Time To Deploy The F-117s EN FORCE |
| Posted by: lodgebo | | Yeah that type of eagerness for war is what got us into the mess in Iraq. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | | YEP, THAT 'TYPE OF EAGERNESS' IS NECESSARY WHEN DEALING WITH HADJIS WITH GUNS AND NUKES.
THAT'S THE ONLY MEANS THEY UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT.
ALLAH AHKBAR! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | Not when your armed forces are streched to breaking point it's not, not when your country risks being financially crippled it's not and not before the international community makes a descion it's not.
Have you considred the implications of going straight into combat with Iran? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | | IF AS MUCH 'CONSIDERATION' WENT INTO THE 'IMPLICATIONS' OF AS NATURAL A THING AS SEX, MANKIND WOULD BECOME EXTINCT.
THE ONLY CONSIDERATION HADJIS WITH GUNS AND NUKES UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT (AND THUS DESERVE) IS SIMPLE, UNADULTARATED FORCE. AND I DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN COMBAT. RATHER, BOMB 'EM (AT LEAST THEIR INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO BEGIN WITH) BACK TO THE DARK(ER) AGES.
I'D GLADLY PAY UP TO $10/GALLON AT THE PUMPS TO LIVE TO SEE THAT.
NOW GO MEET THE DAY. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | No you see I am thinking like a solider somebody who has actually seen combat and planned combat missions ( something you have never done). Now if we were going to just go and f**k everyone and everything in Iran the no planning necessary might want to pace yourself maybe but depnds on your stamina.
Now war does actually take a bit of planning for example have you heard of IAEA rule 44 ehich states that no country can NEVER EVER bomb an operational nuclear facility even in a war situation. How do you get past that situation smart ass? I mean I assume you want to stop the production of the nukes? How do attempt to keep Israel out of this conflict? How do you stop the terrorists flooding in from Iraq? What do you do if Iraq denied you access to cross the border? how do you find the troops to police Iraq, The US, Afghanistan and fight a war in Iran? How are you going to fund the war? how do prepare your air force to fight against a country that has an actual air force ( US has not done that for many years? how do you deal with Irans navy? How many units of special forces do you need how long before the invasion will they be entering the country? are you going to go for a land, air or amphibous assault? will you lead with heavy artillery or troop advamcemnet, how many troops can you afford to lose in terms of securing areas you have captured, are you ready for a chemical attack? how long will it take to mobolise you attack units? what units are speicialists for this type of battle? who commands the coalition? will certain groups be exempt from top commanders?, timescale?, Plan B, C and D just in case and finnally exit strtegy?
Thats how you fight and win a war you don't just load up the planes and got for it. Again we wnt your way in Iarq and what happend 2000 Dead American soldiers mainly Marines and from what I ahve seen from the US in action you need your marines so you need to train them up get them ready for your war now I don't know about the US but in the UK it takes 36 weeks to become a marine ( thats around 9 months) do you have that time if we follow your plan?
Let the UN and the real men deal with Iraq and Iran if we need to kill everyone we will get in touch with you. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | I also would be assuming that when the time comes you will be first in line at the recruiting office are you rprepared to die for your country? because this is about more thne $10 worth of gas. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Whidden | |
| quote: |
hadji_hunter said this in post #1 :
TIME TO NUKE THE HADJIS IN IRAN.
|
I'm for some kind of military action, be it us or another Country doing it,
but Nukes are too extreme.
You can't take out millions of innocent Iranians like that. Some innocent Iranians get killed in a bunker buster air strike, that's part of war, and acceptable, but the numbers would be low.
A nuke would kill way too many peeps and send radiation all over that area.
And our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan and would get the radiation.
So nukes are a bad deal.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | |
| quote: |
Whidden said this in post #8 :
I'm for some kind of military action, be it us or another Country doing it,
but Nukes are too extreme.
You can't take out millions of innocent Iranians like that. Some innocent Iranians get killed in a bunker buster air strike, that's part of war, and acceptable, but the numbers would be low.
A nuke would kill way too many peeps and send radiation all over that area.
And our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan and would get the radiation.
So nukes are a bad deal. |
OF COURSE YOU ARE RIGHT. I WAS JUST BEING GRANDILOQUENT. NEVERTHELESS, BOMB 'EM, BOMB 'EM, BOMB 'EM. BOMB THE NUCLEAR FACILITIES, BOMB THE MILITARY FACILITIES, BOMB THE FALLAFEL-MAKING FACILITIES. THEY BUILD MORE, WE BOMB MORE. THE NIGHTHAWKS CAN EASILY PENETRATE IRANI AIR DEFENSES AND TAKE CARE O' B'INESS.
LET 'EM KNOW AND WITNESS FIRST-HAND THAT THE WEST WILL NO LONGER TOLERATE EVIL-WITH-NUKES IN THE NAME OF ISLAM!
SIMPLE, REALLY. THE TIME FOR TALK IS NO-LONGER CHEAP.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | | BREAKING NEWS: Iran ends voluntary cooperation with U.N. nuke watchdog, plans uranium enrichment talks with Russia.
BOMB 'EM, BOMB 'EM, BOMB 'EM.
BOMB THE NUCLEAR FACILITIES, BOMB THE MILITARY FACILITIES, BOMB THE FALLAFEL-MAKING FACILITIES. THEY BUILD MORE, WE BOMB MORE. THE NIGHTHAWKS CAN EASILY PENETRATE IRANI AIR DEFENSES AND TAKE CARE O' B'INESS.
LET 'EM KNOW AND WITNESS FIRST-HAND THAT THE WEST WILL NO LONGER TOLERATE EVIL-WITH-NUKES IN THE NAME OF ISLAM!
SIMPLE, REALLY. THE TIME FOR TALK IS NO-LONGER CHEAP. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | Yeah, and after that, bomb Russia. 
After all, they are allies with Syria and Iran.
Instead Bush buddies with Putin....
What the hell is going on? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | Iran ending voluntary cooperation surprises you? I only ask because they said this would happen if they were sent to the UNSC.
I would not say Iran and Russia are allies as such yes Russia has major business deals with Iran as does China but they both voted to send Iran to the UNSC hardly something an ally would do. In fact Russia has been the only country to try and stop this unilaterally it failed but at least it tried.
Mind you bobming will be a tough call for the USAF because it is likely that not one US pilot will have been in a position wher they are beiing shot at from the gropund and being engaged by an opposition air force, you can train for it simulate it but it is not like the real thing.
Alo looks like the US is going it alone the other countries have ruled out war and the US needs to keep Israel out like they, sorry we did in the Persian war | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | Who else does "business" with Iran and Syria? China? Both Communist countries?
Besides Russia and China...who else? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | Well you see it's very difficult to do business with Iran because of the ILSA if you di business with Iran you can't do business witht the US now of course China is big and strong enough to do business with whoever it fancies.
However there are a few indivdual companies that do business with/in Iran:
Haliburton
GE
Siemens
Phillips
Finnish construction
If you have a 401 K pension plan your mopney will have been in Iran and Libya. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | Siemens?
I knew I was good to quit that company when I did. 
Oh, and I cashed in on my 401k...so it's no longer there.
By Phillips, do you mean the oil co?
Thanks for the information lodgebo! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
hadji_hunter said this in post #10 :
BREAKING NEWS: Iran ends voluntary cooperation with U.N. nuke watchdog, plans uranium enrichment talks with Russia.
BOMB 'EM, BOMB 'EM, BOMB 'EM.
BOMB THE NUCLEAR FACILITIES, BOMB THE MILITARY FACILITIES, BOMB THE FALLAFEL-MAKING FACILITIES. THEY BUILD MORE, WE BOMB MORE. THE NIGHTHAWKS CAN EASILY PENETRATE IRANI AIR DEFENSES AND TAKE CARE O' B'INESS.
LET 'EM KNOW AND WITNESS FIRST-HAND THAT THE WEST WILL NO LONGER TOLERATE EVIL-WITH-NUKES IN THE NAME OF ISLAM!
SIMPLE, REALLY. THE TIME FOR TALK IS NO-LONGER CHEAP. |
Kind of a drastic move, don't you think? It's easy to say let's bomb them back to the Stone Age, but (as evident with Iraq) that's easier said than done.
That's all I have to say on the matter. I'm going to go break down and crush by beating granular material resulting from abrasion and natural disintegration of rock.

-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | From they way you write you appear to be tarring all Muslims with the same brush and that is unfair because not all people are the same. Not all Americans are gun tooting, islam beating need war to make me feel like a big man citizens like yourself, just as not all Muslims are intent on destroying the West by taking your course of action you could wound or kill people who do not like the way Iran is going but could equally end up hating the US for maiming them or killing thier family and then the problem goes full circle.
PS. YOu should try and find a guy who occaionaly visits this site - Curly Joe now he was like you. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | | MANY IN THE WEST JUST CANNOT POSSIBLY FATHOM THE DEGREE OF PERVERSION IN ISLAMIC RADICALISM. THESE PACIFISTS OF THE WEST ARE LIBERALLY CONFUSED, LIKE BAMBIS CAUGHT IN THE HEADLIGHTS. AT THE SAME TIME THE HADJI-JIHADIS HAVE A CRYSTAL CLEAR VISION OF AN ISLAMIC GLOBAL MONOPOLY, THE ROAD TO WHICH IS PAVED WITH THE SEVERED HEADS OF WESTERNERS.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/04/wcart04a.jpg | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | |
| quote: |
lodgebo said this in post #19 :
From they way you write you appear to be tarring all Muslims with the same brush |
WRONG. READ THE WORDS IN RED AGAIN.
MANY IN THE WEST JUST CANNOT POSSIBLY FATHOM THE DEGREE OF PERVERSION IN ISLAMIC RADICALISM. THESE PACIFISTS OF THE WEST ARE LIBERALLY CONFUSED, LIKE BAMBIS CAUGHT IN THE HEADLIGHTS. AT THE SAME TIME THE HADJI-JIHADIS HAVE A CRYSTAL CLEAR VISION OF AN ISLAMIC GLOBAL MONOPOLY, THE ROAD TO WHICH IS PAVED WITH THE SEVERED HEADS OF WESTERNERS.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/04/wcart04a.jpg
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
lodgebo said this in post #19 :
PS. YOu should try and find a guy who occaionaly visits this site - Curly Joe now he was like you. |
I get that they hate us. But if our military starts exterminating everyone that hates us, well, they would have time to do little else.
-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | |
| quote: |
HECK said this in post #22 :
I get that they hate us. But if our military starts exterminating everyone that hates us, well, they would have time to do little else.
-HECK! |
JUST THOSE WITH NUKES AND MACHETES. 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | Nukes, yes. But obviously we have to go the 'diplomatic' route first. It's obvious Iran is more of a threat than Iraq, but let's clean up one mistake before we try and avert nuclear war.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | | YES, THE, AHEM… 'DIPLOMATIC' ROUTE. (I NOTICED THE USE OF QUOTATION MARKS.) JOLLY GOOD! LET'S HAVE A 'CONVERSATION' WITH THE MAN WHO INSISTS ON WIPING ISRAEL OFF THE MAP.
GOOD HEAVENS, MAN!  | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | We need some kind of international support before we disarm Iran, not to mention some time to lick our wounds, get public support back up and recruit levels on track. So in the meantime, let the UN do their dog and pony show, then once we're on the level it's time to disarm.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | | AWW… C'MON, YOU GOTTA GET A TAD CREATIVE TO GARNER SOME REPLIES IN THIS HERE THREAD…
OF COURSE THE DIPLOMATIC ROUTE WILL BE EXHAUSTED PRIOR TO MILITARY ACTION. BUT LET'S CUT THE CRAPPOLA AND GET REAL. YOU AND I BOTH KNOW, ALONG WITH MR. AHMADINEJAD, THAT DIPLOMACY WILL NEVER CUT THE MUSTARD(-GAS) HERE. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Whidden | | HOPEFULLY THE UNITED NATIONS WILL HAVE SOME ****'S THIS TIME AROUND AND MAKE SOME RESOLUTION OR SOMETHING AND ACTUALLY APPROVE SOME KIND OF BOMBING RAID ON THE NUCLEAR SITES THEMSELVES.
THEN LET IRAN DO WHATEVER IT'S GONNA DO. WHICH IS NOTHING. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | | HOPEFULLY ISRAEL WILL LET THE LOOSE THE EARLY DOGS OF WAR VIA A LOB OR TWO, CARE OF THOSE FINE AMERICAN AIRCRAFT THEY PURCHASED FROM US. THE MAIN LOGISTICAL PROBLEM BEING THE RANGE LIMITATION OF THESE PLANES. THEY WOULD NEED A PLACE TO LAND AND REFUEL ON THE WAY BACK. I GUESS THE ISRAELIS DON'T HAVE THOSE COOL REFUELING AIRPLANES TO DO SO ALOFT. MAYBE WE COULD LEND 'EM ONE.  | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Whidden | | I WANT RUSSIA TO DO IT. ROLL RIGHT IN AND TAKE THOSE NUKES OUTTA THERE BABY.
I WANT DOLPH LUNDRIN AND THE RED DAWN CREW TO ROLL UP ON THOSE IRANIAN NUCLEAR PLANTS AND TURN THE WHOLE COMPLEX INTO A SEA OF GLASS.
OR CHINA, EITHER ONE. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | | HAH, FOGET ABOUD IT. RUSSIA AND CHINA WILL NOT SO MUCH AS SAY BOO. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | mostly hadji_hunter,
Is there a reason why you are SCREAMING all the time....???
For pity sakes man! Learn to use small caps in the appropriate places.....like after the beginning of a sentence and after names and places!!!!
Until then, I refuse to read someone SCREAMING all the time!
CAPS LOCK and the SHIFT KEY are not your friend!!! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | Couple of things that have been said that need clarified.
Firstly I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that IAEA rules state that it is illegal to bomb a known operational nuclear facility even in times of war, all they are trying to do is prevent a worldwide disaster ( Cnernobyl proved how far Radiation can travel and still have a deadly affect)
Secondly No country wants Israel to get into a war with Iran or join any coalition. Remeber in the first gulf war when Sadamm to pot Shots at Tel Aviv with the Scuds? Israel was on the verge of invading Iraq to stop him, however Bush and Major and the French Pres knew that an Israeli invasion had the potential to kick off other countries to retaliate against Israel and leave us in a akward position that could have us stuck in the ME for many years to come ( glad that never happend), mind you it allowed thew UK speical forces to give old stormin Norman the two fingers, we ended up being his heroes .
Latly Russia and China should not be doing this alone I mean China probably could do it alone and probably from Beijing if they were given half a chance. However we are in this together and that does not mean backing away when the time for war comes because you are battle weary.
PS welcome back Hadji Joe. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | What if you lose one? I mena you have a better chance of one bieng shot down in Iran than the Blakans, Afghanistan and Iraq put together. At $300 million a go and a miltary budget at breaking point might be difficult especially when there is a better option than Stealths.
PS did the US not lose a stealth in the Balkans. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | True, but with Dubya asking for more money in the trillions, I think he might want to put a few together. Awful big price tag on those bad boys. Guess gas is going to go back up.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | Still I think missiles form the Trident subs might be a better and safer possibilty and you do have the perfect launch point as well namely the dispited waterway Shatt Al - Arab now depending on how deep it is you could potentially launch the missels from the water and considering that Irans navy is it's weakpoint you would not get much hassle.
I am not ruling out an air assualt but if you remember the Balkans NATO had exceelnt results with an air and sea assault as opposed to an assault on a single front. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | Or, it could mean... "no monkeys"
Or, maybe it's secret coding for pounding sand, or something!  | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | |
| quote: |
lodgebo said this in post #38 :
Still I think missiles form the Trident subs might be a better and safer possibilty and you do have the perfect launch point as well namely the dispited waterway Shatt Al - Arab now depending on how deep it is you could potentially launch the missels from the water and considering that Irans navy is it's weakpoint you would not get much hassle.
I am not ruling out an air assualt but if you remember the Balkans NATO had exceelnt results with an air and sea assault as opposed to an assault on a single front. |
I PREFER THE ISRAELIS TAKE THE FIRST STAB. AND I DON'T THINK THE ISRAELIS HAVE ANY MEANS OF DELIVERING CONVENTIONAL BOMBS LONG-RANGE WITHOUT THE USE OF AIRCRAFT. AND THE RANGE OF THESE AIRCRAFT IS LIMITED SUCH THAT THEY CANNOT COMPLETE THE MISSION W/OUT STOPPING TO REFUEL SOMEWHERE ON THE WAY BACK. THAT'S A TALL ORDER; I MEAN, WHERE WOULD AN ISRAELI F-4A PHANTOM BE ABLE TO PUT DOWN? KUWAIT? HMMM…
http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/F4E_web.jpg
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | It was not reaaly great restarint more a promise form the UK. Like I said before then as now the allies did not want Israel to attack an arab region for fear of starting a full scale ME war. So the allies promised Israel that the Scuds would be taken out by the allies. so the US asked the UK special forces to (a). Take out the comms links, (b) Not to damge the oil links that fed Jordan ( because Jordan would join Iraq) (c) Take out the mobile and immobile scud links. We wnet from kicking about a hanger doing sweet FA to straight in to the lions den.
The same will probably happen this time Israel will be asked to keep out. You think if the US and Israel attack Iran countries like Syria, Jordan etc etc will not get involved israel is not exactly got many friends in the ME. Now if Iran attacks first then that may put a diffrent angle on things but then again Iraq attacked first and they were told to stay out. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | |
| quote: |
Heavens11 said this in post #45 :
They'd probably use their F-16s for the strike. |
THE F-16'S RANGE IS ONLY 630 KILOMETERS. NO GOOD UNLESS IT WAS ALLOWED TO LAND ON A U.S. CARRIER IN THE NORTHERN PERSIAN GULF. NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | Anyone know how long the F - 16 will be in service? I mena it has been on the go since 76 so that makes it 30 years old. I only ask because most wetsren countries are revewing thier fighters the UK is ditching the Tornado for the Eurofighter which is meant to be the most advanced fighter on the planet ( might see first action in Iran). Have the Americans got anything up thier sleeve. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | |
| quote: |
Heavens11 said this in post #53 :
Pretty sleek-looking, huh?
|
Yes, I have to admit. But .... what about the upgrades? 
| quote: |
Heavens11 said this in post #57 :
It could go a while longer. There are always upgrade programs going on... and parts will be available for a longer period since there are so many F-16s in use around the world.
As for the Americans, look up information on the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter). |
You said it...not me.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Ireland | | This is the most ridiculous conversation I have ever had the misfortune to read in black and white. "NUKE THIS, NUKE THAT...BOMB BOMB BOMB" You infants.
Your rage is nothing more than a babies tantrum. Someone suggested to go to the front line, I'd say you'd make good company there, blend in easy, but I'd never suggest you do that. Theres plently of pumped up brain dead idiots out there doing your will for you.
NUKE IRAN, BOMB IRAN - you haven't the first clue about Iran, not a notion, you just sit there all day looking a photographs of planes like a child. I'm actually laughing at you here your so pathetic, you have no idea do you. Seriously, this is funny stuff, what age are you by the way? 7? 8?
Its you, you and those like you who are the future of the failures of your country. You have no concept of the realities of power, its course in history and its downfalls. You and your infantile words are all the justification the world needs to point at your sadistic maliciousness and say THIS, THIS IS THE PROBLEM, this is America this is its brain at work... what happened your country at all? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: gaboman | |
| quote: |
Ireland said this in post #61 :
Your rage is nothing more than a babies tantrum. |
And yours is... ?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | As far as nuking Iran goes I would like to think that most people on this board are rational people and would not be up for that kind of reaction to the Iran crisis. We need to remember though that if Iran keeps taking the stance it has taken and makes the comments it has made then miltary action at some will be point will be inevitable.
Ireland you said your cooments were non destructive and everyone elses comments are destructive? the people who post have no power they are not descion makers they are just letting us know what they think should happen and I believe nobody really think that a tac nuke strike is an option that is on the table, like our comments yours will have no weight when the time for military action comes.
In short we should be able to let everyonr make thier point and not resort to a tantrum which is what you have done.
BTW not everyone who goes to the front line is a "pumped up brain dead idiot" I would suggest in future you choose your words more carefully and show a little respect. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | |
| quote: |
Ireland said this in post #61 :
You infants.
Your rage is nothing more than a babies tantrum. Someone suggested to go to the front line, I'd say you'd make good company there, blend in easy, but I'd never suggest you do that. Theres plently of pumped up brain dead idiots out there doing your will for you.
NUKE IRAN, BOMB IRAN - you haven't the first clue about Iran, not a notion, you just sit there all day looking a photographs of planes like a child. I'm actually laughing at you here your so pathetic, you have no idea do you. Seriously, this is funny stuff, what age are you by the way? 7? 8?
Its you, you and those like you who are the future of the failures of your country. You have no concept of the realities of power, its course in history and its downfalls. You and your infantile words are all the justification the world needs to point at your sadistic maliciousness and say THIS, THIS IS THE PROBLEM, this is America this is its brain at work... what happened your country at all? |
Need a little anger management, do we?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
Ireland said this in post #61 :
Its you, you and those like you who are the future of the failures of your country. You have no concept of the realities of power, its course in history... blah, blah, blah |
Focus on the problems in your own country than try and take on the champ. Here's a hint: bring Kryptonite.
-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
Ireland said this in post #61 :
This is the most ridiculous conversation I have ever had the misfortune to read in black and white. "NUKE THIS, NUKE THAT...BOMB BOMB BOMB" You infants.
Your rage is nothing more than a babies tantrum. Someone suggested to go to the front line, I'd say you'd make good company there, blend in easy, but I'd never suggest you do that. Theres plently of pumped up brain dead idiots out there doing your will for you.
NUKE IRAN, BOMB IRAN - you haven't the first clue about Iran, not a notion, you just sit there all day looking a photographs of planes like a child. I'm actually laughing at you here your so pathetic, you have no idea do you. Seriously, this is funny stuff, what age are you by the way? 7? 8?
Its you, you and those like you who are the future of the failures of your country. You have no concept of the realities of power, its course in history and its downfalls. You and your infantile words are all the justification the world needs to point at your sadistic maliciousness and say THIS, THIS IS THE PROBLEM, this is America this is its brain at work... what happened your country at all? |
This thread has been reported, so let's try and have a more civil conversation and less name calling. If it continues this thread will be moved to the Flamer's Ward.
Thanks,
-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Ireland | |
| quote: |
HECK said this in post #66 :
Focus on the problems in your own country than try and take on the champ. Here's a hint: bring Kryptonite.
-HECK! |
This forum is supposed to deal with the post 9-11 era is it not? Issues of importance therefore would in my opinion involve the actions and mandate of the United States in particular, which I believe are part of the problem. It is perfectly legitimate for me for instance to suggest that your money would be better spent on your own internal problems, just Irish money is spent on Irish problems, as opposed to bombing poor countries. My country is therefore not the issue.
I will accept that my response to "NUKE THIS NUKE THAT" was one fueled by emotion and may not have been the best way to deal with it. Yes our words here will not affect anything in the grander scheme of things decision wise. However, in my opinion, people who seem frenzied with the exitement of possible or iminent violence on a large scale, is destructive, especially if he were to present himself on the "front-line". Innocent people have during this adventure been the very public victim of fired up angry US Soldiers, whose actions I would hope all would deplore.
As for your taking on the "champ" references and "bring kryptonite" spare them for the schoolkids on the playground, maybe they'll be impressed with them.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Ireland | |
| quote: |
HECK said this in post #67 :
This thread has been reported, so let's try and have a more civil conversation and less name calling. If it continues this thread will be moved to the Flamer's Ward.
Thanks,
-HECK! |
I appreciate having the opportunity to voice my opinions on this site, its a good site and congradulations are in order. If ive upset someones sensibilities by using words like child, tantrum and pathetic, I will certainly apologise. Considering however the person these harsh words were aimed at was waving the nuke everything in sight banner, I doubt he will be all that offended.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
Ireland said this in post #68 :
This forum is supposed to deal with the post 9-11 era is it not? Issues of importance therefore would in my opinion involve the actions and mandate of the United States in particular, which I believe are part of the problem. It is perfectly legitimate for me for instance to suggest that your money would be better spent on your own internal problems, just Irish money is spent on Irish problems, as opposed to bombing poor countries. My country is therefore not the issue.
I will accept that my response to "NUKE THIS NUKE THAT" was one fueled by emotion and may not have been the best way to deal with it. Yes our words here will not affect anything in the grander scheme of things decision wise. However, in my opinion, people who seem frenzied with the exitement of possible or iminent violence on a large scale, is destructive, especially if he were to present himself on the "front-line". Innocent people have during this adventure been the very public victim of fired up angry US Soldiers, whose actions I would hope all would deplore.
As for your taking on the "champ" references and "bring kryptonite" spare them for the schoolkids on the playground, maybe they'll be impressed with them. |
Saying others are having tantrums, calling them babies, pathetic and future of the failures of their country because of their opinion is not an 'issue of importance'. Don't glaze over what you said. Your views and opinions are welcomed and appreciated, but if you don't want playground comments thrown back, don't start it, Chief. A smug and condescending attitude will only create unnecessary hostility.
-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | |
| quote: |
Ireland said this in post #69 :
I appreciate having the opportunity to voice my opinions on this site, its a good site and congradulations are in order. If ive upset someones sensibilities by using words like child, tantrum and pathetic, I will certainly apologise. Considering however the person these harsh words were aimed at was waving the nuke everything in sight banner, I doubt he will be all that offended. |
As long as we are mindful of what we say and how we say it all will be fine and/or dandy. Discussing without insult is entirely possible.
-HECK!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: The Writer | | I disagree. The time to bomb Iran was when they took our embassy in tehran, killed the USMarine guards and held our people captive for more than a year. Our timid response then has led us to all the problems since. Islam is a faith born from war. It has no respect for the west because of the restraint we have. They see restraint as fear, they see diplomacy as the path of cowards. They think of us as weak, frightened, decadent people who deserve to be conquered.
The way to fight them is with special forces. Assassination squads to take out all their top leaders, demolition teams to bring down their inslallations. Night vision technology to go always in the dark bringing fear to those who have used fear. Spare not one mosque, one imam or ayatollah. Drop not bombs but parachuting hit squads. fight terror with terror. Course we could just give peace a chance ha ha. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
The Writer said this in post #72 :
[B]It has no respect for the west because of the restraint we have. They see restraint as fear, they see diplomacy as the path of cowards. They think of us as weak, frightened, decadent people who deserve to be conquered. |
Of course they do. Watch the borders! The Iranians are coming. where do you think they'll invade, east or west coast?
| quote: |
| The way to fight them is with special forces. Assassination squads to take out all their top leaders, demolition teams to bring down their inslallations. Night vision technology to go always in the dark bringing fear to those who have used fear. Spare not one mosque, one imam or ayatollah. Drop not bombs but parachuting hit squads. fight terror with terror. Course we could just give peace a chance ha ha. |
Great plan. Destabalise the Country, throw it into chaos and turmoil, create a power vacuum, bankrupt America even more by spending billions trying to put it all back together when you find that hard-line Islamic fundamentalist leaders are more popular than ever. Worked in Iraq so yeah, give war a chance ha ha, wherever and whenever.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | |
| quote: |
The Writer said this in post #72 :
The way to fight them is with special forces. Assassination squads to take out all their top leaders, demolition teams to bring down their inslallations. Night vision technology to go always in the dark bringing fear to those who have used fear. Spare not one mosque, one imam or ayatollah. Drop not bombs but parachuting hit squads. fight terror with terror. Course we could just give peace a chance ha ha. |
[/B]
I think that the specail forces units will have already been into Iran and looked for good spots to place the Laser bomb Guidance but it will simply have been a recon mission. In all honesty I think you are oversetimating special forces.
Assanation attempts of the leaders would be a sucide mission and never 100% accurate that you got the right guy ( we killed Sadamm 10 times after the Gulf war).
Night Visiion? impossible unless you are planning to take down all the power stations because most of what you are suggesting will be carried out in cities and populated areas where they have power such as street lights.
We would not hit mosques as were always advised not to do never ever hit relsigious targets and in terms of Immans and that ayatollah if they are not guilty they are not a target ( you don't go for people because somebody has aprejudice)
Parachuting in nah, parchutes and planes show up on radar and the cats out of the bag beforee you hit the ground and stealth land or river border crossing at it's weakest point is your best bet. Speical forces unit do not spread terror they spread confusion
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | |
| quote: |
The Writer said this in post #72 :
The time to bomb Iran was when they took our embassy in tehran, killed the USMarine guards and held our people captive for more than a year. Our timid response then has led us to all the problems since. Islam is a faith born from war. It has no respect for the west because of the restraint we have. They see restraint as fear, they see diplomacy as the path of cowards. They think of us as weak, frightened, decadent people who deserve to be conquered.
|
Absolutely right on the money! And in very large part we have Mr. Jiminy Carter, the worst President in the history of this great nation, to thank for that! Give a little whistle… http://www.archimedes-lab.org/images4/jiminy.jpg
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | If this is some partisan slam against Jimmy Carter....remember a similar response by Ronald Reagan in 1983...absolutely nothing, nada:
| quote: |
On October 23, 1983 at 6:22 a.m., a large delivery truck drove to the Beirut International Airport where the Marine Barracks was located.
After turning onto an access road leading to the compound, the driver rushed through a barbed-wire fence, passed between two sentry posts, crashed through the gate, and slammed into the lobby of the barracks.
The driver detonated explosives with the power equal to more than 12,000 pounds of TNT. The explosion crumbled the four-story building, crushing service members to death while they were sleeping.
The terrorist attack killed 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members who were stationed there to help keep the peace in a nation torn by war. |
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/terror.htm | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | |
| quote: |
nikiTa said this in post #76 :
If this is some partisan slam against Jimmy Carter.... |
Yes. it is.
Is this a feeble partisan attempt to compare Jiminy to Ronald Reagan? 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | No, I am not comparing anyone to anyone.
I am just merely stating that presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 were a big part of the problem....
and yet you want to make it a partisan issue. Face it, they all messed up. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | | Can you just imagine Jiminy fighting the war on terror of today!  | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | I am looking at this from an objective point of view DH.
And I would have to also say, "Can you imagine Reagan, Bush 1, or Clinton fighting the war on terror today?
In fact, they all had their opportunities but for some reason, left it up to Bush II.
I think that is a lame duck. And I don't in any way blame Bush II for this.
He inherited a mess.
Besides, Jimmy is still in the game...meeting with Haitians....getting into the Israeli/Palestine mess....
Where is Reagan now?
Where was his mind before 2002 or so?
What about Bush I and Clinton? No, they are on a publicity campaign to right the wrongs of Hurricane Katrina/Rita, and the tsunami in Indonesia, India, and Africa while actually doing absolutely nothing except shaking some hands and forcing us to watch their ugly ass mugs in some mundane commercials.
<Boy are they ugly, yewee yuck> | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: gaboman | |
| quote: |
nikiTa said this in post #81 :
Where is Reagan now?
Where was his mind before 2002 or so? |
Uh... are... you... uh... seriously asking... because... umm... he's, like, dead, and uh... before that he... uh... had Alzheimers... You know what, this's making me seriously uncomfortable.
I understand the point of your post though.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Desert Hawk said this in post #80 :
Can you just imagine Jiminy fighting the war on terror of today! |
All depends on how you view the strengths and weaknesses of Carter's foreign policy at the time. Some claim his intervention in Afghanistan ushered in the begining of the end of the Soviet Union. I don't buy it but some do, and certainly Reagan embrassed Carter's policy of supporting the Mujahadeen and attracking Mulisms from all over the world to join the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
US gung-ho foreign policy is nothing new, but Iraq has been an enormous disaster that has done nothing to combat the threat from terrorism and has only popularised hard-line Islamic politics and anti-western sentiment in the region. I can't imagine anyone doing a worse job than Bush has done over the last 5 years, and that includes Carter. But who knows?
Excerp from an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, 1998
| quote: |
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.
Full article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
|
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
nikiTa said this in post #81 :
[B]And I would have to also say, "Can you imagine Reagan, Bush 1, or Clinton fighting the war on terror today? |
Do you guys think terrorism started with 9/11? And is it toughness rather than smartness that you guys like or what? If you think being gung-ho and tough is what makes a good President then Clinton's sanctions in Iraq killed half a million innocent Iraqis, many of them children. Reagan was invading and attacking countries, aiding and training plenty of right wing murderering, raping, torturing organisations in South America all through the 80's. Bush I obviously sent the US military into Iraq in the early 90's - anyone remember the highway of death and bulldozers being used to bury Iraqi soldiers alive? So yes I can imagine any US president being able to find some way to go to war, economically and militarily and kill lots of people.
| quote: |
In fact, they all had their opportunities but for some reason, left it up to Bush II.
I think that is a lame duck. And I don't in any way blame Bush II for this.
He inherited a mess. |
Bush chose to attack Iraq. He chose to invade and occupy Iraq. Bush created the mess that we see every day in Iraq. And he doesn't have the first clue how to get out of this mess without humiliating America.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | | To get another perspective other than the usual media view of Iraq read, the Baghdad Burning Blog, written by a young woman who lives in Baghdad. This posted Thursday, February 02, 2006
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
| quote: |
Election Results...
Iraqi election results were officially announced nearly two weeks ago, but it was apparent from the day of elections which political parties would come out on top. I’m not even going to bother listing the different types of election fraud witnessed all over Iraq- it’s a tedious subject and one we’ve been discussing for well over a month.
The fact that a Shia, Iran-influenced religious list came out on top is hardly surprising. I’m surprised, however, at Iraqis who seem to be astonished at the outcome. Didn’t we, over the last three years, see this coming? Iranian influenced clerics had a strong hold right from 2003. Their militias were almost instantly incorporated into the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defense as soon a move was made to create new Iraqi security forces. Sistani has been promoting them from day one.
After nearly three years of a failing occupation, I personally believe that many Iraqis voted for religious groups because it was counted as a vote against America and the occupation itself. No matter what American policy makers say to their own public- and no matter how many pictures Rumsfeld and Condi take with our fawning politicians- most Iraqis do not trust Americans. America as a whole is viewed as a devilish country that is, at best, full of self-serving mischief towards lesser countries and, at worst, an implementer of sanctions, and a warmongering invader.
Even Iraqis who believe America is here to help (and they seem to have grown fewer in number these days), believe that it helps not out of love for Iraqis, but out of self-interest and greed. |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #84 :
Do you guys think terrorism started with 9/11? And is it toughness rather than smartness that you guys like or what? If you think being gung-ho and tough is what makes a good President then Clinton's sanctions in Iraq killed half a million innocent Iraqis, many of them children. Reagan was invading and attacking countries, aiding and training plenty of right wing murderering, raping, torturing organisations in South America all through the 80's. Bush I obviously sent the US military into Iraq in the early 90's - anyone remember the highway of death and bulldozers being used to bury Iraqi soldiers alive? So yes I can imagine any US president being able to find some way to go to war, economically and militarily and kill lots of people.
H@ts, Thanks for fleshing out my point. If you hadn't noticed I was pointing out the very facts you mentioned. In fact my previous post on the preceding page mentioned one of these terrorist acts.
| quote: |
| The terrorist attack killed 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members who were stationed there to help keep the peace in a nation torn by war. |
H@ts, are you basing your arguments on us vs them, US vs Europe, US vs Iraq, Christians vs Muslims, West vs East, North vs South, up vs down, right wing vs left wing, rich vs poor, liberal vs conservative, etc?
Are these divisions between people so impassable that we always have to focus on such things, and cannot even see when we actually agree on something?
Come on, H@ts, everything in the world isn't always competition, master over slave, people wanting to snuff the other out! Gee, I am beginning to think you are from Detroit, man! 
Besides, H@ts, before the Cold War, the US had animosity toward the Communism of the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, etc....
Before WWII, the world held animosity toward Germany....
My point is...there are always events leading up to a declared war...even though one hasn't been declared yet.
Bush chose to attack Iraq. He chose to invade and occupy Iraq. Bush created the mess that we see every day in Iraq. And he doesn't have the first clue how to get out of this mess without humiliating America.
Bush I did what his daddy should have completed in 1991. Bush I, like I said, and I will say again, inherited the mess from the previous 4 presidents.
|
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | |
| quote: |
nikiTa said this in post #81 :
And I would have to also say, "Can you imagine Reagan, Bush 1, or Clinton fighting the war on terror today?
In fact, they all had their opportunities but for some reason, left it up to Bush II.
I think that is a lame duck. And I don't in any way blame Bush II for this.
He inherited a mess.
Besides, Jimmy is still in the game...meeting with Haitians....getting into the Israeli/Palestine mess....
|
Please, don't get me goin' any more on Jiminy. And although your opinion of Reagan and Bush Sr. differ from mine, at least we may agree to some degree that Bush Jr. has has the cohones to take a no-appeasement stance against the radical Islamic cancer threatening our children this very day.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Desert Hawk said this in post #88 :
Bush Jr. has has the cohones to take a no-appeasement stance against the radical Islamic cancer threatening our children this very day. |
You are so ludicrously wide of the mark. Could you please enlighten me on exactly what radical Islamic cancer was in Iraq threatening your children before Bush attacked the country?
I won't hold my breathe for a response.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
| nikiTa: H@ts, Thanks for fleshing out my point. If you hadn't noticed I was pointing out the very facts you mentioned. In fact my previous post on the preceding page mentioned one of these terrorist acts. |
Apoligies, I didn't see your other post.
| quote: |
| My point is...there are always events leading up to a declared war...even though one hasn't been declared yet. |
I don't know what you're saying. There is usually propoganda and public manipulation before a government can get support for a war. Bush and his admin had a clear agenda to invade Iraq well before September 11th, and manipulated and used public fears after 9/11 and Al Qaeda to get the support they needed to carry out the action. Look up the stuff in PNAC, written by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Lewis Libby etc, which clearly states what their intentions were long before Bin Laden became a household name. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbour. With that attack they could pretty much carry out whatever they wanted and get the public to back them.
They bamboozled the American public because there was never any threat from Iraq, there were no WMD, there were no links to terror.
But look at Iraq today. Iraq now has close links with Iran and much of the South is in the hands of Islamic militias, clerics and hard-line pro-Iranian Islamic fundamentalists. Going by the recent Bush polls, a majority of Americans are now begining to realise what a disater this misaventure was.
| quote: |
| Bush I did what his daddy should have completed in 1991. Bush I, like I said, and I will say again, inherited the mess from the previous 4 presidents. |
I'd agree, past administrations and US foriegn policy has played its part in leading to an unhealthy hostility between the US and countries in the Gulf. But if terrorism is the new threat that governments are going to use to manipulate pubic opinion then the least the public and medai should do is strongly question policy to make sure politicians are being straight. Bush jnr was president when America was attacked on 9/11. There were no links between 9/11, Al Qaeda and Iraq. Bush lied and the America people and media let him.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Desert Hawk | |
| quote: |
malcolm xx said this in post #92 :
America is Fee because of ancestors of Katrina |
Ancestors of Katrina??? Huh!?
| | Reply To this Message
|
|