Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Iran bombers attack Britsh Troops in Iraq
Author Message
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Iran bombers attack Britsh Troops in Iraq
EastStang Wrote:I suspect the new guy will be wimpier than Blair. Does the name Neville Chamberlin ring a bell? Like the French, the Brits are a bit undersized in the cojones department.

There aren't many other people in the world that can hold the Brits' jock in the cojones department, my friend.

You can talk about Neville Chamberlin all you want, but the US itself was very late to get involved in the war and probably wouldn't have absent Pearl Harbor. There were a lot of Republicans who were pro-appeasement at that time.
07-02-2007 04:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Iran bombers attack Britsh Troops in Iraq
GGniner Wrote:well they just had riots over gas rationing last week, IRan has since cut off media reports about it. I think there are many Iranians that would love a new govt. but probably don't have the means to make it happen.

a naval blockade in retaliation for their acts of war in Iraq and Afghanistan(supplying taliban), would suffice for now. maybe legitimate threats to bomb their one Gasoline refinary also.....

There is no need to bomb or even threaten to bomb Iranian refineries. That would be EXTREMELY counterproductive.

Gas prices in Iran aren't increasing because they are being threatened by the US. They are increasing because the ILSA act prevents foreign investment in their oil and gas infrastructure, and it has been atrophying for decades. The people are naturally going to start looking around and realizing that its their government's incompetence that has them rationing gas despite having one of the largest hydrocarbon supplies in the world. Threatening to bomb the facilities is not only unnecessary, it undercuts support for change.

Economic weapons are much more powerful and effective than military weapons in foreign policy, 90% of the time.
07-02-2007 05:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Iran bombers attack Britsh Troops in Iraq
aTxTIGER Wrote:just my opinion, but overtly attacking iran at this time would be a terrible idea. if it is possible to hold off for at least a year, we can see where the civil unrest in iran can truly go. mass riots in the streets of tehran over the past few weeks should be seen a great oppurtunity for the west. if we attack iran now, those go away and the people of iran unite in a nationalist fervor. let's see where these go, and if it goes nowhere, then we look at our options.

Its possible to hold on for WAY longer than a year. The people I've talked to who are in-the-know (NSC level people) think that Iran is still 3-5 years away from development of nuclear weapons.

It is ridiculous to even be talking about attacking Iran at this point -- not to mention the fact that it is not logistically possible given how overstretched our military is at the moment. Why are the pro Iraq-war 28 percenters so willing to repeat their mistakes?

It disturbs me to see how casually conservative ideologues talk about acts of war these days. That was not always the case. War is the most serious and grave decision a government can engage in on behalf of its people. This isn't a game of Civ 4.
07-02-2007 05:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Iran bombers attack Britsh Troops in Iraq
GGniner Wrote:some Dems are even calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan now, a war that hasn't been politicized other than the bin laden/Tora Bora story. many americans wrongly think the taliban attakced us on 9/11 which makes ending that war tougher.

Name a major Democratic candidate who has called for that.

Obama, I know for sure, is arguing for additional troops to Afghanistan.
07-02-2007 05:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Offline
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 35,738
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 924
I Root For: Fire Jose!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #25
RE: Iran bombers attack Britsh Troops in Iraq
3-5 works too. i was just throwing 1 year out as an arbitrary number in a hypothetical sense.
07-02-2007 05:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #26
RE: Iran bombers attack Britsh Troops in Iraq
OUGwave Wrote:
aTxTIGER Wrote:just my opinion, but overtly attacking iran at this time would be a terrible idea. if it is possible to hold off for at least a year, we can see where the civil unrest in iran can truly go. mass riots in the streets of tehran over the past few weeks should be seen a great oppurtunity for the west. if we attack iran now, those go away and the people of iran unite in a nationalist fervor. let's see where these go, and if it goes nowhere, then we look at our options.

Its possible to hold on for WAY longer than a year. The people I've talked to who are in-the-know (NSC level people) think that Iran is still 3-5 years away from development of nuclear weapons.

It is ridiculous to even be talking about attacking Iran at this point -- not to mention the fact that it is not logistically possible given how overstretched our military is at the moment. Why are the pro Iraq-war 28 percenters so willing to repeat their mistakes?

It disturbs me to see how casually conservative ideologues talk about acts of war these days. That was not always the case. War is the most serious and grave decision a government can engage in on behalf of its people. This isn't a game of Civ 4.

Oh come on... you don't think a little non-lethal internal destabilzation op isn't called for?

Hmm someone does "something" to their gasoline refinery so it is down to 10% capacity. It doesn't haver to be a "Big Boom" Just knock it down ALOT

And the poor Iranians can't import refined products because of the nuke sanctions....03-lmfao

I agree that we don't do a deliberate attack AT THIS POINT...
Lets just push them to see if they tip...

But if Mahmoud gets "killed" one morning, I won't shed a tear.
07-02-2007 11:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blazr Away
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,981
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 276
I Root For: UAB
Location: Nashville, TN
Post: #27
RE: Iran bombers attack Britsh Troops in Iraq
OUGwave Wrote:
GGniner Wrote:well they just had riots over gas rationing last week, IRan has since cut off media reports about it. I think there are many Iranians that would love a new govt. but probably don't have the means to make it happen.

a naval blockade in retaliation for their acts of war in Iraq and Afghanistan(supplying taliban), would suffice for now. maybe legitimate threats to bomb their one Gasoline refinary also.....

There is no need to bomb or even threaten to bomb Iranian refineries. That would be EXTREMELY counterproductive.

Gas prices in Iran aren't increasing because they are being threatened by the US. They are increasing because the ILSA act prevents foreign investment in their oil and gas infrastructure, and it has been atrophying for decades. The people are naturally going to start looking around and realizing that its their government's incompetence that has them rationing gas despite having one of the largest hydrocarbon supplies in the world. Threatening to bomb the facilities is not only unnecessary, it undercuts support for change.

Economic weapons are much more powerful and effective than military weapons in foreign policy, 90% of the time.

Ok. But while we are waiting for their people to look around and realize their government's incompetence, we still cannot allow them to develop a nuclear weapon. Politics aside, diplomacy aside, world opinion aside, military strength aside, we cannot under any circumstances allow Iran to have nuclear capability. Period. What ever we have to do we will do it...or Israel will and we'll have to protect them from reprisals. I'll venture to say that the next PotUS, Dem or GOP, will agree...which makes me even happier that the Libertarians are an insignificant third party (and will be for the foreseeable future).
07-03-2007 09:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.