| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I don't even think Robert Gates, the defense secretary, would be in favor of such a pre-eminent strike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| In fact, I've been wondering if things aren't getting to the point where a military revolt could take place if yet another war were to be cooked up. |
It sounds unlikely, even crazy, but somewhere out there is a unique chain-of-events that would lead to a military coup in American affairs. W. Bush seems to have approached this, to one degree or another. I think an Iranian War would push American civil-military relations to its maximum stress points ever.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I think we can safely tie a duck to Bush's head... |
Agreed. Probably, and again, not absolutely so, but to one degree or another, this has seemed the case since last November.
| Pluto wrote: |
| I don't even think Robert Gates... |
Pluto: Gates is no W. Bush crony. He is from the Realists' camp (i.e., Baker, Powell, et al.). There are under-the-surface dynamics at play here that, at this point, we might only guess at. But I would suggest that firing Rumsfeld and appointing Gates reflected a fundamental change, a compromise with one or another interest group. And I would further suggest that this includes, even if only implicitly, the Pentagon -- who shed no tears when Rumsfeld left, I remind you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Pluto wrote:
I don't even think Robert Gates...
Pluto: Gates is no W. Bush crony. He is from the Realists' camp (i.e., Baker, Powell, et al.). There are under-the-surface dynamics at play here that, at this point, we might only guess at. But I would suggest that firing Rumsfeld and appointing Gates reflected a fundamental change, a compromise with one or another interest group. And I would further suggest that this includes, even if only implicitly, the Pentagon -- who shed no tears when Rumsfeld left, I remind you.
|
That is certainly correct. Mr. Rumsfield was not very popular among the joes either. I remember being at Camp Udari, Kuwait in November of 2004. He made that ridiculous comment about "going to the Army with the Army you've got..." His brazen shoot from the hip style won him much enmity. Gates, being more practical and even more diplomatic, is a huge step ahead of what Rummy was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The most important reason and really the reason not to is not cause of what Iran might do in Iraq or other places with terrorists. The US can not allow itself to be intimidated by Iran. If Iran hits the US then they US ought to always be ready to hit them harder. In fact Iran is already hitting the US in Iraq. So cause Iran will hit the US more in Iraq is not a reason not to attack Iran.
But the reason not to attack Iran is that things might get better when Iran's leader Khamani dies. Nothing will change until then but afterwards well who knows? Iran's population is less anti US than just about any mideast nation.
The US needs time to see how things turn out in Iran.
While attacking Iran is not a good idea just allowing them to get nuclear weapons is without doing anything is even worse. The US can not allow Iran to change the strategic situation and so the US needs to match them and gain the strategic edge.
Fortunately there is another way Investing in new strategic weapons that will allow the US to gain a decisive strategic advantage over Iran and mess up most everything that Iran wants to achieve with nuclear weapons is the way to go. It is not getting into another war right away , yet it is taking action against Iran. The US ought to come out of this in a very good situation if the US plays its cards correctly. In this scenario Iran comes out with very little . Their nuclear program won' t have brought them any strategic advantage.
Of course the US needs to invest in alternative energy , hybrid cars and also new drilling technologies and nuclear plants and anything and everything that will bring the price of oil down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Keane, lets bet.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgeezer
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
there is an interesting google videos clip titled 'Iran Next?' It's just over an hour long...the host is a bit of a twitt, but the two commentators are Iranian experts who give excellent points and insight....watching this will convince anyone that attacking Iran is a stupid idea!!!
Sorry i can't post a link from this computer, but look it up, it's worth it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
mcgeezer"]
| Quote: |
attacking Iran is a stupid idea!!!
quote] |
You are more or less correct but only for one reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
[
Children should be seen and not heard. . |
I agree. So be quiet already then.
Whatever comes out of this...Joo is correct. Iran can not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons. A terrorist-sponsoring state...no way Jose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Iran can have nuclear weapons but they ought not be allowed to have the strategic benefits of possessing them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems the story is unravelling:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ27Ak05.html
Explosive charge blows up in US's face
By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - When the United States military command accused the Iranian Quds Force in January of providing the armor-piercing EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) that were killing US troops, it knew that Iraqi machine shops had been producing their own EFPs for years, a review of the historical record of evidence on EFPs in Iraq shows.
The record also shows that the US command had considerable evidence that the Mahdi Army of Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr
had received the technology and the training on how to use it from Hezbollah, rather than Iran.
The command, operating under close White House supervision, chose to deny these facts in making the dramatic accusation that became the main rationale for the present aggressive US stance toward Iran. Although the George W Bush administration initially limited the accusation to the Quds Force, it has recently begun to assert that top officials of the Iranian regime are responsible for arms that are killing US troops.
click above for full article |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Iran controls Hizzbollah |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| BB, Keane has too much invested in his opinions of gloom & doom to accept your logic, be it true or false. |
Children should be seen and not heard. Be quiet and eat your beets.
As for BB's comments, the article didn't say an attack is a certainty and neither have I. Eat your beets, little one. |
I never said you did. I'm arguing that the attack is a certainty to not happen, at least not until we have a new President. |
And it should be clear I was not responding to you. I was responding to kuros and his infantile post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| BB, Keane has too much invested in his opinions of gloom & doom to accept your logic, be it true or false. |
Children should be seen and not heard. Be quiet and eat your beets.
As for BB's comments, the article didn't say an attack is a certainty and neither have I. Eat your beets, little one. |
So you've changed your opinion from Oct. '06 when at that time you were certain the carrier groups movements signalled an October surprise attack on Iran?
Good to know. |
Man-child: First, don't conflate my posts with others.
Second, the person to whom you childishly refer did not say Iran definitely would be attacked. Mentally challenged? Just can't read? Can't stop yourself from lying? Have no ethics? No self-esteem? All of the above?
If you can't handle the content of the thread, it is best you shut up and stop embarrassing yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| I state the obvious because I can. |
Gee, thanks, goph. The article was not about the future so much as the past. Why don't you try reading it again. Notice the title of the article? The "...secret history..." That didn't penetrate your middle school learnin' eh?
If there is an attack on Iran, it will be exactly like Iraq in one regard: it will be the newest biggest *beep* up in US foreign policy in history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
With the right weapons Iran won't be much of problem.
And should the US wish to break Iran once and for all it would be easy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
