Britain Appeals To UN In Sailors' Case

[Bluesman]

If we do strike - which I think we will and probably should - will we suffer the consequences in Iraq? That is, will they cross over in larger numbers to fight us there? Possibility?

Definitely. The Iranians will dial the pain meter up as high as they can. Not force-on-force, though; they know we'll win that easily, and it would be GREAT for us if they tried it. The numbers of Iranian agents would balloon, so would the materiel support given to the JAM and Qods Force. HOWEVER, even that would work in our favor: when they fight us, we beat their asses. When they ambush us and mine the roads, the Democrats get wobbly and want to surrender immediately.

BUT...a direct confrontation NOW is in our interests. Their hand is strong with the status quo ante; not so much if the curtain is ripped away, and the world sees the Iranians' hands all over the levers in Iraq.

Let 'em get stuck into iraq; they're there already, but they don't pay any price for it. Make 'em pay.

[Dreadnought]

Dreadnought,

Nukes on Iran!

And then......?

Not that I would want to. But left with no choice? Questionable. We know it wont be long before he has that capability himself. No he cant hurt us as a country but our troops are well withing range as well as Israel. Can the ME afford to allow this man and his "theocracy" to take aim at a neighboring country? Perhaps maybe even yours?

[Bluesman]

But the other option is bombing either conventional or inconventional. Which do you prefer? Also keeping in mind that during their time in Iraq and Afghanistan they also test the latest in hardware/software for future conflict.

There's an entire range of options available, and a very few involve the movement of troops. We need not tie our own hands by considering JUST a ground action and employment of en bloc maneuver units, nor is conventional aerial attack with no other component dictated by anything but what we choose to do and how we choose to do it.

We're an absolutely superior Power, with unprecedented military means. We have limitations, but not that many, and CERTAINLY not enough to preclude punishing Iran for this and their nuclear plan.

[Dreadnought]

No Bluesman, Iran can create a huge problem.

Iraq and Iran fighting an united guerilla operations against the US troops in Iraq will be a huge headache and from which the US will not be able to surface with respect!

The Republicans will join the Democrats to call it quits even before the curtains are pulled down!

All I will say is all the King's horses and all the King's men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again!

Sir,
As you may well know we are not a conscripted military. Institute the draft and you will see our numbers swell emensely. Then you will see a clearer look at our numbers as opposed to what is gleened from the networks.

[Bluesman]

No Bluesman, Iran can create a huge problem.

Iraq and Iran fighting an united guerilla operations against the US troops in Iraq will be a huge headache and from which the US will not be able to surface with respect!

The Republicans will join the Democrats to call it quits even before the curtains are pulled down!

All I will say is all the King's horses and all the King's men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again!

NO DOUBT they can create problems for us; I never said anything different. But what I'm saying is, they're ALREADY doing all they can to us. If we brought OUR efforts against THEM, which we're not currently doing, and they pushed THEIR throttle up at the same time, OUR effort would DWARF, SWAMP, and CRUSH theirs. In other words, if we'd stop pretending they are NOT at war with us (which they have been, ACTIVELY, since '79), and actually FIGHT BACK, we would WIN.

[Bluesman]

A jad and Bush are very similar both are morons!


A jad has no real power in Iran the religious leaders have all the power he is just a poodle with very little power.

To attack Iran would be a grave mistake. Are you ready for countless suicide Attacks on US SOIL? Are you ready for open season on US soldiers in Iraq?
A rescue mission is not going to happen Tehran is so far inland. The US could not pull it off when Iran was weak how are the British going to do it now?

Suck it, dumbass. You've bought into that whole legend that Bush is stupid, that he has no depth, that he's somehow inferior to gnats like you who can't even punctuate a sentence correctly.

That's not true, and neither is your characterization of A-jad. You've utterly mis-read the entire cast of players, so you can butt out and let those of us that know a bit more about it discuss the topic.

[Ali]

[QUOTE=Bluesman;360400]Well, if you can't back it up, then I don't guess we really need to acknowledge your 'feelings' about it.

/QUOTE]

There is absolutely no need for you to be an ass towards me for expressing an opinion you disagree with.

[Dreadnought]

There's an entire range of options available, and a very few involve the movement of troops. We need not tie our own hands by considering JUST a ground action and employment of en bloc maneuver units, nor is conventional aerial attack with no other component dictated by anything but what we choose to do and how we choose to do it.

We're an absolutely superior Power, with unprecedented military means. We have limitations, but not that many, and CERTAINLY not enough to preclude punishing Iran for this and their nuclear plan.

Agreed Blues,
Unfortunately there are some in politics that base their thinking on what the International community would think of us when its all over. As compared to what could happen if we looked at it like that. I understand it is a legitimate concern but not when it comes down to emminate danger to the U.S. or her troops I side and support with the military decision in the utmost.

[Ali]

Of course he cares; stop saying stupid things, please. If you meant that he will not have a foreigner, somebody that is likely a moral coward and most certainly does not bear his responsibility for the United States of America's welfare, have a veto over what he believes to be in the interssts of his country, then I agree: he should NOT take some foreign Power's counselon what he should do about Iran or anything else, either.

But if you meant what you wrote, well, you're an idiot.

This is uncalled for and you are proving yourself the idiot for not knowing how to have a civil conversation with someone who disagrees with you.

[Bluesman]

Not that I would want to. But left with no choice? Questionable. We know it wont be long before he has that capability himself. No he cant hurt us as a country but our troops are well withing range as well as Israel. Can the ME afford to allow this man and his "theocracy" to take aim at a neighboring country? Perhaps maybe even yours?

If he's nuclear-armed, oh YEAH, he can hurt us, alright, even without the capability to hit the CONUS. We have interests all over the world, we have an army next door, and let's face it: whether the weak sisters of Eutopia want to admit this or not, we're the guarantors of world safety. If he fires a nuke into Europe's cold, black heart, we'll get as much blame as he will.

[Bluesman]

This is uncalled for and you are proving yourself the idiot for not knowing how to have a civil conversation with someone who disagrees with you.

And you can suck my unit, junior.

How's that for civil?

Get yourself a defendable position, and I'll give it the respect it deserves. Until then, though, the back of my hand.

[Ali]

Of course he cares; stop saying stupid things, please. If you meant that he will not have a foreigner, somebody that is likely a moral coward and most certainly does not bear his responsibility for the United States of America's welfare, have a veto over what he believes to be in the interssts of his country, then I agree: he should NOT take some foreign Power's counselon what he should do about Iran or anything else, either.

But if you meant what you wrote, well, you're an idiot.

I am not an idiot. I am in agreement with 3/4 of this country's population who feel that Bush is a horrendous leader who has made some very serious mistakes including ignoring his own people's concerns. He has proven himself to be a childish, petulant and ignorant world leader. I will grant you - he is not on the same scale as a Chavez and Castro but he is pretty damn close. History will prevail in pointing out completely and utterly worthless this man is. And please stop calling me juvenile names. My opinions have been limited to how I feel about Bush, not you. There is no need to make it personal.

[Bluesman]

[QUOTE=Ali;360411]

Well, if you can't back it up, then I don't guess we really need to acknowledge your 'feelings' about it.

/QUOTE]

There is absolutely no need for you to be an ass towards me for expressing an opinion you disagree with.

Well, there's no NEED to do that, true enough.

Call it a hobby.

[Ali]

And you can suck my unit, junior.

How's that for civil?

Get yourself a defendable position, and I'll give it the respect it deserves. Until then, though, the back of my hand.

Gee, thanks for the warm welcome to the board. Really appreciate your willingness to get to know me and understand my positions. Your a real sweetheart. I will make sure that I follow-up with you in-kind when our paths cross again.

[Bluesman]

I am not an idiot. I am in agreement with 3/4 of this country's population who feel that Bush is a horrendous leader who has made some very serious mistakes including ignoring his own people's concerns. He has proven himself to be a childish, petulant and ignorant world leader. I will grant you - he is not on the same scale as a Chavez and Castro but he is pretty damn close. History will prevail in pointing out completely and utterly worthless this man is. And please stop calling me juvenile names. My opinions have been limited to how I feel about Bush, not you. There is no need to make it personal.

Those aren't 'facts' you're slinging up on the wall, pal; those are your opinions, and badly-formed and based on poor data they are, too.