Stick your head in the sand chickens and monkeys
Geez, we cant handle the war now, we have no right to go blow people up, etc etc I'm sick of hearing we should allow BS to continue. The meanies took the British, if britain does not have the gonads to stand up and finish off Iran with a swift blitzkrieg of an attack then we should. Public opinion be dammed. Nuke the place, thats right total annihalation of the Iranians, and then offer this to the rest of the world. No more trying to help you take over your country without your help, you want America to take out your dictator, stand beside us, if like Iraq you make it tuff then start killing civilians. The answer to those who say this doesn't work? Only creats more insurgents? Hmmm Saddam seemd to keep them in line now didn't he? He took no poop off them. We need to stop putting people in the corner for ten minutes and start killing them.
And yes I served my time and would gladly serve more.
And yes I served my time and would gladly serve more.
0
-
Sean Penn is going to kick your azz 0 -
Now you did it. Ol Babs (Barbara Streisand) will never date you now. 0 -
quote:And yes I served my time and would gladly serve more.What's stopping you?
Show us how it's done, Rambo.0 -
You tell em Mogley. 0 -
I think a few people here are forgetting what England did what a few Argentines decided to steal an unimportant English island in the South Atlantic. England w8ll be heard from on their terms and it will be a loud reply. Beach 0 -
yeah! send chuck norris over there! 0 -
beach,
I'm not sure it's the same situation. Iran isn't Argentina and the situation in the Middle East is a far cry from the one that prevailed in the Falklands.0 -
But then how would exxon, etc make money from oil? What about poor little Halliburton? How will they get by?
THINK OF THE LITTLE GUY!!!!!!!!!!
Merc0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
yeah! send chuck norris over there!
If Chuck Norris is late, time had better slow the f*** down.0 -
Monkey....No it's not the same situation. Argentina had a first rate military with first rate equipment fighting a war close to home. England had extended supply lines and the requirement to still meet its NATO obligations. We gave them a ton of help with satellite info and US oilers providing a fuel chain for their ships.
That said after what Tony Blair has done for us in Iraq he can pretty much demand that President Bush provide him what he needs to put pressure on Iran. England may be an old mangy lion now but even an old lion can brace up an arrogant rat. The Iranians just don't have an even second rate military. Their best fighters are some ancient F-14A that they have had to cannibalize since 1979. Their Boghammer patrol boats are literally fast targets. I wouldn't expect the British to land an invasion force and fight their way across Iran to Tehran but I wouldn't be surprised to see them do something very spectacular using their aircraft and their SAS. The British RAF Tornado pilots are the very best desert fliers in the world..noboday and I mean nobody flies like they do. The SAS can give advice to Delta Force and the SAS has been operating out of the desert for 60 years. And the Brits might just ask us to ante up some long range helos and tanker assets. I really wouldn't surprised if the SAS already had assets in place in Iran. But hey the Brits might just roll over and beg forgiveness from Iran...but I'm doubting it. It will be interesting to see what the Brits end up doing. Beach0 -
quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
yeah! send chuck norris over there!
If Chuck Norris is late, time had better slow the f*** down.
[:D][:D][:D]0 -
I say we give them a hand, and I say we be none too discrete about it.
That said, if--and this is a big if--they were in Iranian waters than Iran has a right to puff and strut for a few days and then hand them back over.
If the Brits were in disputed waters, that time period goes to maybe two days.
If they were in international waters, they send the guys back with their uniforms washed and ironed and a bag lunch.
And, as I said, if Britain wants to have at Iran, I say we help them every step of the way.
And I'm not so sure that Iran is as much of a joke militarily as some have said. Iran has piles and piles and piles of money with the spike in oil prices. Russian technology is reasonably priced and very good. Hezzbollah knocked out quite a few Israeli tanks recently. Don't get me wrong, I'm picking Britain, but I don't think it would be a total walkover.0 -
quote:Originally posted by beachmaster73
Monkey....No it's not the same situation. Argentina had a first rate military with first rate equipment fighting a war close to home. England had extended supply lines and the requirement to still meet its NATO obligations. We gave them a ton of help with satellite info and US oilers providing a fuel chain for their ships.
That said after what Tony Blair has done for us in Iraq he can pretty much demand that President Bush provide him what he needs to put pressure on Iran. England may be an old mangy lion now but even an old lion can brace up an arrogant rat. The Iranians just don't have an even second rate military. Their best fighters are some ancient F-14A that they have had to cannibalize since 1979. Their Boghammer patrol boats are literally fast targets. I wouldn't expect the British to land an invasion force and fight their way across Iran to Tehran but I wouldn't be surprised to see them do something very spectacular using their aircraft and their SAS. The British RAF Tornado pilots are the very best desert fliers in the world..noboday and I mean nobody flies like they do. The SAS can give advice to Delta Force and the SAS has been operating out of the desert for 60 years. And the Brits might just ask us to ante up some long range helos and tanker assets. I really wouldn't surprised if the SAS already had assets in place in Iran. But hey the Brits might just roll over and beg forgiveness from Iran...but I'm doubting it. It will be interesting to see what the Brits end up doing. Beach
Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of admiration for the British. Their military is probably the most effective and professional in the world, outstripping even our own in many ways. However, they fought Argentine conscripts - not the pros. The elite troops were kept at home to guard against possible Chilean incursions (the Chileans are quite friendly with the Brits and possess a first-rate military of their own).
Also, if the UK were to launch reprisal raids on Iran, what would that accomplish? It's highly doubtful the UK would be able to effect any sort of change through force of arms because the Iranians know destruction - eight years of unrelenting warfare against Iraq that included missile attacks and chemical warfare teaches a people how to endure under wartime conditions - a British raid would be a laughable pingentleman against their nation.
British military planners know that for force to be useful, it must be both effective and final. There is no point in fighting if what stands to be gained is either not worth it or can only be guessed at.
And I would not give the Iranians such short shrift. Underestimating an enemy, like Israel did this past summer, is the surest way to get a nasty surprise sprung on ya.[;)]0 -
I'll bet James Bond is already working on the issue. Leave it to him to solve the issue.
But really, I have worked with the British military and had a very close friend that was retired from their army. I have the utmost respect for who they are and what they are capable of. And as several other posts have already pointed out, they did stand by us when we asked them to.0 -
I guess Iran was the one using chemical warfare since Iraq didn't have any of that sort of thing. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mercury
But then how would exxon, etc make money from oil? What about poor little Halliburton? How will they get by?
THINK OF THE LITTLE GUY!!!!!!!!!!
Merc
Hey, you can drill through glass! [}:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by mogley98
Geez, we cant handle the war now, we have no right to go blow people up, etc etc I'm sick of hearing we should allow BS to continue. The meanies took the British, if britain does not have the gonads to stand up and finish off Iran with a swift blitzkrieg of an attack then we should. Public opinion be dammed. Nuke the place, thats right total annihalation of the Iranians, and then offer this to the rest of the world. No more trying to help you take over your country without your help, you want America to take out your dictator, stand beside us, if like Iraq you make it tuff then start killing civilians. The answer to those who say this doesn't work? Only creats more insurgents? Hmmm Saddam seemd to keep them in line now didn't he? He took no poop off them. We need to stop putting people in the corner for ten minutes and start killing them.
And yes I served my time and would gladly serve more.
Have you ever even looked at a book of military history or tactics? How about political science? Diplomacy? International relations?
How about a simple "Cui bono" analysis of each side of the issue?
You say you have no idea what the hell I'm talking about?
This situation is far more complex than you could possibly comprehend, so please cease embarrassing yourself. This isn't an election year, and nobody's courting the LCD. Your poorly-worded and barely comprehensible opinion is as irrelevant as a fart in a windstorm.0 -
Wheres John Wayne , Rambo, and all the other dorks when you need them? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
I guess Iran was the one using chemical warfare since Iraq didn't have any of that sort of thing.
Nice try. Iraq had chemical weapons, but NOT at the time when Bush said they did.
Isn't it funny to see the kids try to be intelligent and cute at the same time?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mercury
But then how would exxon, etc make money from oil? What about poor little Halliburton? How will they get by?
THINK OF THE LITTLE GUY!!!!!!!!!!
Merc
Do you really think this is an Exxon/Halliburton issue ?? NOT0 -
PS- It's spelled "Mowgli", Philistine. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
I guess Iran was the one using chemical warfare since Iraq didn't have any of that sort of thing.
Nice try. Iraq had chemical weapons, but NOT at the time when Bush said they did.
Isn't it funny to see the kids try to be intelligent and cute at the same time?
you mean when Bush and Clinton and Kerry and Tenet said they did
0 -
newt,
I wasn't aware Clinton, Kerry, or Tenet got us involved in this current war in Iraq.
What they said was irrelevant given that while Clinton was in office, we lost zero people in Iraq.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
newt,
I wasn't aware Clinton, Kerry, or Tenet got us involved in this current war in Iraq.
What they said was irrelevant given that while Clinton was in office, we lost zero people in Iraq.
well lets see...the president of the united states gets his intelligence reports from the CIA...the CIA said there were WMD in Iraq. Kerry and Hilary had full access to and briefings from the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Kerry and Clinton both voted for war in Iraq. So basically you arent aware then of their significant role in getting America into war in Iraq. Of course, you DID know that but choose to ignore it because you are a lying sack of partisan putrid american hating puke.0 -
and on a side note i must correct you on one small detail....while Bill Clinton was in office America did in fact lose people in Iraq. If you remember correctly America, on orders from Clinton, bombed Iraq repeatdly and at least one of those missions resulted in losing American life. Also, America had a covert mission in Iraq for years to undermine Hussein and we lost CIA agents during that mission. 0 -
Things Bush has accomplished in Iraq, removing an unelected, brutal, murderous dictator, establishing democracy, securing the country from government controled WMD. No small feat. 0 -
I heard it mentioned one day in the news, but only once: that saddam moved all his weapons into syria before we invaded; same as he did in gulf war part 1.
Gulf war one had high res photos that the pentagon/cia/ whatever took showed trucks at the palace one minute and gone the next. Granted you cant really see inside them, but makes you wonder why saddam would try and hurry up on this.
I even heard the in part one (not sure of part two) that a lot of pilots even flew fighter jets into iran; however iran sent the pilots home and kept the planes.
[Sorry there, could'nt help myself]
Hairyland Israel bombed out a nuclear reactor in the "70's" to keep saddam from developing such weapons. Iran tried but falied. However even I suppose to Israel's suprise is that Iran gave intel to them about such a place. Saddam tried to fortify the main reactor after iran tried to bomb it, but Israel did not bomb it once; but 10 times. Guess he should have built it better.
Little known fact: One of those israeli pilots that flew the mission, was that same exact israeli that was killed in that space shuttle accidient a few years back.0 -
"Things Bush has accomplished in Iraq,
1. removing an unelected, brutal, murderous dictator
2. establishing democracy
3. securing the country from government controled WMD."
OK, lets grade your report. Number 1, correct. Numbers 2 and 3, wrong.
Your grade, 33, failing.
That is what you get for listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
I guess Iran was the one using chemical warfare since Iraq didn't have any of that sort of thing.
Nice try. Iraq had chemical weapons, but NOT at the time when Bush said they did.
Isn't it funny to see the kids try to be intelligent and cute at the same time?
Oh, OK, I've got it now. He had chemical weapons, but he didn't have chemical weapons. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Isn't it fun to watch the pseudo-intellectuals dodge and spin?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
29 comments