Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Feb 19, 2007.
So "when?" is the only question.
I don't know skunk. I don't think we'd do that. If we did, they'd bomb the crap out of Israel, I think. It would have to be really comprehensive.
I admire your confidence, if not the reasoning behind it.
Well, I'm not sure of anything and I wouldn't put it past them, but our resources are so tied up right now. I don't see how even someone as dumb as Bush could think this is a good idea at the moment.
I doubt if there is any country that hasn't been war-gamed in some fashion. I recall reading about one "strategic plan" that involved taking Canada, back some 30 years ago. All that has been standard operating procedure in the Pentagon ever since Games Theory became prevalent.
A more likely trigger for an airstrike, IMO more likely, would be deployment for a missile strike from Iran into Israel--as has already been spoken of by Ahmenibajad (spelling?).
This 'news' story would only be 'news' if we were NOT making contingency plans to invade. I am sure we have had numerous plans in place since the Shaw was ousted.
We are walking a very thin line here. The US is being drawn into a potential conflict to protect Israel. There are many other dangerous countries with nuclear capability; Pakistan, North Korea, China, India to name a few. While we do not want nuclear capability to proliferate, we are also standing on shaky legal and moral ground. Israel, and their strong US lobby is manipulating US foreign policy. Not that I blame them for doing so. It is a very smart play on their part. Many Americans may support this, but let's get the truth out and make sure everyone knows what is at play here.
I am not anti-Israel, but I am not anti-Arab either. Israel is going to have to find a way to coexist with their neighbors. I understand it is not a an easy thing to do. However, they have been back in their ancient homeland for ~60 years. They cannot keep drawing us into their conflicts. I think their policies toward the Palestinian people reflect their relying on us too much. But, I am moving off-subject.
Is it supposed to be surprising that the US has a plan to attack Iran?
Besides, without the US, the UN security council has no teeth. They could say "please" I guess.
A link, if you have one, please. This has never to my knowledge been suggested.
I don't see how anyone, except someone as dumb as Bush, could think this is a good idea at the moment.
When the Stennis arrives at the end of February to meet up with the Eisenhower.
^^^ Big boys masturbatory toys.
The expensive toys are great for fighting militarys of other countries but do very little when it comes to winning the peace or changing minds and hearts. Iraq is a prime example, If you dont have the right policys and politics all these weapons are near meaningless. The only ones who benefit from all these weapons are the Corporations, Diplomacy is a lot cheaper by a million fold.
and those toys still get turned into a useless piece of metal if hit by a handful torpedoes
The caption should read: "A US gun crew attempts to turn several hundred patriotic Korean human beings they have never even seen into dust with a single ejaculation from a 16-inch penis. Ha ha ha."
Drifting: A buddy of mine in Vietnam was pinned down with his platoon. Cloudy day, no air. Out of range for help from howitzer artillery. Not far from the coast.
During radio calls, a strange new voice chimed in, offering help. Coordinates were given. The ranging shot was within 50 meters of being on target. After the correction was given, it took very few salvos to reduce Hill 309 to being Hill 209.
My buddy said that battleship support is not only helpful, it's impressive.
skunk, I just saw a news squib back around the time when Hezbollah first attacked Israel. Ahmadinejad (I wrote it down, finally) was uttering all manner of "We're gonna..." stuff about that time. News coverage, of course, focussed on the shooting, not the talking.
Oh: Those targeted "patriotic Koreans"? They were happily invading and killing those other patriotic Koreans in the south who had been minding their own business. Those guns are not addressed "To whom it may concern".
Of course it is. "Gunboat Diplomacy" was an effective strategy for a very good reason. Gloating about the majesty of large guns, and by implication, their unseen victims is however tasteless. There is a very sobering film shown at the D-Day Memorial at Caen in Normandy, where, on a split screen, you see the simultaneous salvoes from both sides, the Allied fleets and the German shore batteries, followed by their effects on both sides, as it were in real time, which is mind-numbing and eye-opening at the same time.
Ahmedinajad has been misquoted innumerable times, feeding hawklike sentiment on both sides, in a most unhelpful way.
Wikipedia has a page detailing the hulabaloo. Depending on who you ask Ahmedinijad may have been misquoted.
As you say, he may or may not have been misquoted, and he should certainly clarify what he meant without prevarication. By the same token, however, those in the US Administration making pronouncements about the "Axis of Evil" should hold their tongues also. By describing a people or a regime as "evil" you are removing all sanction against attacking them with deadly force: after all, does it not behove any "good man" to destroy "evil" for the benefit of his own soul?
skunk, if somebody is trying to kill me, I'll take all the gunboat diplomacy I can get.
I imagine a bunch of South Koreans are happy that they're South Koreans and not part of Starvation City, on account in part to gunboats.
I imagine there's a couple or three hundred million people in Europe who are rather pleased that we showed up with gunboat diplomacy at Normandy. I know for sure about the parents of some were, when we showed up and started feeding a few thousand at the work camp at Dortmund.
Although I find it rather peculiar that skunk has compared the USS Iowa to a male's sexual organ, I'm actually breathing a big sigh of relief for he not having labelled me a war monger for posting it.
Oh come on. Don't you know that WWII was due to a case of failed diplomacy between Poland and Germany? </sarcasm>
you know that germany invaded poland after a staged attack from polish troops (which were in fact SS special forces in disguise) on a radio station while saying "self defense" or even better called it "police action"
or short "invading other country for 'self defense' justified by fabricated evidence"
(now guess armed forces of which country have the world most massive storage of foreign uniforms,including pretty much every country, despite being forbidden by international law to equip forces with such uniforms ?)
Hmm, never guess. Hints, please.
And my point remains that beligerants like Hitler and now the Islamic fundamentalists want to and will fight no matter what diplomacy is attempted. How they initiate it is irrelevant.
I have no idea what you're talking about with the uniforms. I guess I'll have to keep my eyes open for platoons of Scotsmen that look suspiciously like Americans. Thanks for the warning.