After" is one of the better examples of what would become of us.)
I don't remember hearing or reading about anything that specific?ShotgunFacelift wrote:
So Iran, a small country that has made public statements legitimizing terrorist attacks on soft targets, and a willingness to do anything to achieve its objectives.
Well, as a Voter I know I DO NOT WANT the USA to spearhead anything. I would like Great Britain, France, Russia, Spain or Italy to lead the way with their vast intellect and shear sense of enlightenment.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Would be considered a dangerously unstable influence. Thats why I think the US would invade, or at least spear head the invasion.
Low intensity conflict? I hate to tell you but if someone Anyone pops a Nuke on us that is a Blank check to strike back anyway we see fit.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Though I dont ever think that the US would be able to fight them as a nation. The war would remain a low intensity conflict, no pitched battles, only guerilla fighting.
You said "So Iran, a small country that has made public statements legitimizing terrorist attacks" That's what you said in quotes why would we need to respond to this as a guerilla war?
Yes we would, Iran the Country Its people and its ArmyShotgunFacelift wrote:
Because they wouldnt be fighting another military/political organization,
Yes, there is a Chain of Command starting with their PM down. All of Iran would be a Target. It wouldn't be our fault that they are Easy targets.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
but an Quasi-political/religious/cultural organization. With no hard targets to attack, and no central chain of command to break.
Your opinion.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Recent happenings in the US elections and the justification for entering into the Iraque conflict have sullied my views of US voters "knowing what they want". When they unquestionably support an administration that has, if not "lied", at least "misinformed" the public numerous times and gotten away with it.
Did you think they would be labeled and waiting?ShotgunFacelift wrote:
- The mobile chemical weapons factories that ceased to exits as soon as we entered the country.
You alone have found all the Correct and Truthful news. I applaud you.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
So I dont think US voters know what they want. Because the primary sources of information they use to make their decisions has been compromized.
As all the Wars in history go, I am not sure I remember a smoother, faster, less costly one. What we are accomplishing there is worthy.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
then theyll get stuck in another clusterfu*@ like Iraque.
In the Past two years they went from
Fighting
to guerilla fighting
to Suicide bombing
to Leaving a bomb on the side of the road and hoping they hurt someone,.. Anyone.
The insurgents do not have the backing of the Iraqi people. Yes, the War would have been smaller and exponentially less costly if clinton had address the issue after WTC 93. He had other thongs* on his mind. 20/20 hind sight.
All WARs are costly, Bill me ! I value the Lives of my fellow US citizens more than money.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Im not sure where your getting your information but the iraq war is costing us $177M a day, right now the Iraq conflict has cost the US about 274 billion and counting. The Vietnam War cost the US 111 Billion in adjusted dollars (source:http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm)
Smooth? Smooth if your sitting in the American suburbs I guess. I dont call daily bombings, kidnappings and civil unrest smooth.
I am kinda funny that way.
And Smooth like I personally know 4 people serving there. That kinda first hand knowledge smooth. that region has always had " Civil Unrest " Tribal wars and Feuds BFD it is a WAR as WARs go it IS SMOOOOOTH Compare it to the last Days of WWII where Kamikazes killed thousands Japanese Massacred thousands of civilians in Manilla Please have some senses of history and Hind sight.
Saber rattling? " Shock and Awe " was Saber rattling? Are you for Real. this I can barley respond to.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
While the CLinton jibe is well placed, he was the president that pushed for better diplomatic relations with the middle east. Perhaps if the US had maintained a better dialogue with Iran we might have been able to play as a third party between Israel and Iran. Instead we are viewed as part of their problem. While diplomatic relations for the Bush administration is relegated to sabre rattling, "Do this or else......"
Sadam was hiding in a 4 x 4 foot hole like a Homeless NYC bum and he looked the part too, and Every other despot knows he can suffer the same fate if we desire it. This is what the Iranian scum bag has to weigh in on and think about.
All clinton did was jerk off and they knew it. it was open season on US citizens for 8 years. Not any more.
We are fighting " the entire ( militant ) Muslim world, "ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Except this time they'll be fighting the entire militant Muslim world.
We wouldn't fight China in a man on man pitched battle. They are a Crushing force for the battlefield of 1956. Not for a war in 2006.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
It may even start WWIII, depending on who gets involved. Especially if China takes one side and the US takes the other. I hope china wont ally against the US. Its unlikely, we both have too much to gain in economic terms from each other. But China is spending huge sums of money building up its military. Being the size that china is, its standing army will dwarf most first world nations active forces.
I just think that the US would feel threatenned by it. Im saying hostilities are possible, not probable.
Horseman 77 wrote:
A third possibility is The USA says We owe israel nothing and no longer support them. Sorry for all past transgressions. Here is the billions and Billions per year in aid that we formally gave to israel for reasons unknown.
It all Stops on dime. This will never happen.
Why I have no Idea, you would think their Loyalty would be to their Own country and country men.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
I agree this will never happen, there is too much diplomatic history between the US and Israel, in addition to the large Jewish support base in the US.
We were involved since 1947, it heated up in 1993 Now were are actively fighting back instead of turning a blind eye or pretending " we didn't know who hit us "ShotgunFacelift wrote:
To sum it all up, the Bush administration has involved us in a conflict that has been going on for centuries.
It is not our intention to resolve it. We know how to. We decided in 1946 to have one ally we don't need that exploits us instead of an entire region that has resources we want and need. We don't care that they are our enemy They need to learn fear and respect. They have. We will teach more people if we have to.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
One that we are unlikely to ressolve. We have made more enemies in the middle east than friends,
In your opinion and I don't care what These other nations think Let them pick up the ball. Does Spain really think it has secured its safety? Don't make me laugh. Europe has given us the V1 and V2 Rocket Death camps genocide Ethnic cleansing. I couldn't care less what they think or presume to know.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
and managed to sully our reputation on the world stage.
Corrupt Scum.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Through geneva convention violations,
BFD a blue eyed 18 year old girl put a dog leash on him and made fun of his infantile pecker, that's a $600 per hour value in ManhattanShotgunFacelift wrote:
Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay,
Total, BS hurricane and a flood that hampered relief efforts. they should have had to rescue 400 old and infirm people not 60,000 fat fux to dumb to evacuate.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
aswell as the embarasment of our handling of the New Orleans disaster.
PS they still wont leave there hotels.
That's why I don't want to Spearhead anything anymore. Let some other nation lead not mine.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Iran views think us as a meddlesome ally of their sworn enemy. The US's direct involvement will only make the situation worse.
and you buttressed my whole point this is why we have trouble with these people " Iran views think us as a meddlesome ally of their sworn enemy. "
Who is there Sworn enemy?
ShotgunFacelift wrote:
BTW, this is huge post......sorry
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-21 15:51:51)
Horseman 77 wrote:
On israels behalf and they know this.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
At least from the news reports Ive seen from BBC news and other international news sources the US seems to have a reputation for heavy handed meddling.No, we care about israel and their oil. If it wasn't for there oil they would wouldn't care about them at all.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
And at least in their eyes the US only cares about the oil.No kidding we are politically aligned against them. We are allied with israel. " Why " is the question. We need oil. That should drive our alliances.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
So it looks to them, that we are a country politically aligned against them, and taking actions that are negatively affecting their lives. Which makes the US just as much of a target as Israel.
So these 8 Million Jews in the US have no impact of US policy?Talon wrote:
There are actually around 8 million Jews in the US and 7 mil in Israel, if I remember rightly. And 300k in England (I'm one of em).I agree this will never happen, there is too much diplomatic history between the US and Israel, in addition to the large Jewish support base in the US.
If Iran sold the US oil for $40 a barrel we'd be siding with Iran?
I primarily base that opinion on cold war era US policy. Popular opinion seems to have fallen into the same track, instead of the communists, its the evil arabs.Horseman77 wrote:
What do you base this on ?ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Its my opinion that as soon as any nuclear device goes off, every single nuclear capable country is going to goto Defcon five. Back to the Cuban Missle crisis, hand hovering over the launch key.True but this is not New thought. It applies to every day life since The Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Sold the USSR our atomic secrets in 1947ShotgunFacelift wrote:
Stability between the most dangerous of the nuclear capable countries would be paramount. Because nobody wants doomsday.
The fact that the US still maintains that it will use a preemptive nuclear strike. If they were attacked first I think it unlikely that the US would not use its nuclear arsenal to retaliate.
Even the smallest of the US's nuclear warheads would devastate neighboring regions, in addition to pumping radiation into the atmosphere. Every country would be affected, so, I think every nation would want to prevent the US from retaliating with nuclear weaponry.
Likewise if any other nuclear capable nation was the recipient of a nuclear attack. The ill effects of one nuclear blast would be bad enough, two would be even worse
The day after was one of the only good movies Ive seen make an attempt at portraying the level of devastation nuclear warfare brings.horseman77 wrote:
No, it isn't and if you get your information from budget TV movies from 1980 our conversation is nearing an End.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
(The movie "The Day After" is one of the better examples of what would become of us.)
On the Beach by Nevil Shute is my favorite example of what would happen if multiple nuclear strikes occured. Not only will the countries firing the nukes be wiped out, but the entire planet.
It strikes me as a very pathetic way for the human race to end itself.
I liked that movie a lot.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
The day after was one of the only good movies Ive seen make an attempt at portraying the level of devastation nuclear warfare brings.horseman77 wrote:
No, it isn't and if you get your information from budget TV movies from 1980 our conversation is nearing an End.ShotgunFacelift wrote:
(The movie "The Day After" is one of the better examples of what would become of us.)
On the Beach by Nevil Shute is my favorite example of what would happen if multiple nuclear strikes occured. Not only will the countries firing the nukes be wiped out, but the entire planet.
It strikes me as a very pathetic way for the human race to end itself.
I don't think it is aplicable to the current situation either.
Never realized they made it into a movie, I was refering to the book, anyways.....
While total nuclear war between the super powers is highly unlikely in these
times, nuclear weapons have advanced to the point that we dont need full
scale war. One small nuclear device, followed by a hydrogen bomb is quite
capable of spreading enough radioactive material into the atmosphere. Though it wouldnt kill us all off, it would certainly increase sterility, birth defects and incur crippling cost on every countries healthcare systems
While my comment about On the Beach is not strictly relevant to the current
circumstance, it does illustrate the type of dangers involved with nuclear
weapons. Hence my argument that the first world nations would want to keep
hostilities from escalating if a nuclear attack occured.
but in similar fashion comparing Iran to Germany or Japan in WWII is equally
circumstantial in its relevancy.
In WWII your talking about a war between countries of similar industrial and
economic capacity, and With similar levels of technology. Iran's GDP is
551.6 billion, while the US's GDP is 13.059 trillion. The disparity between
the military technology of the US and Iran is chasm-like.
Yes Iran would stand against the US as a nation, for the first 48 hours or
so. By then the Airforce would have established air superiority, and
destroyed the countries communcation, power and logistical assets. Aswell as
probably killing most of their authority figures, or at least drive them
into hiding.
Then your left with a country with no governance, and no basic services such
as power, water or sanitation. At least in Iraq the populace wanted us to
remove Saddam. In Iran anti American sentiment is extremelly high, so they
hated us before we turned their country into a bombed out ruin.
With no Government to lead them people would likely turn to their local and
religious leaders, who incidentally preach about a holy war against the
Western crusaders.........
An initial conflict, lots of videos from the front on CNN, followed by expensive (in lives, and equipement) peacekeeping operations.
Though its probable other countries would contribute more forces to the peacekeeing operations. So the cost wouldnt be solely born by the US.
But if we continue to making international policy decisions headless of our allies opinions, well end up bearing the full cost of the war.
No matter how invincible you may think the US is, there are limits to how much money and manpower we can sink into such conflicts.
While total nuclear war between the super powers is highly unlikely in these
times, nuclear weapons have advanced to the point that we dont need full
scale war. One small nuclear device, followed by a hydrogen bomb is quite
capable of spreading enough radioactive material into the atmosphere. Though it wouldnt kill us all off, it would certainly increase sterility, birth defects and incur crippling cost on every countries healthcare systems
While my comment about On the Beach is not strictly relevant to the current
circumstance, it does illustrate the type of dangers involved with nuclear
weapons. Hence my argument that the first world nations would want to keep
hostilities from escalating if a nuclear attack occured.
but in similar fashion comparing Iran to Germany or Japan in WWII is equally
circumstantial in its relevancy.
In WWII your talking about a war between countries of similar industrial and
economic capacity, and With similar levels of technology. Iran's GDP is
551.6 billion, while the US's GDP is 13.059 trillion. The disparity between
the military technology of the US and Iran is chasm-like.
Yes Iran would stand against the US as a nation, for the first 48 hours or
so. By then the Airforce would have established air superiority, and
destroyed the countries communcation, power and logistical assets. Aswell as
probably killing most of their authority figures, or at least drive them
into hiding.
Then your left with a country with no governance, and no basic services such
as power, water or sanitation. At least in Iraq the populace wanted us to
remove Saddam. In Iran anti American sentiment is extremelly high, so they
hated us before we turned their country into a bombed out ruin.
With no Government to lead them people would likely turn to their local and
religious leaders, who incidentally preach about a holy war against the
Western crusaders.........
An initial conflict, lots of videos from the front on CNN, followed by expensive (in lives, and equipement) peacekeeping operations.
Though its probable other countries would contribute more forces to the peacekeeing operations. So the cost wouldnt be solely born by the US.
But if we continue to making international policy decisions headless of our allies opinions, well end up bearing the full cost of the war.
No matter how invincible you may think the US is, there are limits to how much money and manpower we can sink into such conflicts.
Last edited by ShotgunFacelift (2006-04-26 10:29:38)
This is not even Close to a " Cold War Scenario "
It is a Super Power that has been the Worlds foremost Since 1944 Vs an upstart Pirate Nation making threats about its intentions for weapons it has not yet But may create.
I doubt Korea will attack Japan over what the US or israel does in Iran. Its laughable.
How bout this.
How about a Strong Bombing campaign.
Followed up by Other Strong bombing campaigns anytime a Satellite Photo shows us..
1 any to sticks that appear to be nailed together or
2 any group of Stones that appear to be Stacked.
When it seems really quite..
1 Drop grass seed
2 Send over Buffalo and Let set.
deney any action. It wasnt our B52s, We were at the movies last night.
It is a Super Power that has been the Worlds foremost Since 1944 Vs an upstart Pirate Nation making threats about its intentions for weapons it has not yet But may create.
I doubt Korea will attack Japan over what the US or israel does in Iran. Its laughable.
How bout this.
How about a Strong Bombing campaign.
Followed up by Other Strong bombing campaigns anytime a Satellite Photo shows us..
1 any to sticks that appear to be nailed together or
2 any group of Stones that appear to be Stacked.
When it seems really quite..
1 Drop grass seed
2 Send over Buffalo and Let set.
deney any action. It wasnt our B52s, We were at the movies last night.
If iran gets a nuke
Israel = pile of smoldering matzah
which is very unfortunate.
Israel = pile of smoldering matzah
which is very unfortunate.
israel has nukes and I guarantee their systems are head and shoulders over anything Korea could build.Naughty_Om wrote:
If iran gets a nuke
Israel = pile of smoldering matzah
which is very unfortunate.
Even if Iraq got them flying I would bet israel has an Anti ballistic missile system to take them out.
israel has bomb shelters up the ass.
It would be bad but israel would survive and have Carte Blanch to work over the whole Area as it has been longing to do for about 30 years.
Israel's anti-ballistic system is our patriot missile system. which only hit something like 2 out of 17 missiles thrown out by saddam in 89. israel probably would hit Iran before they could get in the sky. but im talking more about a dirty bomb brought in.
I am sure they have updated it since 92.Naughty_Om wrote:
Israel's anti-ballistic system is our patriot missile system. which only hit something like 2 out of 17 missiles thrown out by saddam in 89. israel probably would hit Iran before they could get in the sky. but im talking more about a dirty bomb brought in.
Also our systems are designed to counter a wide range of different threats.
israels systems can be designed to counter a much more specific threat and thus be more effective at a narrower task.
Besides a bet anything israel will have the plans of Iran's systems about 1 hour after they develop it.
Dirty bomb? I just don't know.
http://www.missilethreat.com/
The end of the Cold War has made such a strategy [MAD] largely irrelevant. Barely plausible when there was only one strategic opponent, the theory makes no sense in a multipolar world of proliferating nuclear powers. Mutual destruction is not likely to work against religious fanatics; desperate leaders may blackmail with nuclear weapons; blackmail or accidents could run out of control. And when these dangers materialize, the refusal to have made timely provisions will shake confidence in all institutions of government. At a minimum, the rudiments of a defense system capable of rapid expansion should be put into place.
The end of the Cold War has made such a strategy [MAD] largely irrelevant. Barely plausible when there was only one strategic opponent, the theory makes no sense in a multipolar world of proliferating nuclear powers. Mutual destruction is not likely to work against religious fanatics; desperate leaders may blackmail with nuclear weapons; blackmail or accidents could run out of control. And when these dangers materialize, the refusal to have made timely provisions will shake confidence in all institutions of government. At a minimum, the rudiments of a defense system capable of rapid expansion should be put into place.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-04-28 04:57:48)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I agree and what is wrong with the Middle East is the countries harbor terrorist and expect not to be attacked because of these terrorist organization's actions. Israel should just go to war with Palestine for the attacks by the citizens of Palestine. The US should have held Saudi Arabia responsible for 9-11. It is the countries tolerating these wackos that are to blame. Next you know when a nuke does go off and we find out it was a terrorist organization from Iran are we supposed to go " oh well, we have to hunt down terrorists in a sea of Muslims again " or do we just say " fuck you Iran, you are a parking lot and we got free oil ".Kmarion wrote:
http://www.missilethreat.com/
The end of the Cold War has made such a strategy [MAD] largely irrelevant. Barely plausible when there was only one strategic opponent, the theory makes no sense in a multipolar world of proliferating nuclear powers. Mutual destruction is not likely to work against religious fanatics; desperate leaders may blackmail with nuclear weapons; blackmail or accidents could run out of control. And when these dangers materialize, the refusal to have made timely provisions will shake confidence in all institutions of government. At a minimum, the rudiments of a defense system capable of rapid expansion should be put into place.
And it goes worse than these countries just tolerating the terrorist. The Iranian leader is threatening Israel, a country miles away that has nothing to do with his country. Many of the countries finance the terrorists and appease the war lords.
How did you even find this with search not working...