Aiming for Armageddon
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, August 6, 2006 22:42
VIEWED: 5926
PAGE 3 of 8
P.S ....I never said that was rain...Its piss..
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Besides, they don't have to INVADE Iran. A nice bombing campaign will do.
And then Pakistan lets loose with a nuke... then Israel... then India...
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
Do you really think Iran will allow itself to sit and be bombed without response ?
Picture 300,000 trained troops crossing into Iraq to support the full on Shia uprising that bombing campaign would start
The Gulf closing, and what will the gulf states do... side with the aggressor, or their neighbor
Perhaps moves into Afganistan, as well as the former Soviet republics who traded cash for US forward basing... when faced with a uprising of their own will they change sides ?
Maybe Iran will find other creative ways to strike back... and only the US will call it " terrorism "
" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "
The Killers
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html
300,000 well trained troops....HEHEHEHE
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:You seem certain no nukes will get loose...
Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm having too much fun watching the conspiracy theories get more and more bizarre.
Chrisisall
Not at all. The situation is indeed serious. It's likely to get a lot of people killed. I'm just sort of amazed that all SignyM and Rue can make of it is another opportunity to expound on their anti-Bush fantasies. The problems surrounding Israel, the Palestinians, the whole area, and US involvement there go back over a half-century. It deserves serious discussion, not the "Bad, bad Bush" one-liners it seems to get from them.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Slick,
"I could tell you don't give a damn about anything but the Bush-bashing"
What MY concern is: multiple semi-nuclear conflicts in scattered places around the globe.
Iran and the US (with Israel as the surrogate). Korea and Japan. India and Pakistan. You didn't get that, I presume, from my comment in this thread - Oh that's just dandy. Perhaps that was too understated for you. But as I have mentioned in MULTIPLE threads, this specific problem is both multiplying AND escalating under Herr Bush.
If you think that's just an excuse to blame Herr Bush, you've rabbited too deeply into your "faux superior perspective" role to see the light of day.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, If Bush wasn't such a disaster maybe it wouldn't be so easy to think up one-line zingers. Carter created the Camp David Accords between Sadat and Begin, no mean feat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords Clinton tried mightily to bring resolution between Rabin and Arafat. Even HW Bush added to the Mideast peace process.
Not at all. The situation is indeed serious. It's likely to get a lot of people killed. I'm just sort of amazed that all SignyM and Rue can make of it is another opportunity to expound on their anti-Bush fantasies. The problems surrounding Israel, the Palestinians, the whole area, and US involvement there go back over a half-century. It deserves serious discussion, not the "Bad, bad Bush" one-liners it seems to get from them.
Quote:www.csmonitor.com/2002/0423/p01s01-uspo.html But Bush??? The only thing he's done has been to destablize the entire region. Or had you not noticed the two invasions and the saber-rattling towards Axis of Evil partner Iran? Prolly not!
A cold calculation of geopolitics does not explain Jimmy Carter poring endlessly over maps of the Sinai, personally drawing possible lines of Israeli-Egyptian disengagement. It does not explain why President George Herbert Walker Bush's secretary of State, James A. Baker, would sit through a 9-1/2 hour meeting with Syria's Hafez al-Assad (Mr. Baker's aides invented "important" phone calls so they could use the lavatory). Nor do policy concerns entirely explain President Clinton devoting more time to face-to-face Mideast peace negotiations than any US leader, ever, even as the prospect of success receded in the distance.
Israel depends on the USA for a huge chunk of foreign aid. They are our laregst recipient and get $3 billion a year, every year. As of 2002, Israel cost the USA $1.6 trillion dollars. www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html In my mind, that's useful leverage. It's too bad that our foreign policy is dictated by Zionists, Armageddonists, and oil barons.
IF Bush were really interested in peace (HA!) the first thing he would do is stop destabilizing the region. The second thing he would do is twist Israel's arm. Clearly he is doing NONE of the things necessary to bring peace... and pretty much everything in the opposite direction. Yes, the issues are complex and they have a long history... going back to when Britain gave away a part of Palestine to 400,000 displaced Jews who flooded the area to the tune of several million... but Bush is making the situation a whole lot worse.
Interestingly, if Iran becomes involved and oil gets cut off in a major way, that not only makes the oil companies very happy it alos makes Putin and Chavez very happy.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
300,000 well trained troops....HEHEHEHE
I wouldn't be so quick to laugh. Iran fields a large and semi-well equiped army. Their weapons are a bizzare mix of Soviet and American Cold War era hand offs as well as more modern Chinese and French designs. They have very modern French made air defenses and Chinese surface to surface and anti-ship missiles and a senior officer corps that fought a sustained major conflict against what was then the dominant regional power- Iraq.
They also have a large, much larger then Saddam's similar force, of Pasdaran revolutionary miltia organized in large paramilitary formations and equipped with modern weapons. Cannon fodder and irregulars.
The Iranian Navy has several modern diesel electric subs which are perfectly suited for the shallow water operations immediatly outside the Gulf, unlike American nuclear subs which are best used in deep waters further out in the Indian Ocean.
An Iranian invasion into Iraq would make quick initial headway but would bog down as American and Allied air power stopped the flow of supplies to the front. I suspect we would allow the penetration of Iraq by hundreds of thousands while massing one or two divsions in Kuwait and the Gulf States to sweep into Southern Iraq and Southwestern Iran enveloping and cutting off the Iranian Army and ensuring its destruction. Airborne and Air Mobile Units could seal the mountain passes into SW Iran and prevent the movement of relief troops and supplies.
It would be over in weeks at most requiring an immediate commitment of a Division of Light Infantry (or Airborne) and two heavy divsions (perhaps one full Army Division and some Marines and Armored Cavalry but not counting the Iraqi garrison, although by then they may be partially commited since they wont be needed in Iraq much longer), an additional air wing and a couple carriers, and appropriate support troops. It would leave us in possesion of the most oil rich portion of Iran and all of its off shore facilities, and perhaps its coastal territory immediatly around the straight all of which we could organize as a "Free Iran" (along with an American supported Kurdish zone in NW Iran, possibly leading to a partion of Iraq to create Kurdistan...although that would REALLY piss off Turkey) or else use as a platform for the liberation of the remaining portion of the country.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, anyone
Does anyone have any " dream " solution for the Israel / Palestine problem ?
Say if you were in the position to make it happen
I'd be interested to hear the best possible solution and the arguements for and against...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
300,000 well trained troops....HEHEHEHE
I wouldn't be so quick to laugh. Iran fields a large and semi-well equiped army. Their weapons are a bizzare mix of Soviet and American Cold War era hand offs as well as more modern Chinese and French designs. They have very modern French made air defenses and Chinese surface to surface and anti-ship missiles and a senior officer corps that fought a sustained major conflict against what was then the dominant regional power- Iraq.
They also have a large, much larger then Saddam's similar force, of Pasdaran revolutionary miltia organized in large paramilitary formations and equipped with modern weapons. Cannon fodder and irregulars.
The Iranian Navy has several modern diesel electric subs which are perfectly suited for the shallow water operations immediatly outside the Gulf, unlike American nuclear subs which are best used in deep waters further out in the Indian Ocean.
An Iranian invasion into Iraq would make quick initial headway but would bog down as American and Allied air power stopped the flow of supplies to the front. I suspect we would allow the penetration of Iraq by hundreds of thousands while massing one or two divsions in Kuwait and the Gulf States to sweep into Southern Iraq and Southwestern Iran enveloping and cutting off the Iranian Army and ensuring its destruction. Airborne and Air Mobile Units could seal the mountain passes into SW Iran and prevent the movement of relief troops and supplies.
It would be over in weeks at most requiring an immediate commitment of a Division of Light Infantry (or Airborne) and two heavy divsions (perhaps one full Army Division and some Marines and Armored Cavalry but not counting the Iraqi garrison, although by then they may be partially commited since they wont be needed in Iraq much longer), an additional air wing and a couple carriers, and appropriate support troops. It would leave us in possesion of the most oil rich portion of Iran and all of its off shore facilities, and perhaps its coastal territory immediatly around the straight all of which we could organize as a "Free Iran" (along with an American supported Kurdish zone in NW Iran, possibly leading to a partion of Iraq to create Kurdistan...although that would REALLY piss off Turkey) or else use as a platform for the liberation of the remaining portion of the country.
H
I think you have been smoking some of the same stuff Rummy and Clancy have been......
" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "
The Killers
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Gino,
My starting position on the Israel/ Palestine question:
Take US military aid out of Israel since they can't be trusted with it. Make Israel comply with the UN's border mandates. Promise swift and terrible retribution to any surrounding state that attacks Israel.
What do you think?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
), just more Bush-bashing.