[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
In subsequent speeches when asked about it he answered that he meant that Zionism needs to be curbed…not that Israel should be literally “wiped off the map”.[/quote]
Of course he did - once he and his handlers realized his statements exposing the Iranian id was released to the world, the Iranian leadership had to do damage control. Of course they are going to qualify their statements to avoid trouble.
You have it exactly backwards - you think the second time he spoke he meant what he said. Use common sense.
Much like your ranting about the Zionist conspiracy, you can’t unring that bell.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
pookie wrote:
…Types the chickenhawk from the safety of his office chair.
HH is the worst type of chickenhawk imaginable: He has access to a large pool of impressionable youths who have been conditioned to respect teachers as intelligent authority figures.
Some of them likely won’t figure out what a stooge this teacher was until it’s too late.
Does someone have to be in the military to want to defend our interests? If so, then we’re truly lost.
Do you ever address issues or are you just a chimpanzee who flings his fecal matter all over the place?
[/quote]
There’s no issue to address, jackass. Just some pointless bullshit you got in an email from the Ann Cuntler fan club.
[quote]tme wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
pookie wrote:
…Types the chickenhawk from the safety of his office chair.
HH is the worst type of chickenhawk imaginable: He has access to a large pool of impressionable youths who have been conditioned to respect teachers as intelligent authority figures.
Some of them likely won’t figure out what a stooge this teacher was until it’s too late.
Does someone have to be in the military to want to defend our interests? If so, then we’re truly lost.
Do you ever address issues or are you just a chimpanzee who flings his fecal matter all over the place?
There’s no issue to address, jackass. Just some pointless bullshit you got in an email from the Ann Cuntler fan club.
[/quote]
So you WANT the terrorists to control Iraq’s oil? Well, bully for you (as my favorite president would say)! Of course, they’d never use the billions in oil revenues to buy nukes or bio-weapons to attack us!! No, never, ever!!!
Now, put down the pipe, Mr. Smoky McCracken and use your tiny head for something besides a hat rack.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BTW: Why do Dems and libs want to have meetings with murderers and terrorists, as if you can actually reason with such creatures?
[/quote]
I realize it is difficult for you, but try not to be stupid.
Not everyone is a murderer or a terrorist over there. Having a dialog with people allows you to change views and learn about the issues that are important to others.
Basically, you can learn things and adapt to the things you learn. If you don’t communicate, you will just form completely idiotic knee-jerk opinions based on nothing.
Case in point - yourself.
Let’s get beyond the grade school tactic of “na-na-I-can’t-hear-you” and get serious about things. This non-communication strategy is worse than childish at best.
tme wrote:
There’s no issue to address, jackass. Just some pointless bullshit you got in an email from the Ann Cuntler fan club.
Headhunter wrote:
So you WANT the terrorists to control Iraq’s oil? Well, bully for you (as my favorite president would say)! Of course, they’d never use the billions in oil revenues to buy nukes or bio-weapons to attack us!! No, never, ever!!!
In case you’re confused even more so than usual, the pic was intended to go along with your finely crafted straw man argument. I don’t know if logical fallacies are covered in the Idiot’s Guide to Philosophy for Dummies books you’ve been reading, so you can use the Google to find a decent explanation.
Also, I was in no way implying that you don’t have a brain. The double meaning of the photo was just a bonus.
Finally, what’s up with your Rush Limbaugh man crush?
Seriously though. Iran is already taking military actions against our troops. The war is on. We should annihilate every last piece of military equipment they have. Every factory used to produce said equipment. And reduce every base of theirs into rubble. How about hitting them so damn hard they’ll be forced to withdraw their resources back into Iran.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Let’s see if I got it straight.
You’re not winning in Iraq and the solution is to bite of a bigger piece, now you want to take on Iran.
Do you have some sort of death wish? A masochistic streak perhaps?[/quote]
We won our war in Iraq. Perhaps you’re confusing providing security with actually fledging a full scale war? If we chose to fight a full scale war AL Sadr would be dead and his militia crushed. Along with any region in Iraq that gave comfort to militias. We’re attempting to let Iraqi’s decide how to handle the country while providing the least intrusive security.
The US could easily destroy Iran’s military, Industrial capabilities, and government structures, while still occupying Iraq. Do enough damage to Iran, they won’t have the money or resources to send to Iraq. Or, the Hesbos for that matter.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Let’s see if I got it straight.
You’re not winning in Iraq and the solution is to bite of a bigger piece, now you want to take on Iran.
Do you have some sort of death wish? A masochistic streak perhaps?
We won our war in Iraq. Perhaps you’re confusing providing security with actually fledging a full scale war? If we chose to fight a full scale war AL Sadr would be dead and his militia crushed. Along with any region in Iraq that gave comfort to militias. We’re attempting to let Iraqi’s decide how to handle the country while providing the least intrusive security.
The US could easily destroy Iran’s military, Industrial capabilities, and government structures, while still occupying Iraq. Do enough damage to Iran, they won’t have the money or resources to send to Iraq. Or, the Hesbos for that matter.
[/quote]
Yeah, I agree conventional warfare would mean planes and missles.
Though, Sloth you are off you’re rocker if you think we should go into Iran. I don’t think the government of Iran has anything to do with Iraq.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Let’s see if I got it straight.
You’re not winning in Iraq and the solution is to bite of a bigger piece, now you want to take on Iran.
Do you have some sort of death wish? A masochistic streak perhaps?
We won our war in Iraq. Perhaps you’re confusing providing security with actually fledging a full scale war? If we chose to fight a full scale war AL Sadr would be dead and his militia crushed. Along with any region in Iraq that gave comfort to militias. We’re attempting to let Iraqi’s decide how to handle the country while providing the least intrusive security.
The US could easily destroy Iran’s military, Industrial capabilities, and government structures, while still occupying Iraq. Do enough damage to Iran, they won’t have the money or resources to send to Iraq. Or, the Hesbos for that matter.[/quote]
Though, Sloth you are off you’re rocker if you think we should go into Iran. I don’t think the government of Iran has anything to do with Iraq.[/quote]
They got caught red handed. They’ve been training and supplying Shiite militias to kill our troops. And possibly some Sunni
militia elements have also been involved.
Iraq will not survive as a nation after the invasion.What little enforced cohesion was supplied by the Hussein’s regime is gone.
I really cannnot see the point of more young men and women giving up their lives for an unreachable outcome.
As for the oil,the ‘free market’ will keep it flowing.The middle east has nothing else to sell,so what are they going to do,stop supplying the west?
You can’t feed camels or people with oil.
At worst there will be a small price hike as supplies of it are channelled to the west through middlemen,as rogue states have been getting their supplies for ever and a day.
But I don’t think that will even be the case.
As for Islamist radicals,I believe their influence will diminish as soon as the
western physical presence in the region has ceased.
I don’t believe that there would be any impetus to carry on any kind of ‘jihad’ beyond thheir borders after we are out of the region.
It’s their region,let them do as they will.
They want Sharia?Go to it.
They want democracy?Let them fight for it.
Law and order?I’m sure they can achieve that too.But only under their own frameworks.
I just cannot see the sense in more kids getting served up over there.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Let’s see if I got it straight.
You’re not winning in Iraq and the solution is to bite of a bigger piece, now you want to take on Iran.
Do you have some sort of death wish? A masochistic streak perhaps?
We won our war in Iraq. Perhaps you’re confusing providing security with actually fledging a full scale war?
[/quote]
Um, no. War is the extension of politics by other means, per Clausewitz. If you didn’t obtain your political goals, you didn’t win. Did we win in Vietnam? We never really lost a battle. Are you this obtuse?
[quote]
The US could easily destroy Iran’s military, Industrial capabilities, and government structures, while still occupying Iraq. Do enough damage to Iran, they won’t have the money or resources to send to Iraq. Or, the Hesbos for that matter.[/quote]
Nope. We’re losing in Iraq so the solution is to attack Iran? As others have said, that’s absurd. I’m sure Iran’s funding our enemies and quite possibly even has men on the ground in Iraq. Doesn’t change the fact that foreign fighters and foreign money are a very small part of the equation there. The people doing the killing and dying are Iraqis. And in a country where every household has at least one AK-47, Iranian firepower is pretty inconsequential.
As hard as this may be to comprehend, Iran can hurt us a great deal, maybe more than we can hurt them. You think Iraq is bad now, how do you think a full-scale Shia uprising against the US would look? Not to mention the entire oil issue…
Um, no. War is the extension of politics by other means, per Clausewitz. If you didn’t obtain your political goals, you didn’t win. Did we win in Vietnam? We never really lost a battle. Are you this obtuse?
[/quote]
Are we talking Vietnam, or Iraq? We’re providing limited security in Iraq, not fighting a war, such as in Vietnam. Do you see us sacking Sadr city with full American fire power? No, we go on damn ‘patrols’…Sorry, but major combat operations have been over for some time now. Snipers, and IED’s are the threats, not some military force pushing our troops to retreat and give up ground. It hasn’t been a war effort for some time now. It’s a security effort. Two totally and completely different approaches. How in the world you can’t see the distinction is beyond me. Are you this obtuse?
[quote]
Nope. We’re losing in Iraq so the solution is to attack Iran? As others have said, that’s absurd. I’m sure Iran’s funding our enemies and quite possibly even has men on the ground in Iraq. Doesn’t change the fact that foreign fighters and foreign money are a very small part of the equation there. The people doing the killing and dying are Iraqis. And in a country where every household has at least one AK-47, Iranian firepower is pretty inconsequential.
As hard as this may be to comprehend, Iran can hurt us a great deal, maybe more than we can hurt them. You think Iraq is bad now, how do you think a full-scale Shia uprising against the US would look? Not to mention the entire oil issue…[/quote]
Iran can’t do jack but get its ass whipped. If the US goes into ass kicking mode instead of “Policeman” mode, Iran would be screwed. We could destroy Iran with half the troops we have in Iraq for god’s sake. Air power alone could damn near finish off their military. An occupation is the hardest part.
I’m not advocating occupying Iran. I’m not advocating keeping troops there to help them with post-war security. I’m not advocating to help them rebuild. I’m advocating kicking their asses so bad they’re left throwing fucking rocks. Destroy their industry, military, and government. Every time they try to rebuild, start over. Until they learn that actions against us are leading to their extinction. That’s a war. Not “security patrolling.”
But I don’t think that will even be the case.
As for Islamist radicals,I believe their influence will diminish as soon as the
western physical presence in the region has ceased.
I don’t believe that there would be any impetus to carry on any kind of ‘jihad’ beyond thheir borders after we are out of the region.
[/quote]
Sure there would. Conquest of land in the name of Allah. Look around at the countries dealing with foreign backed Islamic Separatists.
In case you’re confused even more so than usual, the pic was intended to go along with your finely crafted straw man argument. I don’t know if logical fallacies are covered in the Idiot’s Guide to Philosophy for Dummies books you’ve been reading, so you can use the Google to find a decent explanation.
Also, I was in no way implying that you don’t have a brain. The double meaning of the photo was just a bonus.
Finally, what’s up with your Rush Limbaugh man crush?[/quote]
Hey, if you’re going to post pictures of your hero, I’ll post pics of mine!
