U.S. show of force in Persian Gulf

[N.E. CHARTERS]

The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, deploying two aircraft carriers and conducting simulated aerial attacks




Anybody want to start a pool on when IRAN goes down?




Put me down for Sat. March 31st at 04:00



http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/27/us.gulf.ap/index.html

 

[Pilgrim]

I hope they're loaded with nukes.

 

[squarooticus]

Yeah! Kick ass! Beat the drums! What we need more of is WAR!

Or, how about we take all of those billions we spent in Iraq and all the extra billions we'll inevitably drop on Iran in the form of ordnance, and instead use them to fortify our defenses at home?

Done right, defense is relatively cheap, inoffensive, and unglamorous. Offense is more expensive, benefits more privileged contractors and officials, and rallies people around the government. This is why it doesn't surprise me that when some country with potential control over some resource we need (in this case, oil) does something we don't like, we open up the warchest instead of minding our own business, protecting what we have, and trading in peace: there's opportunity in war to benefit the elite at the expense of our liberties, and we're too stupid or ignorant to see through these tricks no matter how many times they're played on us.

No, not everyone wants peace: there are in fact people who want war, and some of them don't even work for our government. (Drum fill.) But I contend that the right answer is to mind our own business and strike back only if we are attacked. Invading Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban after 9/11 was a lawful act, and I don't personally know a single person of any political persuasion who disagrees. Invading Iraq, on the other hand, was not.

Before beating the drums further, ask yourself: which situation does this better resemble?

Kyle

 

[Duane Allman]

Put me down for April 6th 4am.

http://www.rense.com/general75/bite.htm

 

[Pilgrim]

Put me down for April 6th 4am.

http://www.rense.com/general75/bite.htm

yup, it will be a real 'sneak' attack, ok.

BTW, SquareR, a few nukes would be a lot cheaper than some of the other invasion alternatives.

 

[squarooticus]

yup, it will be a real 'sneak' attack, ok.

BTW, SquareR, a few nukes would be a lot cheaper than some of the other invasion alternatives.

Yeah, but a few nukes is a few million dead civilians. I don't think that sort of force is warranted unless our survival is actually at stake. No sane person thinks it is at this point.

Kyle

 

[Pilgrim]

Yeah, but a few nukes is a few million dead civilians.

and a few thousand dead American soldiers is better?

 

[matt1956]

I've been a little out of the news loop... did the Brits get their navy/marines back? Maybe that is the cause.

Personally I think we are already spread a little thin. They need to finnish Afganistan and Iraq before getting into another fight...

Let the Israilies take care of them

 

[squarooticus]

and a few thousand dead American soldiers is better?

1. Why would there be a few thousand dead American soldiers if we weren't stationed there...?

2. Disregarding that for the moment, how do you know that a few thousand American soldiers are ready to be killed by Iran? In that case, why can't you simply protect them in some fashion that doesn't involve dropping nukes on someone? (E.g., by withdrawing them, fortifying their base better, etc.)

Kyle

 

[matt1956]

Yeah, but a few nukes is a few million dead civilians. I don't think that sort of force is warranted unless our survival is actually at stake. No sane person thinks it is at this point.

Kyle

maybe im bitter... maybe im narrow minded... maybe im just another arrogant American a**h***...

But in the middle east... they all hate us, they all want us dead and none are concidered innocent civilans.

 

[matt1956]

1. Why would there be a few thousand dead American soldiers if we weren't stationed there...?

2. Disregarding that for the moment, how do you know that a few thousand American soldiers are ready to be killed by Iran? In that case, why can't you simply protect them in some fashion that doesn't involve dropping nukes on someone? (E.g., by withdrawing them, fortifying their base better, etc.)

Kyle

any 'with drawing" ony enboldens these people more. Proof of this is Bin Laden and Sadam.

Both of them saw the US as cowards because of our past withdrawls. Bosnia (sp?) First Iraq war (Sadam seen as Hero to arab world for "driving use out") and every other time they have attacked and the US has backed down.

 

[Pilgrim]

1. Why would there be a few thousand dead American soldiers if we weren't stationed there...?

2. Disregarding that for the moment, how do you know that a few thousand American soldiers are ready to be killed by Iran? In that case, why can't you simply protect them in some fashion that doesn't involve dropping nukes on someone? (E.g., by withdrawing them, fortifying their base better, etc.)

Kyle

I'm referring to us going in and knocking out their nuke facilities and regime.

 

[Jaxon]

Here comes the darkside....

 

[M1911]

I've been a little out of the news loop... did the Brits get their navy/marines back? Maybe that is the cause.

1) No. 2) Ships are slow. They didn't start steaming to the Gulf a couple days ago when the Brits were seized. So I suspect this exercise has been in the works for some time.

 

[TomH]

I say we take all of our troops out of that area... and station them on the mexican border!! Two problems solved at once IMO.

 

[squarooticus]

any 'with drawing" ony enboldens these people more. Proof of this is Bin Laden and Sadam.

Both of them saw the US as cowards because of our past withdrawls. Bosnia (sp?) First Iraq war (Sadam seen as Hero to arab world for "driving use out") and every other time they have attacked and the US has backed down.

The bully analogy doesn't work because we are not a snotfaced, 98 lbs. weakling. We are still *alone* powerful enough to crush any government on earth (though it should be abundantly clear by now that our military is no match for decentralized militias).

We are only in the position of having to back down because we get ourselves into shit that we shouldn't be involved in. No one attacks Switzerland. Why? Because they are neutral, and spend their productivity peacefully trading instead of trying to play the world's policeman all the time.

I'm referring to us going in and knocking out their nuke facilities and regime.

Why shouldn't Iran possess nukes? I'd want them too if I were the leader of a nation targeted by an aggressive foreign power that's using its clueless media to drum up a war based on soundbites and fear.

Bottom line: if the middle east had no oil, we wouldn't give a rat shit about it. Why can't we just peacefully trade for the stuff instead of going to war and then offering tortured explanations for why we aren't going to war to keep the oil flowing?

Kyle

 

[matt1956]

I say we take all of our troops out of that area... and station them on the mexican border!! Two problems solved at once IMO.

I agree... just add to "turn middle east into a glass bowl"

Personally, I'd love for us to pull our troop, let them all kill each other and stop buying freaking oil from them and let them rot.

 

[Pilgrim]

Bottom line: if the middle east had no oil, we wouldn't give a rat shit about it. Why can't we just peacefully trade for the stuff instead of going to war and then offering tortured explanations for why we aren't going to war to keep the oil flowing?

yup we really got a lot of oil out of invading Iraq didn't we?

 

[Jaxon]

yup we really got a lot of oil out of invading Iraq didn't we?

Wasn't for lack of trying....

 

[matt1956]

yup we really got a lot of oil out of invading Iraq didn't we?

Point for Pilgrim!

Rebuttal ?

 

[matt1956]

I think this one is gonna get good...

Think I'll sit back and watch

Maybe every now and then

 

[Twigg]

...a few nukes...

This is what we should have done on 9-12-2001. Sure there'd be hell to pay, third world countries would hate us (Like they don't already) but NO ONE would ever screw with the USA again.

Put me down as "...another arrogant American a**h***.".

There hasn't been peace in that region since the beginning of recorded history. It's been nothing but petty warlords squabbeling over the same patch of sand for thousands of years.

Speak to them in a language they understand.

 

[squarooticus]

yup we really got a lot of oil out of invading Iraq didn't we?

Maybe I should have said "oil price" instead of "oil". I assume the idea was to show the other countries in the middle east who's boss, so they don't try anything stupid like another oil embargo. I never thought---and don't assert---that the idea was to transfer oil wells to Halliburton or something.

The WMD thing sounded reasonable but in reality was a red herring, and the American people fell for it, understandably but regrettably.

While I have an ethical problem with trading soldiers for oil (price) in the name of protecting us from terrorists, and would still have an ethical problem with trading soldiers for oil (price) even if we were being honest about it, I'd rather we simply be honest and admit that we wouldn't give a rat shit about the middle east if it weren't for the oil there. We don't care about stability; we don't care about human rights; we're not concerned about the terrorists *there* (because it's the terrorists *here* we're having problems with); we don't even care about Israel that much. We care about making sure the American economy isn't ground to a halt through the actions of businessmen who control 30% of the world's oil supply. I think the deception itself drives a lot of the insanity we see in that region.

Kyle

 

[calsdad]

If any of you people who are arguing so strongly for us to invade Iran - or nuke them - had any understanding of history you would realize that what you are really arguing for is not the destruction of Iran - but the destruction of this country.

Let's see - how many 2nd rate countries litter the globe right now are there that within the last century or two have tried the whole world domination thing? Anybody care to guess?

Lets see:

France (Napoleon) - remember how well that turned out?

Britain - (British Empire) - hmm - this forum is littered with postings about how great Britain is these days.

Germany - (Hitler) - yes that worked out very well for them.

Russia - (Communism with assorted leaders) - what is Russia's big claim to fame nowadays? Exporting hookers to the rest of Europe.

Japan - at least they make nice cars now.

I am leaving out the assorted Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungarian empire, Spain, etc. that have all tried the whole empire thing.

And now lets see which country served as a role model to our founding fathers - and has survived for something like 650 years in close to it's present form - and is doing quite well economically still - and is not a member of the European Union - and was not (until recently) a member of the UN - Switzerland. Switzerland also does not have anywhere near the problems with Muslim immigration and the resulting violence - as all of the other European countries that surround it.

Which one of the above countries would you rather model the US on? Which of the above countries would you rather live in today? Why do you not seem to get the connection between the way all of the above countries have turned out in their present day form - and the policies that those countries have followed in the past? Could it be historical ignorance? Could it be complete and utter arrogance?

What I know is this - when the day comes that this country goes down the shitter - because it's politicians, and a good part of it's citizenry - have supported war and economic policies that have bankrupted this country morally and economically - I am going to divide my ammunition stockpile in half. The first half will be used for all of the Islamic terrorists, illegal aliens, socialists, liberals, etc. that will be running amock - the other half will be reserved for all of the alleged patriotic citizens who supported all of the policies of our governmemt that allowed this to happen because of their ignorance of what this country was truly supposed to be - which is not the world's policemen, and not a warmongering, tax taking, Constitution breaking - empire. I know when that day comes I am going to be pissed - and I am going to be looking for the people who have ruined my country - and by extension - my life. My only hope is that when the day comes I am old enough to say f*** it I led a good life - but not too old to keep a steady trigger finger and reload quickly.

 

[Jose]

Does anyone forget that Iran declared war on this country in 1979 by violating the sovereignty of the US Embassy and our citizens?

Did anyone forget that such a violation of sovereignty was condoned and directed by the Iranian government, and thus under international and common law both gives us the absolute right to crush them?

Did anyone ever for-f***ing-get that? Anyone?

Am I the only one here who thinks we are continuously targeted by islamic terrorists and theocracists BECAUSE WE KEEP RUNNING FROM THE GOD DAMNED FIGHT?

The only thing these animals understand is extreme violence, and I for one, am ready to oblige.

 

[Pilgrim]

One difference between Switzerland and the US is that the Swiss don't need to 'intervene' anywhere because the Muslims are not YET trying to destroy or assimilate (resistance is futile) them.

When the rest of Europe is under the Muslims rule, and it will be, because no one will take a stand against it, THEN Switzerland will be next.

Jose, I'm with you.

 

[Admin]

It's only a show of force if there are Tridents under the water...

 

[Admin]

This is what we should have done on 9-12-2001. Sure there'd be hell to pay, third world countries would hate us (Like they don't already) but NO ONE would ever screw with the USA again.

Put me down as "...another arrogant American a**h***.".

There hasn't been peace in that region since the beginning of recorded history. It's been nothing but petty warlords squabbeling over the same patch of sand for thousands of years.

Speak to them in a language they understand.

I'm with you 100%. Yep there would be a lot of countries mad. There would be a lot of countries happy. But I will tell you this, the next group of rag heads would think twice knowing that their entire homeland was going to be turned to glass if they sucker punch us again.

 

[Ray P]

Maybe it is a side issue now, but...

Back to the original topic...

I think the Russian General got his numbers confused what with the vodka vapors and all. Put me in for 4 April at 0600GMT.

 

[squarooticus]

When the rest of Europe is under the Muslims rule, and it will be, because no one will take a stand against it, THEN Switzerland will be next.

The only reason why "Muslim rule" is an issue at all is that people allow themselves to be ruled by tyranny of the majority, and then proceed to give the vote to all sorts of people who don't share their culture or values. File under the list of reasons why democracy sucks.

And I fail to see how blowing up the middle east would solve the problem of Muslim immigration and non-assimilation into Europe. If anything, it seems like it would drive even more refugees out of the middle east into Europe and Asia. Of course, if you're up for genocide, I guess there's your solution.

Kyle