Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A definition of IranyFollow

#127 Dec 09 2011 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
you obviously don't know who Tommy Franks is or why I made the comment but that's ok.


I know who Tommy Franks is. And I assume you made the comment because you thought that tossing out a name you googled would make it appear like you had some kind of intelligent point to make. So go ahead. What point are you making? Because from here it looks like you're just trying to use some kind of vaguely stated commonality in order to draw on emotional responses related to the war in Iraq in lieu of actually addressing the specifics of the situation at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Dec 09 2011 at 6:11 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Actually the point I was making was that the US airforce used massive airstrikes in Iraq to destroy the militaries infrastructure. That worked out real well for the War there eh. Also the ironic part of the hole thing, a war started on (false) pretense of Iraqi WMD's resulted in the ability for Iraq to now legally acquire and manufacture WMD's.

Now that is an epic war strategy.


and here I thought you were a critically logical thinker.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 7:12pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#129 Dec 09 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Actually the point I was making was that the US airforce used massive airstrikes in Iraq to destroy the militaries infrastructure. That worked out real well for the War there eh.


Yeah. It did. Or are you arguing we'd have had less problems in Iraq if we had not used airstrikes first?


Quote:
and here I thought you were a critically logical thinker.


Yes. Which means you test the conditions you're looking at. Like say asking "Would the ground campaign in Iraq have been more or less successful if we hadn't used airstrikes to destroy much of their military infrastructure first?". Then, you might even follow it up with "Had we chosen to invade in that way, instead of the way we did, would it have had any effect on the years afterwards, insurgent problems, road side bombs, etc?".

I don't think it's hard to conclude that absent airstrikes, the ground campaign would have been much tougher, with far higher US casualties during that phase of the war *and* that not using those airstrikes would have had no effect at all on the insurgencies and other problems we encountered after the ground war was complete and Iraq's military forces were defeated. Of course, that's just my opinion, but I think it's a reasonable one, and it's one which makes me wonder why the hell you even brought the subject up.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#130 Dec 09 2011 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Actually the point I was making was that the US airforce used massive airstrikes in Iraq to destroy the militaries infrastructure. That worked out real well for the War there eh. Also the ironic part of the hole thing, a war started on (false) pretense of Iraqi WMD's resulted in the ability for Iraq to now legally acquire and manufacture WMD's.

Now that is an epic war strategy.


and here I thought you were a critically logical thinker.


Oh! Let me also observe that this post is nowhere near actually "making a point". Stringing together a set of sarcastic comments isn't making a point. Perhaps you can try again? Because I'm still mystified where you're trying to go with this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#131 Dec 09 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Quote:
Yeah. It did. Or are you arguing we'd have had less problems in Iraq if we had not used airstrikes first?


Shouldn't have bothered to go at all was it worth the estimated 3 trillion dollar hit to the US economy?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#132 Dec 09 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Yeah. It did. Or are you arguing we'd have had less problems in Iraq if we had not used airstrikes first?


Shouldn't have bothered to go at all was it worth the estimated 3 trillion dollar hit to the US economy?


Ok. But that's a completely different question. I was talking about airstrikes alone against Iran, not an invasion/occupation. You compared that to airstrikes in the leadup to the war in Iraq, but apparently you weren't really talking about the airstrikes themselves, but the war and occupation in Iraq, even though I wasn't talking about the same sort of thing at all.


See how critical thinking helps us cut through the BS? If you'd used it yourself, you could have avoided talking about the airstrikes and directly talked about whether I was proposing some sort of ground war and/or invasion of Iraq, and we could have saved several posts of me having to practically drag your point out of you.

Oh. And btw: We're talking about options and scenarios in Iran. Not whether you or I think that Iraq was worth the effort/cost. Try to stay on target here.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 5:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Dec 09 2011 at 7:44 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I agree with gbaji that this would have been a great opportunity to force Iran's hand, instigating them into action that would lead to retaliation. And forget about Franks, the one we should be taking advice from is Vizzini.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#134 Dec 09 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Quote:
You compared that to airstrikes in the leadup to the war in Iraq


The Airstrikes were initially done to have Iraq just give up and hand over their "WMD's". Kinda like coercing Iran into handing over your toy.

When Iraq said no we are going to fight you, then you occupied the country. When Iran says no we are going to fight you, you going to occupy them too?. The US have 3 Trillion that it can spend on another decade long war.

Like I said your country can't afford an encounter with Iran, so get Israel to do it. Again they are the only country that is really threatened by a Nuclear Iran.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#135 Dec 09 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Yeah, we should never have gotten involved with land wars in Asia. Smiley: mad
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#136 Dec 09 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You compared that to airstrikes in the leadup to the war in Iraq


The Airstrikes were initially done to have Iraq just give up and hand over their "WMD's". Kinda like coercing Iran into handing over your toy.

When Iraq said no we are going to fight you, then you occupied the country. When Iran says no we are going to fight you, you going to occupy them too?. The US have 3 Trillion that it can spend on another decade long war.

Like I said your country can't afford an encounter with Iran, so get Israel to do it. Again they are the only country that is really threatened by a Nuclear Iran.

Note I didn't specify that *we* (the US) had to retaliate. Though we could probably be convinced to lend some support. And if Israel gets involved in a war with Iran, maybe they'll stop ******** around with the Palestinians for awhile.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#137 Dec 09 2011 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You compared that to airstrikes in the leadup to the war in Iraq


The Airstrikes were initially done to have Iraq just give up and hand over their "WMD's". Kinda like coercing Iran into handing over your toy.


You have it wrong on both counts. The goal of the airstrikes during the leadup to the invasion of Iraq was to destroy their air defenses, command and control, and ground forces in preparation of our attack. We had already committed ourselves to invasion before we started the air campaign. We did not bomb them a few times and then demand they turn over WMDs, then attack when they refused. You are just plain wrong.

Similarly, I did not speak of air strikes as a means to force Iran to turn over the drone. I said we should have gone in immediately with sufficient force to recover or destroy the drone. What that force was made up of could be anything from air power alone (destroy the drone), to combined air ground (attempt to recover, destroy if you can't). My comment about airstrikes was to say what we could do *if* Iran decided to take our provocation as an act of war and do something about it.

We don't have to land in Iran or invade them. We can just bomb the hell out of them. My point is that had Obama played this right, he could have used the drone as an excuse to launch an "attack" into Iran to recover/destroy the drone, then challenge Iran to do something about it. If Iran doesn't then they lose face and we win a point in the foreign policy game (and they don't get the drone). If they do, then we can use that as an excuse to escalate into airstrikes against their nuclear program facilities (and they don't get the drone).

I thought I was pretty clear about this when I first wrote it. How the hell did you get things so backwards? Maybe stop smoking pot?

Quote:
When Iraq said no we are going to fight you, then you occupied the country. When Iran says no we are going to fight you, you going to occupy them too?.


No. We take or destroy the drone without asking their permission. If they do anything tangible about it, we escalate to airstrikes. Why the hell would we invade and occupy Iran? My whole point about air power was that we don't have to get involved in an expensive ground war with Iran. We can, with sufficient provocation/excuse, just bomb the hell out of them with out spending significantly more money than we spent in Libya. Again, how the hell did you misunderstand what I was talking about? Why would you assume any part of the goal here would be to invade Iran?

Quote:
Like I said your country can't afford an encounter with Iran, so get Israel to do it. Again they are the only country that is really threatened by a Nuclear Iran.


Israel *can't* do it. Not on their own (or without massive military aid from us, at which point the distinction is silly). And if you can't see how more than just Israel are threatened by Iranian nuclear weapons, then I'm not sure how I can lay a string of bread crumbs for you clear enough to see.

Let's apply that critical thinking again, shall we? Let's pretend that since Israel is the only country threatened by a nuclear Iran, no one else steps in and helps. Let's assume that Iran gets the bomb. Let's pretend that Iran hands a bomb to some operatives, who smuggle it into Syria, where it ends out in the hands of a Hezbolla attack group, who detonate it in Tel Aviv. What the hell do you think happens next? How many countries get involved at that point? Do we just continue to sit at home, smoking our pot, and say "sucks to be Israel"?


If you have any answer other than "we'd just sit by and let Iran blow Israel up without acting", then doesn't it make some sense to find a way to do something *now* when nuclear weapons are not on the table, than to wait until then, when anything we do is hindered by the very real fact that we'd be dealing with a nuclear armed state? I honestly didn't think I had to spell this out so clearly for you. I figured most people understood already why "nuclear armed Iran" is a really really really bad thing we need to avoid at all costs. There is no indication that the current leadership and likely future leadership of Iran would think twice about using a nuke on Israel if they had the chance. They wouldn't launch it directly, of course, but you aren't thinking very clearly if you don't see the obvious method they would use.


And btw. Said method works just as well against the US. Actually, it could work *better*. We have a far more porous border and far less stringent import inspection process than Israel does. Israel has been dealing with terrorists attempting to sneak bombs into their country to blow people up for over half a century. We have not.


Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is an absolute necessity for the US. Obama was just handed a perfect opportunity to use this accident to possibly (depending on Iranian response) do something about it. It was a win-win situation. We get away with our provocation (and keep the drone out of their hands) *or* we get the drone out their hands and get an excuse to set their nuclear program back some more. This is why his choice was the wrong one. I'm not sure what the hell he was thinking.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 6:42pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Dec 09 2011 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Quote:
Do we just continue to sit at home, smoking our pot, and say "sucks to be Israel"


Thats what I will be doing. Then again I thinl being allies with Israel and rushing to back them up all the time is stupid, also I @#%^ing hate the country of Israel. (read country of Israel, not its people, just like I hate the USA). mAlso the destruction of Israel has no impact on the successes or failures of the USA. Dunno why you would want to defend a country who makes their own bed but refuse to sleep in it.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 10:01pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#139 Dec 09 2011 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I would think that any actions in the immediate future (read, the next five years or so) would not be nuclear in nature; any actions Iran could take now would be conventional in nature and would not result in the immediate irradiation of Israel.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#140 Dec 09 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#141 Dec 09 2011 at 10:25 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#142 Dec 09 2011 at 11:09 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
nothing super special just some Johnnie Walker I got a few years back when I finished college.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#143 Dec 10 2011 at 12:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
The broader point though, is that if we'd done "something" to try to get that drone back, the worst case is that we invoke some sort of conflict with Iran. Remember that "conflict" does not necessarily mean full fledged war. Iran would have to decide what response it wanted to bring, and the reality is that we could destroy their air power, air defense, ground forces, and command/control centers without too much more effort than that expended in the "non-war" we engaged in Libya.

In the grand scheme of "bad things that could happen", getting into such a conflict with Iran now is far far from the top of the list.


I'll support a war with Iran if we let the Bush tax cuts expire in order to pay for it. You agree, right?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#144 Dec 10 2011 at 1:44 AM Rating: Decent
Debalic wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.


JD isn't even whisky, it's a bourbon.
#145 Dec 10 2011 at 6:33 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Debalic wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.


JD isn't even whisky, it's a bourbon.

Bourbon is only made in Kentucky. Jack is made in Tennessee.
#146 Dec 10 2011 at 7:27 AM Rating: Excellent
g-unit wrote:
No. He chose incorrectly. Conflict with Iran is nearly inevitable at this point. Assuming we actually don't want them to be able to build nukes that is. Obama was just handed a gift wrapped situation which might have allowed us the justification to actually do something about Iran's nuclear program if handled correctly (hell, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the CIA accident wasn't quite so accidental for exactly that reason). He blinked.
How is Iran taking down one of our spy drones an act of aggression on their part? You are conflating two separate issues. If the Iranian nuclear situation warrants a war, then it warrants a war. We have absolutely no business starting a war just because they took out a spy drone. I know some people may find this hard to believe, but the US isn't some sort of global police that has a right to just do whatever the fuck it wants. Other countries, even ones that we don't like, do kinda have a right to protect their interests.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for us sending in drones and keeping an eye on them, but we really shouldn't be shocked because they might have a problem with it and do something about it.
#147 Dec 10 2011 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Debalic wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.


JD isn't even whisky, it's a bourbon.

Bourbon is still a kind of whiskey, as is scotch.

Edited, Dec 10th 2011 9:53am by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#148 Dec 10 2011 at 8:56 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
g-unit wrote:
No. He chose incorrectly. Conflict with Iran is nearly inevitable at this point. Assuming we actually don't want them to be able to build nukes that is. Obama was just handed a gift wrapped situation which might have allowed us the justification to actually do something about Iran's nuclear program if handled correctly (hell, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the CIA accident wasn't quite so accidental for exactly that reason). He blinked.
How is Iran taking down one of our spy drones an act of aggression on their part? You are conflating two separate issues. If the Iranian nuclear situation warrants a war, then it warrants a war. We have absolutely no business starting a war just because they took out a spy drone. I know some people may find this hard to believe, but the US isn't some sort of global police that has a right to just do whatever the fuck it wants. Other countries, even ones that we don't like, do kinda have a right to protect their interests.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for us sending in drones and keeping an eye on them, but we really shouldn't be shocked because they might have a problem with it and do something about it.

The point is taunting Iran into making the first move, before their nuclear program is complete, then justifying a retaliation.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#149 Dec 10 2011 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Debalic wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Debalic wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.


JD isn't even whisky, it's a bourbon.

Bourbon is still a kind of whiskey, as is scotch.

Edited, Dec 10th 2011 9:53am by Debalic

Oh, I know. Just stating that true bourbon is made in KY, and the rest of that crap can be made anywhere.
#150 Dec 10 2011 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wrote:
Obama was just handed a gift wrapped situation which might have allowed us the justification to actually do something about Iran's nuclear program if handled correctly (hell, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the CIA accident wasn't quite so accidental for exactly that reason).

So your theory is that the CIA, without Obama's foreknowledge or permission, intentionally lost a top secret drone in Iran in order to provoke Obama pulling the United States into a war with Iran and... you're crying about Obama not going for this insanely illegal act?

Holy hell. You conservatives are all sorts of fucked up.

Edited, Dec 10th 2011 10:09am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Dec 10 2011 at 10:13 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Debalic wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
oh well guess ill put this scotch back in the cellar then.

Well, let's not be so hasty. Is it anything special?

Oh, hell with it. I drink Jack so it wouldn't matter, just pass it over.


JD isn't even whisky, it's a bourbon.

Bourbon is still a kind of whiskey, as is scotch.

Edited, Dec 10th 2011 9:53am by Debalic

Oh, I know. Just stating that true bourbon is made in KY, and the rest of that crap can be made anywhere.


As a fan of various whiskeys I would have to say Rye is the best. But Ill take a glass of Eagle anytime too.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 330 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (330)