Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

SirNik84 · #31 07-09-2008, 11:59 PM

If the Israelis weren't interested in how the rest of the world sees then, and they weren't fallowing the US foreign policy there would be no Iranian missiles. The Israelis have a knack for taking care of things like this before they become a problem.

If there is an Iranian war, the only reason that it would be worse then Vietnam is because of us, the people of the US haven't been able to present a united front since WWII. when over half the country wants to tuck tale, and the people we are fighting know that then every war we will be in no mater who its with will be along drawn out war. because we will never be able to brake our enemies will if they are always thinking that any day we may just quit.

450slcguy · #32 07-10-2008, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Again, we have the money and personnel. We don't have the stones to do whatever it takes. They do.

I'm not as convinced of that as you are. Their was plenty of support when Iraq was invaded and we bloodied their noses pretty well in a very short time.

What severed the support for a lot of Americans were the deceptions about Iraq's WMD programs. But if the action is justified and the intelligence is accurate, I believe the American public does have to stones do what it takes.

Do we have the stones to nuke anyone, I'm not sure. I do think we should have nuked Tora Bora in Iraq, that would have been justified in my opinion. It's a tough decision that requires more than just "balls". If a few nukes can accomplish our objectives and replace a long and costly occupation I'm all for it.

But then again, we had better seriously consider the very real consequences of such an action. I'm pretty sure that Russia, China, and Pakistan wouldn't take a nuclear attack very well.

Hatterasguy · #33 07-10-2008, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirNik84

If the Israelis weren't interested in how the rest of the world sees then, and they weren't fallowing the US foreign policy there would be no Iranian missiles. The Israelis have a knack for taking care of things like this before they become a problem.

If there is an Iranian war, the only reason that it would be worse then Vietnam is because of us, the people of the US haven't been able to present a united front since WWII. when over half the country wants to tuck tale, and the people we are fighting know that then every war we will be in no mater who its with will be along drawn out war. because we will never be able to brake our enemies will if they are always thinking that any day we may just quit.

Thats the problem, they think we are weak and will lose resolve so they try to play the waiting game.

Long wars suck, and are hard to win, more so for a republic.

Where as a country like China could invade and stay in a country like Iraq for 20 years not really giving a damn if they lose a few thousand troops, we can't do that.

Vronsky · #34 07-10-2008, 02:41 AM

Help me out here guys:
- when was the last time Iran attacked a neighbour/another state ?
- how many times has Iran itself been attacked since WW2 ?
- how many missiles and nukes does NATO & Israel have available ?
So who has the most reason to be scared ?

And, why cann't Iran have missiles/nukes when it seems to be okay for everybody else? Because Iran is not a democracy according to our standards? FYI: since the invention of nukes, only a democracy has ever used them.

Vronsky · #35 07-10-2008, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

I agree. If they think they can go toe-to-toe militarily with the US and/or Israel they are sadly mistaken.

The USA is bankrupt, and its military power is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, stretched to the max. Israel cann't even defeat Hezbollah right across the border in Lebanon.

All this talk of nukes looks like total desperation and impotence

75Sv1 · #36 07-10-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

I'm not as convinced of that as you are. Their was plenty of support when Iraq was invaded and we bloodied their noses pretty well in a very short time.

What severed the support for a lot of Americans were the deceptions about Iraq's WMD programs. But if the action is justified and the intelligence is accurate, I believe the American public does have to stones do what it takes.

.

Wasn't there a shipment of yellow cake uranium recently out of Iraq recently? I would say that would qualify as WMD. I would agree with some flim-flam though.
Tom

Botnst · #37 07-10-2008, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vronsky

...

And, why cann't Iran have missiles/nukes when it seems to be okay for everybody else? Because Iran is not a democracy according to our standards? FYI: since the invention of nukes, only a democracy has ever used them.

Don't confuse what I am about to write with support for war against Iran. I think such a war would be a stupid thing to do and quite counterproductive to formation of a democratic Iran. Iran is generating external threats in a bid to unite its people who are increasingly dissatisfied with the mullocracy. Just leave them unmolested but with constant diplomatic pressure and they will eventually collapse under their own contradictions.

Yours (and most of Old Europe's) multicultural moral relativism is perfectly illustrated in your paragraph, above. To you, the device is the evil, not the actions of peoples and governments. To assign that label, "evil" to a regime is something you cannot abide nor can you understand. In your world everything is morally equivalent and context is everything.

Therefore, there is no argument that could be made to you that would help you understand that some governments intend to perpetrate evil on people outside of their lands and even upon their own people. Because you cannot imagine it you cannot believe it possible.

B

Vronsky · #38 07-10-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Therefore, there is no argument that could be made to you that would help you understand that some governments intend to perpetrate evil on people outside of their lands and even upon their own people. Because you cannot imagine it you cannot believe it possible.

B

Cannot imagine it?, that's hilarious. Next to the Nazis, the Soviets and Saddam, your own government seems to me a fine example of 'perpetrating evil on people outside of their lands and even upon their own people'. Just how confused are you?

#39 07-10-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf

Reason enough for Bush to invade, all he has to do is convince (lie to) people it was a WMD.

Botnst · #40 07-10-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vronsky

Cannot imagine it?, that's hilarious. Next to the Nazis, the Soviets and Saddam, your own government seems to me a fine example of 'perpetrating evil on people outside of their lands and even upon their own people'. Just how confused are you?

Thanks for proving my point: You see no difference between Saddam Husein's rule in Iraq and the freely elected gov of the USA.

B

Chad300tdt · #41 07-10-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I couldn't find anywhere that explains how Iran plans to flood the market with cheap oil and how that would collapse our economy. Think about it for a minute. It really makes no sense. It would be in Iran's interest to jack up the price of oil, not reduce it, if they want to harm us.

I've looked into this more and I can only see Iran's "plan" of flooding the market with cheap oil hastening a collapse that would already be in action.

Selling oil in Euros would cause the US dollar to no longer be "backed" by oil and this is what would cause the collapse. My guess is that selling it cheaply would reduce the sales of t-bills that are supposedly floating our national debt.

The links below talk about how selling oil in denominations other than the US dollar would be bad for America. There is also info about how Saddam tried to sell in Euros shortly before the US took him out.

http://www.chycho.com/?q=Fallon_gone

http://dontfearthetruth.com/2008/03/13/what-if-i-told-you-that-10-months-before-911-saddam-hussein-did-something-very-big-and-pissed-off-the-us-administration/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

At any rate, I originally posted my comment because I watched the whole video of Lindsey Williams and he made claims that seem to have become reality. His final claim in the video was to keep an eye on Iran. He stated that the US will have to deal with them due to the "threat" they pose, which he said was going to be by a certain date not revealed in the video, and that Iran will soon be in the media needing possible US military intervention.

It seems like Iran is in the media needing possible US military intervention ... or at least the ground work is being laid for it.

Perhaps I need to get a tinfoil hat.

Botnst · #42 07-10-2008, 08:58 AM

The dollar is not backed by anything substantial. It hasn't been in what, 60 or 70 years?

Chad300tdt · #43 07-10-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The dollar is not backed by anything substantial. It hasn't been in what, 60 or 70 years?

Read the links I posted. If I understand correctly, the US has been basically forcing a backing of the dollar with oil. Since there is no "actual" backing, selling in anything other than dollars would screw up the bully system.

Vronsky · #44 07-10-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Thanks for proving my point: You see no difference between Saddam Husein's rule in Iraq and the freely elected gov of the USA.

B

Maybe ask the Iraqi's if they see much difference aswell. I can imagine they must feel very fortunate that their country has been completely destroyed and 80,000+ countrymen killed because a freely elected government on the other side of the planet suddenly decided they were evil and needed democracy so badly.

AdvisorGuy · #45 07-10-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Don't confuse what I am about to write with support for war against Iran. I think such a war would be a stupid thing to do and quite counterproductive to formation of a democratic Iran. Iran is generating external threats in a bid to unite its people who are increasingly dissatisfied with the mullocracy. Just leave them unmolested but with constant diplomatic pressure and they will eventually collapse under their own contradictions.

Yours (and most of Old Europe's) multicultural moral relativism is perfectly illustrated in your paragraph, above. To you, the device is the evil, not the actions of peoples and governments. To assign that label, "evil" to a regime is something you cannot abide nor can you understand. In your world everything is morally equivalent and context is everything.

Therefore, there is no argument that could be made to you that would help you understand that some governments intend to perpetrate evil on people outside of their lands and even upon their own people. Because you cannot imagine it you cannot believe it possible.

B

Kind of like "Orange Alerts". They're trying to scare their populous into thinking everything outside their borders is evil and must be destroyed in order to deflect attention from their under-performing economy, policies and dismantling of any actual freedoms that they have the perception of actually having.....