Iran's Next. One Down (Kinda) and Two To Go

I don't want to re-start the should/shouldn't with you Squin... just pointing out my agreement with Panz, and the error in your military estimate, is all. We could conceivably bite off more than we can chew in terms of building democracies. We couldn't overestimate our ability to destroy enemy installations or defend ourselves. Suicide is an absurd comparison as we are damn near undefeatable in the short term, save some super-virus we don't know about. An invasion of Iran would probably not have a noticeable impact on your average American, let alone be their doom. This isn't bragging or grandstanding it's merely pointing out the comforting, factual side of owning the world's only Multi-Trillion-Dollar-Military Monster. Don't Tread On Me.

0 Replies

Thuggish Cabals don't answer to the citizenry, panzade... they live by the sword.

"Live by the sword" is only half of the story...

0 Replies

Quote:

"Live by the sword" is only half of the story...

exactly

0 Replies

Bill wrote

Quote:

. An invasion of Iran would probably not have a noticeable impact on your average American, let alone be their doom. This isn’t bragging or grandstanding… it’s merely pointing out the comforting, factual side of owning the world’s only Multi-Trillion-Dollar-Military Monster. Don't Tread On Me.

I agree we can defend ourselves and defeat any enemy. However can we control the aftermath. i.e.. We can create a baby and deliver it. But we can't nurse, feed and clothe it. Not with the way our service is now staffed.
As for the noticeable effect on the average American. Who do you think will be paying for that adventure into the absurd. In addition can you justify that to those families who lose loved ones or have them return with broken bodies.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Bill wrote

Quote:
. An invasion of Iran would probably not have a noticeable impact on your average American, let alone be their doom. This isn't bragging or grandstanding it's merely pointing out the comforting, factual side of owning the world's only Multi-Trillion-Dollar-Military Monster. Don't Tread On Me.

I agree we can defend ourselves and defeat any enemy.

Thats poo!!!. You seem to forget that your having awful trouble disposing of your current enemy in Iraq. Also OBill, look at the body count for America in Iraq - what is is it? 1300 killed? Thats alot of people affected when you take into consideration extended families. Should the US decide to take on Iran - well I would say 1300 would be pale into "insignificance" so to speak.

0 Replies

1300 American lives for Iraqi freedom? Sounds small change to me. Even if 13,000 lives were lost removing nuclear threats from Iran, that's nothing compared with the threat of 130,000 lives being lost around Iran's borders due to a nuclear strike!

0 Replies

Yep, it's small change compared to the Armageddon sought after by "True Believers"...

0 Replies

gav wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Bill wrote

Quote:
. An invasion of Iran would probably not have a noticeable impact on your average American, let alone be their doom. This isn't bragging or grandstanding it's merely pointing out the comforting, factual side of owning the world's only Multi-Trillion-Dollar-Military Monster. Don't Tread On Me.

I agree we can defend ourselves and defeat any enemy.

Thats poo!!!. You seem to forget that your having awful trouble disposing of your current enemy in Iraq. Also OBill, look at the body count for America in Iraq - what is is it? 1300 killed? Thats alot of people affected when you take into consideration extended families. Should the US decide to take on Iran - well I would say 1300 would be pale into "insignificance" so to speak.

Finishing off the last of the insurgents may take a century, Gav. Be reasonable. The Sunnis have had there birthright to be better than the majority they've been oppressing for the last 30 years taken away. Unlikely that would ever have happened without a fight, but I would think we could agree that aspect of the fight is a necessary, even noble cause, no?

As for the significance of 1,300 hundred heroes? We'll continue to honor every last man who ever falls in the pursuit of freedom... and when it's a pursuit of a stranger's freedom; that is all the more reason to honor them.

But as far as making a noticeable impact on your average American; try to keep things in perspective. I'm looking at the15 Leading Causes of Death in the U.S., 2001:I think it's fair to say that the average American was not impacted by the deaths brought on by Influenza and pneumonia.-62,034 Plenty of other examples there, but I think my point is clear.

I know some think any collateral damage is unacceptable, but it's an unfortunate reality in war. The enormous cost that AU likes to whine about is a testament to how hard we try to limit the collateral damage (unprecedented accuracy for an action of this magnitude). Everyone knows we could vaporized every living thing in Iraq if we wanted to, at the risk of no American lives... Between that and our current strategy is an infinite spectrum of possibilities with an arsenal as immense and diverse as ours. Every single American Soldier who falls, like the enormous expenditures of national treasure, is further testament to the United States' desire to limit collateral damage. Those who choose to reject this simple truth, are only fooling themselves.

While we're talking numbers here, people. According to the U.N. The Billions stolen from the Oil For Food Program resulted in over one million dead Iraqis by way of starvation. Divide the number: 1,000,000 up any old way you like and then compare it to the cost of the solution in terms of human lives. War is hell folks, but sometimes it beats the alternative. I can think of no more honorable cause for our soldiers to fight for then ending the systematic brutal repression and starvation of millions.

An estimated 80% of all Iraqis are expected to show up at the polls next week. In my lifetime, my country has never produced a higher percentage of people willing to set their chores aside and exercise their right to vote. And we've never felt threatened with death for doing so. These elections can be the beginning of something beautiful if the world will only give Iraqis the benefit of the doubt. They're no different than you or I. They love their children, desire peace and happiness and what should be considered an inalienable right; self determination... just like everyone else. No portion of our national treasure is too great of price to pay give it to them. I, for one, will happily pay my share.

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

1300 American lives for Iraqi freedom? Sounds small change to me. Even if 13,000 lives were lost removing nuclear threats from Iran, that's nothing compared with the threat of 130,000 lives being lost around Iran's borders due to a nuclear strike!

What if there is no wmd in Iraqi, do we move on to N Korea or Pakistan ?
are we going to toss a coin ?

0 Replies

Bill If you are going to quote me quote me!

Au wrote

Quote:

I agree we can defend ourselves and defeat any enemy. However can we control the aftermath. i.e.. We can create a baby and deliver it. But we can't nurse, feed and clothe it. Not with the way our service is now staffed.

Bill wrote

Quote:

But as far as making a noticeable impact on your average American; try to keep things in perspective. I'm looking at the15 Leading Causes of Death in the U.S., 2001:I think it's fair to say that the average American was not impacted by the deaths brought on by Influenza and pneumonia.-62,034 Plenty of other examples there, but I think my point is clear.

And this in your mind justifies the death of Americans in a war of choice. Iraq I remind you was exactly that. I do not want to hear the BS that we are fighting to free them from an oppressor. That is not our fight and even the loss of one American in that endeavor is one too many. In addition your attitude conveys the message that with all the people dying from other causes what difference does 1300 more make. And the 10,000 without arms, legs, sight and whatever they are not significant at all.
I would also add that we are far from out of the woods in Iraq the loss of life and injury continues.
As for Iran which was the subject, with their heavily fundamentalist constituency an invasion of that country will IMO be even more costly than Iraq.

One more comment. You seem to be quite cavalier about the loss of someone else's life and limb.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Bill If you are going to quote me quote me!

No, I quoted and responded to Gav who had quoted one line from you. Yours was completely irrelevant to my point, so your complaint is misplaced. But if it's that important to you, I'll oblige you. Razz

au1929 wrote:

I agree we can defend ourselves and defeat any enemy. However can we control the aftermath. i.e.. We can create a baby and deliver it. But we can't nurse, feed and clothe it. Not with the way our service is now staffed.

Unknown. I do hope so... and I wish the world would lend a hand so we can get on with delivering more babies as there are expectant mothers all over the friggin place. Shocked

au1929 wrote:

Bill wrote

Quote:
But as far as making a noticeable impact on your average American; try to keep things in perspective. I'm looking at the15 Leading Causes of Death in the U.S., 2001:I think it's fair to say that the average American was not impacted by the deaths brought on by Influenza and pneumonia.-62,034 Plenty of other examples there, but I think my point is clear.

And this in your mind justifies the death of Americans in a war of choice.

No, your logic train has derailed in your very first sentence here. The perspective was Gav's suggestion that:

Gav wrote:

Also OBill, look at the body count for America in Iraq - what is is it? 1300 killed? Thats alot of people affected when you take into consideration extended families.

Obviously his point was to count bodies and consider how that count affected extended families. This paragraph of my response was only meant to demonstrate that a count of 1,300 isn't terribly significant in a country of nearly 300,000,000. For this purpose, my example worked perfectly.
As for you intentionally obtuse question:

AU wrote:

And this in your mind justifies the death of Americans in a war of choice.

One only need read the balance of that post to see what; in my mind, justifies the death of Americans in a war of choice. Idea

Moving on:

au1929 wrote:

Iraq I remind you was exactly that. I do not want to hear the BS that we are fighting to free them from an oppressor. That is not our fight and even the loss of one American in that endeavor is one too many. In addition your attitude conveys the message that with all the people dying from other causes what difference does 1300 more make. And the 10,000 without arms, legs, sight and whatever they are not significant at all.

The rest of this paragraph makes it quite clear, as if I didn't already know, that you don't give a rat's a$$ about the Million-plus murdered Iraqis. I again recognize your right not to. Please return the favor and try to understand that I have some twisted morality that says we're all humans first, Americans second... and if a million lives can be saved at the cost of a few thousand lives... I need not know the nationalities to consider this as a bargain.

au1929 wrote:

I would also add that we are far from out of the woods in Iraq the loss of life and injury continues.
As for Iran which was the subject, with their heavily fundamentalist constituency an invasion of that country will IMO be even more costly than Iraq.

That's a reasonable opinion I suppose, but we have not, as of yet, invaded Iran... and I'm sure you know we're perfectly capable of taking out any WMD designs they may have without stepping foot in Iran (no, I don't mean nukes). Furthermore, since Iran is already a country run by Radical Islamic Fundamentalists... we could hardly be blamed if we left a group of Radical Islamic Fundamentalists in charge. Why, after disarming them; isn't that what you "only-Americans-count" types would have us do anyway? Hell, it wouldn't cost hardly anything to just take out the danger and go, would it? You feelin me yet? Our worst nightmare in Iraq is already the reality in Iran. Idea

Now I'm sure you'd prefer we just mind our own business or take out their weapons from a distance... and you have a right to your opinion. So do I. I'm troubled by the fact that there are 10,000,000 little girls aged 14 and under there who have been sentenced to a life of child molestation, second class citizenship essentially slavery... for the crime of having been born Iranian. Now, if they're lucky, they'll know better than to do something really terrible like have sex with the wrong person or they may be sentenced to a public stoning to death. You see AU, I think those 10,000,000 little girls should be treated like human beings... and nothing will make me prouder than if we choose to free them from the chains of oppression. You don't seem to realize, that like the Iraqis and Americans, they are just people too. Don't like my opinion? Tough luck. That just makes us even because despite respecting yours I find it absolutely deplorable.

au1929 wrote:

One more comment. You seem to be quite cavalier about the loss of someone else's life and limb.

So do you. You just sat there and belittled the suffering of more than 10 times as many families who lost their loved ones to influenza. Pretty cold-hearted, dude.

0 Replies

Bill

Quote:

au1929 wrote:

Quote:
One more comment. You seem to be quite cavalier about the loss of someone else's life and limb.

Bill Wrote
So do you. You just sat there and belittled the suffering of more than 10 times as many families who lost their loved ones to influenza. Pretty cold-hearted, dude.

That is a pretty distorted view of what I said. I guess you had to say something in response. It was you who belittled the loss of American life in Iraq writing it was nothing compared to loss of life in the US for a variety of reasons.

0 Replies

Bill

Quote:

au1929 wrote:

Quote:
I agree we can defend ourselves and defeat any enemy. However can we control the aftermath. i.e.. We can create a baby and deliver it. But we can't nurse, feed and clothe it. Not with the way our service is now staffed.

Bill wrote
Unknown. I do hope so... and I wish the world would lend a hand so we can get on with delivering more babies as there are expectant mothers all over the friggin place.

Why deliver them if we are unable to feed and clothe them. As is exactly the situation in Iraq. Half ass job is still a half ass job.

0 Replies

Bill
Hope you don't mind if I respond on individual posts. Too many times when combining all responses I end up losing the entire post.
Bill wrote

Quote:

That's a reasonable opinion I suppose, but we have not, as of yet, invaded Iran... and I'm sure you know we're perfectly capable of taking out any WMD designs they may have without stepping foot in Iran

True, however the question and answer was concerning the invasion of Iran. No doubt we can take them down but can we control the afterbirth. The answer is not with the resources in manpower at our disposal. One Iraq is enough.
Regarding to taking out the WMD's in Iran without stepping foot in Iran, that is a pipe dream.

Bill wrote
.

Quote:

I'm troubled by the fact that there are 10,000,000 little girls aged 14 and under there who have been sentenced to a life of child molestation, second class citizenship… essentially slavery... for the crime of having been born Iranian.

The crime as you put it is not because they were born Iranian but rather that they were born Moslem. Isn't it enough that we have become the police, judge and jury of this world have we now taken up the task of being arbitors of religions?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Bill
Hope you don't mind if I respond on individual posts. Too many times when combining all responses I end up losing the entire post.

I don't mind at all. In this case you didn't say anything I didn't expect... and I have no responses that wouldn't be repetitive either. So, just in case you or anyone's interested in the art of post separation, I'll tell you how I do it: :wink:
First, instead of reply, I hit the "Quote" button to capture the example post below:

This is an example post from that cool Cheesehead guy.

This is the second part of the example post.

(This, would look like this on the on the compose page.)

Code:

[QUOTE="OCCOM BILL"]This is an example post from that cool Cheesehead guy.



This is the second part of the example post.[/QUOTE]

Next, I add a space at the beginning and the end of the post so it cutting and pasting won't interfere with the [quotes] like you can see below.

Code:

[QUOTE="OCCOM BILL"] This is an example post from that cool Cheesehead guy.



This is the second part of the example post. [/QUOTE]

Then, where ever I want to write, I cut and paste (or just type a

Code:[/QUOTE]

to mark the spot where I'm taking over. Then, when I'm done blabbering I cut and paste the

Code:[QUOTE="OCCOM BILL"]

to begin quoting the next applicable portion of text. After blabbing, it looks like this:

Code:

[QUOTE="OCCOM BILL"] This is an example post from that cool Cheesehead guy.[/QUOTE]

blab, blab, blab, blab, blab

[QUOTE="OCCOM BILL"]This is the second part of the example post. [/QUOTE]

Notice the only difference between the generic quote and the named one is: ="OCCOM BILL"

You probably new that already, but someone else may not. I wouldn't recommend anyone try practicing on this particular post. :wink:

0 Replies

Oh, nested quotes work the same, but you have to cut and paste both names:

Code:[quote="OCCOM BILL"][quote="au1929"]

and make sure you have two [/quote]s. One to mark the end of where we each stopped writing. (one will already be there)

0 Replies

Bill
Thanks. I have been cutting and pasting. Never, tried using the quote function.

0 Replies

Your welcome.

0 Replies

Iran's Next. One Down (Kinda) and Two To Go

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know