Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
94,151 Posts
Not true sat all. The US is well able to afford another war. Might not be WILLING to pay for it, but we could. If the Persians REALLY believe we can't - they can launch an attack and see what happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
In all seriousness, would it really be another war?

With the porosity of the borders and the fact that the soldiers and Marines in country have been fighting the Iranian version of our green berets and having Iranian equipment used against them for several years now...I really don't see how it is another war any more than I don't see how the activities of terrorists in Iraq or Iran differ from the activities in Afghanistan.

Sometimes I think that people need more geography and world history in their public education.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
94,151 Posts
Well, operations would likely expand into Persian territory, and go up-tempo. Iranian Revolutionary Guard would, if it stood its ground, burn like loose paper tossed into the firebox of a Big Boy working hard over Sherman Hill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Well it's true, we can't afford to fight another war. But that's never stopped us before.

A trillion here and a trillion there, it adds up you know..........
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
94,151 Posts
No - you still confuse "don't want to and it will be hard and cause problems" with "can't". There is a difference. We can (the proper question is not "can we?" but rather "should we?) afford another war. But people don't want to and I don't think the politicians are willing to fade the heat, so the issue isn't really what we can afford, but rather what we are willing to afford as the politicians read it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
You gotta pop out that H on your keyboard and clean out under it, I think it's sticking.

You are right though, we can, but the price may be far more than we expected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,075 Posts
I figure about 5 B-52's loaded to the gills with nukes targeting strategic locations in Iran would cause the Persians to rethink what Uncle Sam can, and cannot, afford! :cool:
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
94,151 Posts
B-2s with Sat-guided deep penetrators would probably be a better start on the "are you sure we can't afford this?" scenario. JMO. BUFFs are pretty vulnerable to modern SAMs and interceptors, which the Persians have. I doubt we'd want to send them. B-1s or B-2s maybe. But if we want to use nukes, recommission some nuke-tipped cruise missiles, i expect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Not true sat all. The US is well able to afford another war. Might not be WILLING to pay for it, but we could. If the Persians REALLY believe we can't - they can launch an attack and see what happens.
You're full of shit if you think you can somehow you can keep spending money you don't have and still end up on top. Some day the bills will be due.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,762 Posts
You know, thats exactly what the japanese and the germans thought.
Since you made that remark, you are not only full of "it' but it is leaking out of your ears.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,341 Posts
Hell, Iraq is winding down - And Hillary will have to show the electorate that she's got big brass ones, bigger than Bill's, or she won't get reelected in 2012.

Next year will be time for another of what the Victorians used to call "Small Colonial Wars".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu29F8NfRvI&NR=1

So ’ere’s to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your ’ome in the Soudan;
You’re a pore benighted ’eathen but a first-class fightin’ man;
We gives you your certificate, an’ if you want it signed
We’ll come an’ ’ave a romp with you whenever you’re inclined.

Rudyard Kipling
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
You know, thats exactly what the japanese and the germans thought.
Since you made that remark, you are not only full of "it' but it is leaking out of your ears.
Stop comparing this situation to World War II. That comparison has been used every single time the warhawks run out of ideas. At this point, YOU'RE FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE.

I cannot believe there are still people that are calling for more wars in the Middle East and claim not to be neo-conservatives. You are flatly endorsing their failed policy.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
94,151 Posts
MB just doesn't get it - he is convinced that anybody who doesn't sign on to his particular solution (make the twat doctor - retired twat doctor, I should say - dictator) is a neo-con villain. He's a true believer and stuck at a mental age of around 11 or 12. Logic and facts don't affect him
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
MB just doesn't get it - he is convinced that anybody who doesn't sign on to his particular solution (make the twat doctor - retired twat doctor, I should say - dictator) is a neo-con villain. He's a true believer and stuck at a mental age of around 11 or 12. Logic and facts don't affect him
The same way that anyone who doesn't sign on to your war mongering is a leftist or a traitor? Ah I see, you love free speech, unless its someone that disagrees with you.

Logic and facts? Are you completely serious?

The fact that there were no WMD(Get that through your stubborn heads, Saddam was no imminent threat), the fact that we have lost 4,000 Americans, the fact that we have spent nearly $1 trillion in Iraq, the fact that we have a near $9 trillion debt, the fact that our military is strained by our actions in Iraq, the fact that the government gave Haliburton a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq, the fact that Haliburton has overcharged the US government for its services in Iraq, the fact that Saddam was a secularist dictator and did not support Al-Queda and had NOTHING to do with 9/11, the fact that on the first cabinet meeting after 9/11 the neo-conservatives were foaming at the mouth saying "how can we use this to attack Saddam?", the fact that we had the some of the worst post-war planning seen in recent history, the fact that we send border guards over to Iraq to defend the Iran-Iraq border rather than our own border, the fact that in Osama Bin Laden's Fatwa(declaration of war against the US) he cited our bombing of Iraq for 10 years and our military bases on their Holy Land as justifications for attacking us...

Yes, these are all facts. But if Rush Limbaugh says otherwise I guess he's right. If Sean Insanity says otherwise I guess they are right. Lets just throw any truth to the subject out the window and continue to insist the claims of the administration that this policy is the right policy and that it is somehow "conservative". Then what do you have left? If you have no facts, no logic all you have left are broken beliefs.

Logic tells us not to continue down this policy if what we have brewing is a massive regional conflict that we would be right in the middle of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,947 Posts
Okay, talk about forgetting news history.

How about the fact that we knew he had those WMDs because we had sold them to his regime when he was our buddy againt Iran? Spider's Web was the book about those finagelings. Even without the WMDs, we had every moral and legal right to jump on him with both feet as he constantly disregarded the terms of his surrender after the Gulf War. Too bad the rest of the world was wringing its hands about being 'messy'.

As for not being a sponsor or ally of Al-Queda, I seem to remember during the Clinton term us sending wave after wave of Tomahawk missiles in to Iraq. One of the targets were Al-Queda bases.

They may not like each other, but they will cheerfully help each other train to attack US or Euro countries.

Face it, Saddam was a burning sore and embarrassement and will not be missed by any civilized country. The world became a better place with his demise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Okay, talk about forgetting news history.

How about the fact that we knew he had those WMDs because we had sold them to his regime when he was our buddy againt Iran? Spider's Web was the book about those finagelings. Even without the WMDs, we had every moral and legal right to jump on him with both feet as he constantly disregarded the terms of his surrender after the Gulf War. Too bad the rest of the world was wringing its hands about being 'messy'.
Most of those WMDs were destroyed by inspectors in the early 90s and by subsequent bombing. Report after report has verified this.

As for not being a sponsor or ally of Al-Queda, I seem to remember during the Clinton term us sending wave after wave of Tomahawk missiles in to Iraq. One of the targets were Al-Queda bases.
Provide a source that clearly says we bombed Al-Queda bases in Iraq. We bombed supposed WMD sites in Iraq and AQ bases in Afghanistan.

They may not like each other, but they will cheerfully help each other train to attack US or Euro countries.
And to date there is no proof that has ever happened.

Face it, Saddam was a burning sore and embarrassement and will not be missed by any civilized country.
I don't think anyone liked Saddam. The question being, assuming you wanted him out of power, was how to go about doing it. We recklessly invaded his country and have dug a hole for ourselves. Also, despite the claims of the administration, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

The world became a better place with his demise.
The world is pissed off at us for invading Iraq. Muslims are pissed off at us for invading Iraq. We have created a huge power vaccum by removing Saddam Hussein. There is a threat of a spiraling civil war that will lead to a regional conflict. We ought to just get out before the shit hits the fan.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
94,151 Posts
Nobody is censoring you, MB. Disagreeing with you - and suffering hateful attacks when they do, but that's the price we pay. Like pig-wrasslin'. The pig enjoys it and the human gets dirty. You can make your own call as to who the swine is - but I don't go "oink" when it is dinner time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Nobody is censoring you, MB. Disagreeing with you - and suffering hateful attacks when they do,
I consider it hateful to call me a liberal, leftist, socialist or traitor. Stop with the labeling of those who disagree with you has these names and you'll see I'll drop the term neo-con and the obscenities.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top