Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #46 07-10-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdvisorGuy

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.....

Non sequitur

aklim · #47 07-10-2008, 11:30 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.

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.

Conventional warfare, yes. We excel at that. Asymmetrical warfare requires us to have the stones to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is necessary. We don't. We proved it time and again.

I guess we are going to differ on that. We will go into war with one hand tied behind our backs. When we fight, we should have a "no holds barred" approach.

If we didn't in Tora Bora, what makes you think we will?

Hence, one hand tied behind our backs.

aklim · #48 07-10-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vronsky

Israel cann't even defeat Hezbollah right across the border in Lebanon.

Could they have slaughtered every man, woman and child? Yes. However, like us in many other conflicts since WWII, we have chosen to play politics and fight a limited war when others are not. Bring a knife to a gun fight and you lose. Yes, you have a huge arsenal in your basement. Good for you. Doesn't matter. If you bring your knife and he brings a gun, you lose. PERIOD.

Honus · #49 07-10-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

...As far as US assets/capabilities are concerned, our Navy/Air Force is practically untouched in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've got plenty of ships and planes to commit, they would overwhelmed in a very short time.

I'm no military expert, but I doubt that it is as simple as that.

What do you propose, heavy bombardment? Followed by what?

I can't believe we are having this conversation. Are people in this country really serious about starting a war with Iran? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but that seems completely insane to me.

aklim and hatterasguy are talking about nuclear war in the Middle East as if that might be a pretty cool thing, just to see what happens over there. Are you guys serious about that?

Honus · #50 07-10-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Could they have slaughtered every man, woman and child? Yes. However, like us in many other conflicts since WWII, we have chosen to play politics and fight a limited war when others are not...

So the better approach would have been for Isreal to slaughter every man, woman, and child? Seems a tad harsh.

aklim · #51 07-10-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

aklim and hatterasguy are talking about nuclear war in the Middle East as if that might be a pretty cool thing, just to see what happens over there. Are you guys serious about that?

Something like that might cripple Iran which supplies our friends in Iraq so at worst, it might give them a headache and divert their attention. If they kill each other, what have we lost? I'm sure we would lose an ally there but oh well.

aklim · #52 07-10-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

So the better approach would have been for Isreal to slaughter every man, woman, and child? Seems a tad harsh.

Yes, I suppose you are right. We should abide by The Marquess of Queensberry rules. After all, Hezbollah has manufactured bombs that only go off on soldiers. Never civillians. It isn't Lebanon's fault for giving them sanctuary either.

Lebanon is having a hard time from a bad childhood. Mommy and Daddy didn't love them enough, blah, blah, blah.

If I were Israel, I would ask, How were they NOT the enemy? They gave aid and shelter to the enemy, they even had the enemy in PUBLIC OFFICE, what makes them separate from the enemy? They don't restrain themselves, why should we? They take hostages and in so doing, Lebanon takes hostages. What makes Lebanon NOT the enemy? Just because you are not holding the AK-47 and wearing the bomb vest doesn't make you a civilian. If you aid the guy, you are as responsible. He dies, you die. Again, I'm sorry that the idea of your army meeting my army on a deserted field of battle has died out.

Mistress · #53 07-10-2008, 12:16 PM

We can't afford another war, literally.

aklim · #54 07-10-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress

We can't afford another war, literally.

Not at the way we fight it with one hand tied behind and a ball and chain on the other leg. OTOH, if Israel wants to do it for us and wipes them out, who are we to say "No" you cannot?

Mistress · #55 07-10-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Not at the way we fight it with one hand tied behind and a ball and chain on the other leg. OTOH, if Israel wants to do it for us and wipes them out, who are we to say "No" you cannot?

All Isreal has to do is send in the wimmins again and win this in seven days!

Botnst · #56 07-10-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

So the better approach would have been for Isreal to slaughter every man, woman, and child? Seems a tad harsh.

According to the Bible, there's a precedent. I think that going after crops, farm animals and wells is okay, too.

aklim · #57 07-10-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress

All Isreal has to do is send in the wimmins again and win this in seven days!

They can win in 7 days but only if they don't fight in a restricted fashion. It moves, shoot it. Still moves, shoot again.

Hatterasguy · #58 07-10-2008, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I'm no military expert, but I doubt that it is as simple as that.

What do you propose, heavy bombardment? Followed by what?

I can't believe we are having this conversation. Are people in this country really serious about starting a war with Iran? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but that seems completely insane to me.

aklim and hatterasguy are talking about nuclear war in the Middle East as if that might be a pretty cool thing, just to see what happens over there. Are you guys serious about that?

I never said we should go to war with Iran, the ability to and actualy doing it are two different things. However the ability to, makes the threat real and is very usefull, in this case more usefull than actualy using it.

I have for quite a few years now viewed Iran as a problem that will eventualy solve itself. As Bot said the people are pretty liberal and forward thinking, and not big fans of the currant government. All this smoke from the currant guys in power is a bid to unit the people to deflect crap from them. If we do something dumb like drop bombs they win, if we do what Obama wants and start talking to the currant nut jobs we piss the people of Iran off. We have the luxury of time on our side, they don't, as the older generation dies off the call for change is going to get louder.

Iran is a problem best solved with political and maybe some economic pressure, and possible in the future some CIA and $$$ aid to the right group. IMHO the worst thing we can do other than drop bombs on them is try to be friendly with the currant nut jobs in power. That would really piss the people off, as we have seen and done before in this area of the world. No we need to keep pissing them off and letting them go down this path. They have no intention of actualy shooting anything.

IMHO all we need to do with Iran is sit back and poke at the currant government for the next 20 years until it falls apart. Than get friendly with the more moderate government that replaces them.

Honus · #59 07-10-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

I never said we should go to war with Iran...

That's true. I kind of mixed up several posts in my response. I was commenting on your previous comment about somebody nuking nuking somebody else over there.

Quote:

... IMHO all we need to do with Iran is sit back and poke at the currant government for the next 20 years until it falls apart. Than get friendly with the more moderate government that replaces them.

Sounds right to me.

Hatterasguy · #60 07-10-2008, 01:11 PM

You have to nuke something!

Nuke the whales!