Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Everyone gets it now but the left in this country. Who woulda thunk it that france is now more aware of the dangers of this world than the democrats of this country.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
Goal for 2008: Half as many penalties.
This is pretty scary. I really do NOT want a war with Iran, but if the world decides it has to be done, guess who will bear the majority of the burden for winning said war? America, help us, please!
__________________
Veni, vidi, vici--this goes out to all our NFC West chums
Thank you for breaking the circle of suck, Bidwill--Stout, December 7 2008.
I think you're barking at the wrong tree, swd -- many left-ish organizations in the US have agreed Iran is into weapons-building, and as far as your home-grown local liberals, I was pointing out the Iran concern quite a while before any of the repubs on this board.
The left has tended to say 'you idiots went after the wrong frickin country' while the 'pubs have said 'WooHooo! let's go bag us another one!'
I don't know that I'd rely on the French, but the concern seems to be pretty universal, this time.
Reportedly Iran no longer has any real interest in dealing with Russians as intermediaries on terms that are mutually agreeable. The Russians want tight safeguards, and Iran has turned that down a couple times already.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
I confess to being dubious of the claims that Iran was an immediate (or near-immediate) threat to the world, but after living through the lies of Bush/company on Iraq, who wouldn't be dubious?
Thanks in large part to the material and comments posted by AzZenny, I have really come around on this. I suspect it's going to end up in some military action.... I just hope it's not all out war done 99% by us.
Maybe it's time to utilize the MOAB against their nuclear sites.....
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
Everyone gets it now but the left in this country. Who woulda thunk it that france is now more aware of the dangers of this world than the democrats of this country.
Please. This is a dumb post. Everyone was screaming about how W diverted to Iraq from Afghanistan with no good reason. We should have focused on Afghanistan and then broadened our scope to Saudi Arabia and/or Iran. Iraq STILL doesn't fit into any equation! "Democrats of this country" aren't "less aware" than anybody, they're just pissed at the MISDIRECTION. Get a clue on that.....
-It's a lot easier to attack Iran from Land then Air and Sea
-It is/was a lot easier to go to war with a country that has been beatin down
-We now have seasoned veterans
-The EU is actually on board in regards to Iran and their nuclear threat
-We also could attack Iran from two fronts (Afghanistan)
Our seasoned veterans are leaving the military, tired of fighting a worthless war, Our Reserves/Guard are stretched thin.
Any action against Iran should NOT be a full invasion, but targeted bombing of specific sites - our presence in Iraq in irrelevant.
Any action against Iran would tie up our forces in Iraq/expose them to greater danger, as the semi-friendly Shiites would react very negatively to our bombing there allies/brethren in Iran. Pre-invasion, this would not have been a concern.
Many liberals have been more concerned about Iran than Iraq - have worried pre-invasion about removing one of the checks on Iran (a hostile to Iran Iraq).
Any action against Iran should NOT be a full invasion, but targeted bombing of specific sites - our presence in Iraq in irrelevant.
).
But what about the innocent civilians that will die? You think the liberal press would ever let that go by without screaming it to the world? Or do you like the DNC think all military targets are alone all by themselves and its our fault for purposely killing civilians when a ton of explosives goes off?
__________________
Goal for 2008: Half as many penalties.
Our seasoned veterans are leaving the military, tired of fighting a worthless war, Our Reserves/Guard are stretched thin.
Any action against Iran should NOT be a full invasion, but targeted bombing of specific sites - our presence in Iraq in irrelevant.
Any action against Iran would tie up our forces in Iraq/expose them to greater danger, as the semi-friendly Shiites would react very negatively to our bombing there allies/brethren in Iran. Pre-invasion, this would not have been a concern.
Many liberals have been more concerned about Iran than Iraq - have worried pre-invasion about removing one of the checks on Iran (a hostile to Iran Iraq).
But what about the innocent civilians that will die? You think the liberal press would ever let that go by without screaming it to the world? Or do you like the DNC think all military targets are alone all by themselves and its our fault for purposely killing civilians when a ton of explosives goes off?
guaranteed Iran will put civilians right next to the Nuke plant so when we blow the crap out of it they will say innocent civilians were killed.
__________________ All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
An unarmed person is a subject. An armed person is a citizen.
guaranteed Iran will put civilians right next to the Nuke plant so when we blow the crap out of it they will say innocent civilians were killed.
They learned from the Iraqi mistake and do not have all of their nuclear development in one, or even a handful, of spots. Instead, it's scattered, and often moves. Bombing certain locations MAY slow it down some, but the only way to get rid of it completely is to go in on the ground.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
If anyone is assuming Iran would blink or rollover to the West - your wrong. Iran has the edge on this issue and knows it.
For a long time I have held the belief that Iran's government has been having a secret war against the U.S. since their revolution back in 1979 and even deserves credit for the creation of the "suicide bomber."
I have little faith in our intelligence community - either over estimating or underestimating the level of threat Iran poses...that leaves me wondering what good are they.
While I don't believe military action is gonna solve this problem overnight....I also don't believe that sanctions will help either (Be ready for $100+ fer a barrel of oil).
Even though 80% of Iran's export revenues are oil and sanctions may also encourage a civil uprising because of their 14% unemployment rate. I just don't ever recall major sanctions really solving conflicts in modern history.
Does anyone really believe Russia and China will go along with any type of punitive measures? Both countries have quite a bit of economic interests in Iran.
Does anyone really believe Russia and China will go along with any type of punitive measures? Both countries have quite a bit of economic interests in Iran.
So... Particularly, where does China sell its wares? Can it be effective to boycott China's stuff if they fail to observe sanctions that might be imposed?
I'm not being sarcastic here, DJ.... I think this is worth of discussion.....
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
So... Particularly, where does China sell its wares? Can it be effective to boycott China's stuff if they fail to observe sanctions that might be imposed?
I'm not being sarcastic here, DJ.... I think this is worth of discussion.....
If China "abstains" from voting about sanctions it will certainly be a problem.
On one hand, they allowed the UN to go with sanctions - on the other they didn't "endorse" it either thereby giving them an out to be an observor.
The U.S. already has trade sanctions with Iran...so I doubt we'll boycott china because of the resolution. It certainly won't help China politically in relations with western countries.
But I really doubt they will go that route.
Considering both China and Russia has veto powers and have multibillion-dollar oil and natural gas projects hanging in the balance and throw in the fact that China is depending on Iran's imports to quench its oil thirst.
I'm expecting they will squash any serious sanctions....maybe they'll allow some pissy moves like escalating sanctions (i.e. travel visas, spare parts, weapon sales, or maybe even refined gasoline).
Moon Lander Champion!
All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
Linear Mode
