Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 28, 2020, 02:13:47 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  Iran...?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Poll
Question: Do you think Bush/Cheney will strike on Iran?
#1
Surely yes
 
#2
Surely no
 
#3
Maybe yes
 
#4
Maybe no
 
#5
I don't know
 
#6
I don't care
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 23

Author Topic: Iran...?  (Read 6214 times)
Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]
tsionebreicruoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,350
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 12, 2007, 01:42:28 pm »

Hello

Several times for one year I heard and read in french medias that Dick Cheney wanted to strike on Iran.

Personnaly, I don't know what to think about it, I consider it would be a big surprise but I also consider G.W. Bush as a man who can do everything without worrying about his image or about which sort of trace he could let in the History, he seems to be persuaded that he always do the right things, the judgement of others seems to not matter a lot for him.

Anyway, if something like that happens it could be the begining of a real big war, not a 3 mounths one like in Irak, maybe engaging a coalition versus an other and all that this could implicate. So it would be not a light decision.

Can we hear same thing about such a decision in USA? Do you consider it's a possibility? If ever it happens what could be the impact on the campaign? Which candidate could it favour? Is there already a candidate who want such a thing?
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,443
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2007, 09:16:47 pm »

Iran is a fairly hot topic on the campaign trail.  Most Democrats are taking a diplomacy/sanctions approach while leaving military action open only in extreme circumstances.  The Republicans are also saying they would look at military action as a last resort but several of them seem to be more open to the idea of a war in Iran than others.

As for Bush and Cheney although they may like to attack Iran the US military is stretched too thin for them to do so without invoking a draft which would cause massive protests across the country and would be the final nail in the GOP's presidential coffin.
Logged
Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]
tsionebreicruoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,350
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2007, 11:52:33 am »

As for Bush and Cheney although they may like to attack Iran the US military is stretched too thin for them to do so without invoking a draft which would cause massive protests across the country and would be the final nail in the GOP's presidential coffin.

The question is: do Bush and Cheney care about all of this?
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,796
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2007, 01:39:12 pm »

Bush and Cheney are on crack so no they don't. All they care about is giving money to defense contractors, oil companies and Israel.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,062
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2007, 01:44:19 pm »

As for Bush and Cheney although they may like to attack Iran the US military is stretched too thin for them to do so without invoking a draft which would cause massive protests across the country and would be the final nail in the GOP's presidential coffin.

No one is talking about a ground invasion though.  If anything, there will just be airstrikes.  (Granted, Iran could retaliate against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I suppose things could ultimately escalate out of control.)
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,796
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2007, 12:58:28 pm »

What do you mean could? I see them escalating in the event of airstrikes.
Logged
Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]
tsionebreicruoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,350
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2007, 01:11:40 pm »

(Granted, Iran could retaliate against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I suppose things could ultimately escalate out of control.)

That's also what I think, and more of that Iran has treats of cooperation with at least, Russia (who can communicate with Iran by the Caspian Sea), Venezuela (Chavez said he will intervene if a military action was undertaken against Iran) and China could also want to make problem to occident is such a thing is done.

So I consider that to know if Bush and Cheney care about consequences of such a thing is highly important. They know they are highly unpopular and that their assessment is considered as highly bad, will they resist to this last temptation if they have nothing to lose?

If such a thing happen where could it drive 2008 USA presidency election?
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2007, 01:21:10 pm »

Here's a dose of reality.

1. The US Military does not currently have the man power to maintain a war on 3 fronts and will not invade Iran any time soon.

In order to move against Iran the US would either (A) have to win broad global support, (B) vastly increase the size of its standing military, or (C) abandon one of its other fronts.  After the Iraq debacle there's no way we can win global support.  We're currently struggling to maintain the size of military so the only way to grow it would be through a draft and that won't happen.  Bush won't abandon either of the other fronts.

2. Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

Iran's two longest border nations are currently occuppied by massive US forces.  When Iran had a reformer government in place which had reached out to the US, the current US leader publicly described Iran as being part of the "Axis of Evil".  Naturally Iran is nervous and doesn't feel it can trust the good will of the US.  Iran also has seen that after North Korea acquired nuclear weapons the US decided to negotiate with them.  This means Iran's only option for its safety is nuclear weapons.

3. Iran will get nuclear arms.

Since the US can't get the arms and they've made Iran feel that they need them, Iran will spend the time and resources necessary to acquire nuclear arms.


Thanks Bush voters, you screwed the world.
Logged
Erc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,780
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2007, 02:47:23 pm »

Thanks Bush voters, you screwed the world.

Would voting Bush out in 2004 made Iraq any less of a debacle than it already was?

And could any voter in 2000 have reasonably been expected to anticipate anything resembling this?


The blame is on Bush himself, not the voters.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,221
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2007, 03:11:03 pm »

Hello

Several times for one year I heard and read in french medias that Dick Cheney wanted to strike on Iran.

Personnaly, I don't know what to think about it, I consider it would be a big surprise but I also consider G.W. Bush as a man who can do everything without worrying about his image or about which sort of trace he could let in the History, he seems to be persuaded that he always do the right things, the judgement of others seems to not matter a lot for him.

Anyway, if something like that happens it could be the begining of a real big war, not a 3 mounths one like in Irak, maybe engaging a coalition versus an other and all that this could implicate. So it would be not a light decision.

Can we hear same thing about such a decision in USA? Do you consider it's a possibility? If ever it happens what could be the impact on the campaign? Which candidate could it favour? Is there already a candidate who want such a thing?

Here are the facts:

1) The President of Iran is a radical Shiite Muslim who is trying to usher in the 12Th Imam by nuking Israel.

2) Iranís proxy forces (Hezbullah, Syria, etc) are gearing up to destroy Israel.

3) Such a war will forever change the world as you know it.
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2007, 02:01:59 am »

Here's a dose of reality.

1. The US Military does not currently have the man power to maintain a war on 3 fronts and will not invade Iran any time soon.

In order to move against Iran the US would either (A) have to win broad global support, (B) vastly increase the size of its standing military, or (C) abandon one of its other fronts.  After the Iraq debacle there's no way we can win global support.  We're currently struggling to maintain the size of military so the only way to grow it would be through a draft and that won't happen.  Bush won't abandon either of the other fronts.
The only thing that is "stretched" is our ground forces.  We don't need ground forces to keep a virtual knee in Iran's back semi-permanently.  Our (and our friends) Air Forces and Navies are enough to keep Iran from doing anything in either Iraq or Afghanastan.  What exactly could Iran do?  Say we bomb all their important nuclear sites and all their rocket emplacements around the Straits of Hormuz , what are they going to do?  Mobilize their militaries and start invading Iraq?  We haven't seen the USAF blow up standing Armies in what...4 years?  Have we forgotten?  Daisy Cutters are AMAZING things and B52's can carry lots of 'em and we got lots of B52s that ARE NOT tied down in Baghdad.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Agreed.  Iran's best case (well, their best case would be to overthrow the current regime and in all honesty, that's OUR best case too, but nobody on either side seems to actually desire that outcome) is to secretly aquire several nukes at once and then let the world know that they have them.  As you point out, once N.Korea got them, the West went all pussy in regaurds to the midget with a pot belly.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I doubt Iran will be able to make them locally without their assorted neighbors going crazy on them.  Saudi Arabia and the assorted surrounding Kingdoms and Emirates don't want that.  The rest of the Arabs (for the most part) also don't want to see the Persians getting nukes.  Israel obviously doesn't and has the ability to by itself to put a hurt on Iran (they don't now because of the repercussions politically in the Middle East, but if they thought Iran was close...).
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I'm proud to say I voted 3rd party (Libertarian) both times he's run.  I'm proud to say I've never voted for a winning President in the 4 elections I've voted in.  But I'm not going to blame the people that voted for him in 2000.

2004 on the other hand....the jackasses should have known.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,635
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2007, 03:05:00 am »

Hello

Several times for one year I heard and read in french medias that Dick Cheney wanted to strike on Iran.

Personnaly, I don't know what to think about it, I consider it would be a big surprise but I also consider G.W. Bush as a man who can do everything without worrying about his image or about which sort of trace he could let in the History, he seems to be persuaded that he always do the right things, the judgement of others seems to not matter a lot for him.

Anyway, if something like that happens it could be the begining of a real big war, not a 3 mounths one like in Irak, maybe engaging a coalition versus an other and all that this could implicate. So it would be not a light decision.

Can we hear same thing about such a decision in USA? Do you consider it's a possibility? If ever it happens what could be the impact on the campaign? Which candidate could it favour? Is there already a candidate who want such a thing?

Here are the facts:

1) The President of Iran is a radical Shiite Muslim who is trying to usher in the 12Th Imam by nuking Israel.

2) Iranís proxy forces (Hezbullah, Syria, etc) are gearing up to destroy Israel.

3) Such a war will forever change the world as you know it.


with all due respect, you guys were the ones who voted for him becuase he was "likeable," or because you'd rather have a beer with him than with Gore or Kerry
Logged
Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]
tsionebreicruoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,350
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2007, 01:01:57 pm »
« Edited: November 17, 2007, 10:20:20 pm by tsionebreicruoc »

After the Iraq debacle there's no way we can win global support

You have to know that now the president of France is Sarkozy and France is no more the "3rd voice of the world" (as small could have been this voice it existed and was considered, especially in arab world and also in persian world, Iran).

I think Sarkozy just wait for a good occasion to show that now France is back and want to give the hand to the USA and if Iran becomes more and more menacing to the West in the years to come, Bush and Sarkozy could have not any problem to go together, like the whole West in general plus other countries in the world. Sarkozy could guarantee the presence of the whole European Union, he's the only moving man in it and he psychologicaly lead it, more of that France takes the turning presidency of it in July 2008. The big voices which could be opposite to such a thing, would be Russia, China and Venezuela and maybe others. Here could be two opposite coalitions, and here could be a world war.

For example friend states of the USA could be attacked by Venezuela or friend states of Chavez in Latin America, China could use the situation to open a war on Taïwan which she absolutly wants to take back, Russia could help Iran by Caspian Sea, and if Europe helps USA, Russia could attack Europe, in the way to make fall the power of the West in the world and especially the power of the USA... So like I said if Bush-Cheney take such a decision, it would not be a light decision.

Clearly, I still consider that such a decision would be a big surprise but I also still consider Bush as a man who can do everything without caring about the consequences especially if he has to leave the power soon.

American political experts who speack in France (most known is called Nicole Bacharan) consider that one of the big issues of this campaign and maybe the big issue is the image of the USA in the world, which the 2008 presidency election could change and make it better, less cow-boy. If such a thing happens, the image of the USA, and also of the whole West (Sarkozy could play a big role in it) could not be changed yet, so that amputating this election of this main issue. If a war is open, no matter Clinton, Giuliani or anybody, they will continue it, the choice would be on "who to lead this war?", so that also making other issues of USA smaller and smaller. It's because of all this that I put this topic on Iran in "2008 presidency election campaign".

Still one year to go before Bush to go away...
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,796
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2007, 03:05:21 pm »

Hello

Several times for one year I heard and read in french medias that Dick Cheney wanted to strike on Iran.

Personnaly, I don't know what to think about it, I consider it would be a big surprise but I also consider G.W. Bush as a man who can do everything without worrying about his image or about which sort of trace he could let in the History, he seems to be persuaded that he always do the right things, the judgement of others seems to not matter a lot for him.

Anyway, if something like that happens it could be the begining of a real big war, not a 3 mounths one like in Irak, maybe engaging a coalition versus an other and all that this could implicate. So it would be not a light decision.

Can we hear same thing about such a decision in USA? Do you consider it's a possibility? If ever it happens what could be the impact on the campaign? Which candidate could it favour? Is there already a candidate who want such a thing?

Here are the facts:

1) The President of Iran is a radical Shiite Muslim who is trying to usher in the 12Th Imam by nuking Israel.

2) Iranís proxy forces (Hezbullah, Syria, etc) are gearing up to destroy Israel.

3) Such a war will forever change the world as you know it.


with all due respect, you guys were the ones who voted for him becuase he was "likeable," or because you'd rather have a beer with him than with Gore or Kerry

Blame the heartland populists for that.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,785


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2007, 05:03:30 pm »
« Edited: November 18, 2007, 05:12:10 pm by StateBoiler »

I hope the people that run this country are smart enough to not legitimize Ahmadinejad as Iranians see bombs come from the sky, and automatically think all that nonsense they were told about us was true.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,796
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2007, 05:04:43 pm »

An invasion of Iran would cause an army coup and outlawing of the GOP at home.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,635
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2007, 08:16:07 pm »

An invasion of Iran would cause an army coup and outlawing of the GOP at home.

speaking of which, dubya and cheney can order an attack on iran if they want, but what's the chance the military will actually do it?
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2007, 05:32:12 am »

An invasion of Iran would cause an army coup and outlawing of the GOP at home.

speaking of which, dubya and cheney can order an attack on iran if they want, but what's the chance the military will actually do it?
If it's just bombing their military and nuclear targets? 100%  If it's wanting 100k men in Tehran? not so much.

But we can rest assured that NO likely "Attack on Iran" plan calls for 100k men in Tehran.  We don't have to occupy a country to defeat it.
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2007, 01:21:12 pm »

Thanks Bush voters, you screwed the world.

Would voting Bush out in 2004 made Iraq any less of a debacle than it already was?

And could any voter in 2000 have reasonably been expected to anticipate anything resembling this?


The blame is on Bush himself, not the voters.

I agree that in 2000 no one could have foreseen what would happen in the 4 years that would follow.  Who could have anticipated 9/11 or that the guy who railed against "nation building" in the Balkans would try to do the exact same thing in the Middle East?

But 2004 was the opportunity the US had to bring in a different guy who wanted to involve the rest of the world in rebuilding Iraq.  I truly believe that if Kerry had been elected in 2004 the US would be in the process of withdrawing from Iraq.

I don't blame voters for what happened between 2000-2004 but I do blame them for 2004-2008.
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2007, 01:29:56 pm »

The only thing that is "stretched" is our ground forces.  We don't need ground forces to keep a virtual knee in Iran's back semi-permanently.  Our (and our friends) Air Forces and Navies are enough to keep Iran from doing anything in either Iraq or Afghanastan.  What exactly could Iran do?  Say we bomb all their important nuclear sites and all their rocket emplacements around the Straits of Hormuz , what are they going to do?  Mobilize their militaries and start invading Iraq?  We haven't seen the USAF blow up standing Armies in what...4 years?  Have we forgotten?  Daisy Cutters are AMAZING things and B52's can carry lots of 'em and we got lots of B52s that ARE NOT tied down in Baghdad.

Oh we can definitely bomb someone back to the Stone Age without batting an eye.  But that ability didn't prevent the North Koreans from acquiring a nuke and I doubt it will stop the Iranians.  I fully expect them to perform a little underground nuclear test sometime over the next 5-10 years.  The real fear isn't that Iran will invade somewhere but that they will acquire nuclear technology and sell it to every lunatic who wants it.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I'm proud to say I voted 3rd party (Libertarian) both times he's run.  I'm proud to say I've never voted for a winning President in the 4 elections I've voted in.  But I'm not going to blame the people that voted for him in 2000.

2004 on the other hand....the jackasses should have known.
[/quote]

I don't blame the 2000 Bush voters.  As I said in another post, the events of 2000-2004 were unpredictable.  Even more unpredictable was how Bush would do an about-face on everything he claimed he stood for in the 2000 campaign.  But as you say, by 2004 people really should have known better.
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2007, 05:43:59 am »

The only thing that is "stretched" is our ground forces.  We don't need ground forces to keep a virtual knee in Iran's back semi-permanently.  Our (and our friends) Air Forces and Navies are enough to keep Iran from doing anything in either Iraq or Afghanistan.  What exactly could Iran do?  Say we bomb all their important nuclear sites and all their rocket emplacements around the Straits of Hormuz , what are they going to do?  Mobilize their militaries and start invading Iraq?  We haven't seen the USAF blow up standing Armies in what...4 years?  Have we forgotten?  Daisy Cutters are AMAZING things and B52's can carry lots of 'em and we got lots of B52s that ARE NOT tied down in Baghdad.

Oh we can definitely bomb someone back to the Stone Age without batting an eye.  But that ability didn't prevent the North Koreans from acquiring a nuke and I doubt it will stop the Iranians.  I fully expect them to perform a little underground nuclear test sometime over the next 5-10 years.  The real fear isn't that Iran will invade somewhere but that they will acquire nuclear technology and sell it to every lunatic who wants it.
Iran doesn't have the geographic and geopolitical ties to China that N.Korea does.  I'm not saying the same situation won't happen in Iran, I'm just saying it would be easier for us to stop them (militarily) from making their own nukes than it would have been for us to stop N.Korea.  Plus, nuke's in the UNstable Middle East are a much bigger concern than nukes in the the fairly stable Far East.  Again, not saying that Iran will/wont get a bomb, just that it will be easier and more necessary to stop them than it was for us to stop N.Korea.
Logged
bbt
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2007, 10:14:54 am »

I am not a GWBush fan and would not have voted for his re-election in '04 if the Democrats had given me a choice...........I feel that John Kerry was perhaps the worst Presidential nominee in history with the only possible exceptions being Dukakis in '88 and McGovern in '72
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,785


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2007, 11:42:04 am »
« Edited: November 20, 2007, 11:47:28 am by StateBoiler »

The only thing that is "stretched" is our ground forces.  We don't need ground forces to keep a virtual knee in Iran's back semi-permanently.

Bulls***. You need ground forces and a navy to accomplish anything beyond one explosion.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Air Forces are near worthless in an overall conflict. The only thing an Air Force can do is blow up a building and make it look good on the evening news.

As far as naval power, this is our greatest strength in our military, but the geography of the Strait of Hormuz favors the Iranians. They have mines setup (we'd need the Brits to help us there). One military analyst I've read has run a few war games based on the premise of an American-Iranian conflict, and he can't come up with any scenario where our navy doesn't receive damage from the Iranian forces in the Strait of Hormuz (like a couple ships sunk).

The Iranian military does not need to mobilize against Iraq. Why would they when 60% of the Iraqi population are Shiites that fear the Saudis.

As far as nuclear power, if we take the assumption they have it and they would use it if attacked, can an Air Force general 100% guarantee he can hit every single rocket launcher? No. That's why air power sounds good on paper, but in actuality, the ground forces are needed to go across the landscape and secure the launchers.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The simplest way to fight an Air Force is to not give them anything to shoot at. You could have used the Daisy Cutters and B52s against the Hezbollah in the past July War and they wouldn't have been able to do anything due to the general scattering of the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Oh we can definitely bomb someone back to the Stone Age without batting an eye.
 

So can France. Doesn't mean it's an option.

I'm not saying the same situation won't happen in Iran, I'm just saying it would be easier for us to stop them (militarily) from making their own nukes than it would have been for us to stop N.Korea.

The best way to ensure an enemy will run into the arms of another enemy is to threaten him. That's why Iran ran to Russia and Russia ran to China. The Russians are right now making money selling nuclear material to Iran, but do you seriously think the Russians will give enough nuclear know-how to Iran to put Moscow within striking range of an Iranian missile?

I've always had the position that Ahmadinejad is a f***ing idiot, the majority of Iranians realize this, and that he will be voted out of power in 2009, as long as we do not legitimize him. At the end of the day, all the radical clerics will side with self-preservation.

And we do not need to go fight the Saudis' war against Iran for them. If they want to do it, let them use their own military.


I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to give civilians basic military training and tactics in high school. That way they grow up knowing about military strategy and what you can and cannot do. These are the voters and the future leaders of the country after all (who are increasingly avoiding military service, that's for the poor people to go be cannon fodder).

Reminds me of my roommate freshman year of college. Bright individual, was his class' valedictorian, entered school almost a sophomore. He was an absolute moron on how the military works. He actually thought we could fight a "perfect war". "All you have to do is send over an airplane to drop a bomb. You don't need ground troops." F***ing dumbass. Opinions like that are why Iraq is a quagmire right now. Every action has consequences that have to be considered! There's no free lunch!
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2007, 12:26:17 pm »

I am not a GWBush fan and would not have voted for his re-election in '04 if the Democrats had given me a choice...........I feel that John Kerry was perhaps the worst Presidential nominee in history with the only possible exceptions being Dukakis in '88 and McGovern in '72

Umm ... I don't think Kerry was a good candidate, but he was far from the worst.  That distinction probably goes to Walter Mondale in '84.  Fritz was a nice guy and all but he foolishly believed you could be honest with the people.

Kerry's problems were:

1. When attacked he didn't respond with indignation.  He thought he could stay "above" things.

2. Kerry didn't hit back at Bush.  When Bush made goofy faces and said stupid things like "got wood" Kerry let him get away with it.  That was the opening for a Lloyd Bentsen comment.  He really should have said "George, if you don't know what is in your personal portfolio how can you be trusted to run a country?"  Bush's people pulled local level dirty tricks and the Kerry folks refused to retaliate.  Oh well, at least the local Dems learned from Kerry's bad moves and hit back in the 2006 Senate campaign (God I loved it when the PA Repubs for Santorum whined on here).

3. He let young idiots run his regional campaign positions.  Seriously.  Clinton, the kid who was in charge of Pittsburgh until something like 4 months before the election, was a moron who was more interested in playing with his friends than running a serious regional campaign.  Pittsburgh SHOULD have been a huge Kerry base, instead it was a battleground.


Even if Kerry was a bad candidate, Bush had already been a bad President at that point.
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 21, 2007, 01:46:12 am »
« Edited: November 21, 2007, 04:15:42 am by dead0man »

The only thing that is "stretched" is our ground forces.  We don't need ground forces to keep a virtual knee in Iran's back semi-permanently.

Bulls***. You need ground forces and a navy to accomplish anything beyond one explosion.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Air Forces are near worthless in an overall conflict. The only thing an Air Force can do is blow up a building and make it look good on the evening news.
Air Forces are near worthless in an overall conflict?  Are you serious?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Bah?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The Navy is our strongest asset, but it can't clear mines without Brit help?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
If the Iranians instigate the attack this is possible, if we start it this is much less likely (though still possible).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Right.  They won't mobilize and if they do, they will get bombed to dust.  We have nothing to fear from Iranian ground forces.  Well, we have nothign to fear against large groups of Iranian ground forces.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The idea is that we attack them before they get nuclear weapons.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
We wouldn't need to.  We'd just need to hit the one (or several at most) rockets that have the war heads on them.  Iran can NOT secretly place warheads on a Shahab-3 without us seeing.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That's just not true.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The simplest way to fight an Air Force is to not give them anything to shoot at. You could have used the Daisy Cutters and B52s against the Hezbollah in the past July War and they wouldn't have been able to do anything due to the general scattering of the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.[/quote]I wasn't aware the US was fighting in Lebanon last year.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
 

So can France. Doesn't mean it's an option.

I'm not saying the same situation won't happen in Iran, I'm just saying it would be easier for us to stop them (militarily) from making their own nukes than it would have been for us to stop N.Korea.

The best way to ensure an enemy will run into the arms of another enemy is to threaten him. That's why Iran ran to Russia and Russia ran to China. The Russians are right now making money selling nuclear material to Iran, but do you seriously think the Russians will give enough nuclear know-how to Iran to put Moscow within striking range of an Iranian missile?[/quote]Nuclear power know-how has nothing to do with Iran's ability or inability to get a nuclear weapon to Moscow.  They currently do not have that ability.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Agreed.  Imadinnerjacket is an idiot the same way Bush is an idiot.  Smart enough to pool power, not anywhere near smart enough to govern effectively with the betterment of ones country as their goal.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Nah.  We teach geography in High School and only the ones that care learn any of it.  As an elective option though, now that I could get on board with.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Depends on what kind of war you're fighting and what your goals are.  If you want to nation build like Bush does (and I don't agree with by the way), yes, you need an Army.  But really, a police force would be more appropriate.  That's all the Army in Iraq is.  If you just want to punish a nation though, you wouldn't need more than the Air Force.  I acknowledge that in most wars an Air Force isn't enough to "win", but the DoD couldn't do anything without air superiority.

By the way I'm not advocating that we attack Iran.  I'm just explaining that it doesn't have to be a total fark up if we do.  It doubtlessly WOULD be, but it doesn't HAVE to be.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC