Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 23, 2020, 06:58:33 pm
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  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 6212 times)
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,775


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 21, 2007, 07:37:59 am »
« edited: November 21, 2007, 07:41:44 am by StateBoiler »

Air Forces are near worthless in an overall conflict?  Are you serious?

Compared to the Marines, Army, and Navy, yes. And it's not even close.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


The only reason the Navy is the strongest asset is cause the most important item to being world power is commanding the seas.

As far as the minesweeping, it's a weak point of our ships that were built. It was not a high priority for the Navy. Go to this blog of a man that follows navies and their capabilities as well as strategies. Good sight. http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's the war game analysis.
http://myksandbox.blogspot.com/2007/11/opening-battle-in-hormuz-part-i.html
http://myksandbox.blogspot.com/2007/11/opening-battle-of-hormuz-part-ii.html

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Air power just isn't worth that much in my eyes beyond blowing up one building. Which leads to my strategic opinion on how to fight air power:

"The simplest way to fight an Air Force is to not give them anything to shoot at."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

They weren't. It was an analogy. The Israelis were though. And despite all their air power and bombing runs that lasted a month, they still could not achieve their objectives against Hezbollah because Hezbollah were spread out. That war and it ending in a stalemate as opposed to a decisive Israeli victory is the clearest evidence I can provide on the weaknesses of air power. If we have a war against the Iranians, the Iranians would be best served by following Hezbollah's lead of small units as much as possible.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and the Russians will ensure that stays the case.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

We can talk about DoD idiocy another day. There are quite a few people in our military structure at the time that deserve to be shot for what they let happen in the immediate post-war situation in Iraq. However, you cannot control anything with an Air Force. The only thing an Air Force could do is point at a target. That's it. They can't make opposing forces surrender. They can't stop the leaders from making plans. They just blowup buildings. Air Forces are good for non-wars where you want to ensure no one gets hurt (like Kosovo during Clinton's reign). When it comes to real wars, they're pretty easy to neutralize. And when it comes to real wars, you don't half-ass it. You go full bore. Yes you might lose some troops, but if you're not willing to lose troops, it's not really a war worth fighting to begin with.
Logged
agcatter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,742


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 21, 2007, 10:03:11 am »

Nobody is advocating an invasion of Iran.  Nobody.
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,624
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2007, 10:12:53 am »

StateBoiler, you understand it's 2007 not 1907 right?

Now I might have some biases as I'm a USAF Vet and still work for them as a contractor, but I'm pretty sure I'm right when I say air superiority is a HUGE factor in modern warfare.

Also, your link agrees with me.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
If some computer chair General can figure that out, I'm sure the planners at the Pentagon can too.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,775


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 21, 2007, 10:25:23 am »
« Edited: November 21, 2007, 10:46:18 am by StateBoiler »

StateBoiler, you understand it's 2007 not 1907 right?

Now I might have some biases as I'm a USAF Vet and still work for them as a contractor, but I'm pretty sure I'm right when I say air superiority is a HUGE factor in modern warfare.

Also, your link agrees with me.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
If some computer chair General can figure that out, I'm sure the planners at the Pentagon can too.

Raytheon?

Air superiority is a huge factor in modern warfare, but I rank it below sea power and land power.

Americans have a misguided notion that we are invincible in war. This is largely due to the first Persian Gulf War and the Afghanistan exercise where we faced militaries that were absolute jokes. Americans don't want "fair well", they want "perfection without even a scratch". This goes back to the idiocy of the typical civilian on how the military works. You can say that doesn't matter, but whether we go into war or not when not attacked is highly dependent on public opinion.

The silver lining of the Iraq War is Americans now have an idea and realize the limits of their military when we talk about future conflicts.
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,624
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2007, 11:04:22 am »

I did when I first got out, but they got under bid on the contract by ITT (not the school) in 2002.  Most of the equipment I work on is Raytheon though.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I think that a modern military needs superiority in all three areas, if it's missing one it would take a huge hit in it's capabilities.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That's something we can agree on.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
But the military kicked ass in Iraq when it was allowed to act like a military.  Forcing the Army to play Police while Bush tries to force Democracy down the throats of the locals isn't something the Army and Marines should be doing.
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 21, 2007, 12:33:52 pm »

But the military kicked ass in Iraq when it was allowed to act like a military.  Forcing the Army to play Police while Bush tries to force Democracy down the throats of the locals isn't something the Army and Marines should be doing.

Bingo.  This is the most accurate statement I've read in a while.  I've been saying for a long time that I firmly believe that if you give the American people/military a clearcut mission with reasonable milestones they will easily accomplish it.  The problem with Iraq is that the planning has never been there.  The mission has been nebulous and the milestones non-existent.
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 #31 on: November 21, 2007, 12:41:52 pm »
« Edited: November 24, 2007, 01:43:11 pm by tsionebreicruoc »

Well

I agree with the last post of both Stateboiler and dead0man. To go in the sense of Stateboiler, I would add that in South Lebanon, military instructors of Hezbollah were Iranian and that currently, experts think that there are big probabilties for that nuclear sites are situated underground. You can still airstrike on earth the more you could get would be some vibrations, could it disturbs nukes?

I would also add that you can't put police forces right after a war, the army is necessary first but for sure it has to form a police as fast as possible. In Irak it was hard to do as fast as possible I think, but they had to previous before or at least to think more than what they did before taking the decision of going there.

For the Iraki Shiites, I think it's not so simple, Iraki Shiites fought against Iranian Shiites while Iran-Irak war (1980-1988), this war had a strong impact on peoples of the both countries. If it can work for a few militias, I don't think it would have a big impact on this eventual conflict.

Then, the debates turned until now just arround the iranian ground. I don't want to say that 3rd World War is for tomorrow but I still think we should be aware about the possibility that striking on Iran could be the begining of it. With troops (air, sea, ground) engaged in Irak, Afghanistan and Iran, the powerfull countries who don't really like USA and the whole West could want to use the situation to put down the whole West forces in the way to get more power in the world. I think the quatuor Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China (all of them armed by Russia) could be a serious opposite coalition which could be joined by other countries from all over the world. When there are two coalitions, each country of each coalition is on war against each country of the opposite coalition, here is how are made world wars. The question would be how many country could stay neutral, if their neutrality is respected.

More of that, if West propose to strike on Iran at UN security council and if Russia and China say "no", it could burry definitively UN after having been seriously shot with Irak war.

Then, like someone said if Iran has nukes, it could sell it to anybody. Could it be someone like... Chavez?

I also think that Bush could only open a war, even if that's just airstrikes, if public opinion find it legitimate. For that, Ahmadinejad has to be more and more menacing, or medias has to show a more and more menacing image of Ahmadinejad. Both things that the US government can cause I think. So in this way, Bush and Cheney will to strike would be still priority.

I also agree to say that Bush and Ahmadinejad are two sort of idiots who don't really care about the betterment of their country. But they are two sorts of serious idiots. More of that, they are both some sort of radical religious serious idiots who both believe in the back of a "Lord from God", Jesus for Bush, Mahdi 12th imam for Ahmadinejad, which could come, according to what they think, by an apocalypse on Earth. When this two sort of idiots meet them and when they disagree, I think we can expect for eveything and we should to be aware about it.

To precise my thought, I currently think that strikings on Iran before november 2008 would be a big surprise at 60% and that G.W.Bush can decide to do everything at 40%.

Even if G.W. Bush doesn't strike I think that anyway it will be just an adjournment and that chances of ruling this conflict without military actions are more tiny than with. I don't see Ahmadinejad in 2009 saying "Ok, I've lost elections good luck to the followers even if they have not the same ideas, I go back to my home" and more of that, voting is sometimes manipulated in Iran according to some observers. I can also add that when someone really wants to stay on power, if the people is good controlled, he can do that especially by pretexting a military conflict. There are possibilities to rule the conflict peacefully but I currently see them as tiny, let us see.

Clearly, if such a thing does not happen during the 2008 USA precidency election campaign, making exploding it, I would be surprise that such a thing does not happen before 2020, more sure before 2015. Anyway I think we should at least consider the possibility of it.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,775


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2007, 01:13:47 pm »
« Edited: November 21, 2007, 01:18:38 pm by StateBoiler »

The silver lining of the Iraq War is Americans now have an idea and realize the limits of their military when we talk about future conflicts.

But the military kicked ass in Iraq when it was allowed to act like a military.  Forcing the Army to play Police while Bush tries to force Democracy down the throats of the locals isn't something the Army and Marines should be doing.

Let me preface my statement by saying I agree.

Howeve, if you overthrow a government, you're the government or anarchy follows. That's a law of history: "If you break it, you own it." When we overthrew Saddam, we in effect made Iraq an American colony. We don't call it a colony because that is "a dirty word", but that's what it was.

I agree it is not the job of the U.S. to police the country, but we ran the country for two years, and how can you run a country if you don't control it? That's why disbanding the Iraqi military was one of those post-war manuevers that boggles the mind. Let them control the territory, it's their home. So what if they were once loyal to Saddam? Stable money flow has the power to change a lot of people's loyalty.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 22, 2007, 07:25:35 am »
« Edited: November 22, 2007, 07:33:48 am by Michael Z »

I think there will be air strikes on Iran, but the military is simply too overstretched to go for a full-out ground invasion; not to mention the political fallout it would cause. Any attack would have serious implications as it is, but an invasion would be a disaster for everybody involved.

As for Lebanon (seeing as the discussion seems to have veered towards this, perhaps inevitably), I've made this point before but it's probably worth reiterating - Hezbollah were operating from within the the south of the country, but that's no reason for Israel to basically destroy Lebanon's entire infrastructure by bombing roads, schools, hospitals, entire neighbourhoods, bridges, as well as blockading Lebanese waters; thereby undermining one of the few examples, perhaps the only example, of a successful Muslim secular democracy (which surely we were supposed to create in Iraq?), as well as potentially radicalising the population. Olmert did himself and his country absolutely no favour with this.
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,624
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2007, 07:40:05 am »

Should Israel have just sat on their hands?  What if France crossed into Luxembourg and kidnapped a couple of kids and allowed rockets to be launch from French soil without the French govt. doing anything to stop it, would Luxembourg have no right to defend themselves?  It's not the Isaeli's fault that the Lebanese people can't control themselves.  (actually, I'm sure some on this board actually think it is the Israeli's fault.)

(and Turkey has traditionally been a much more stable Muslim secular democracy than Lebanon has.  It was less than 2 decades ago that Lebanon finished their last civil war.)
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2007, 09:01:31 am »
« Edited: November 22, 2007, 09:07:45 am by Michael Z »

Should Israel have just sat on their hands?

Of course not, but we're talking about destroying Lebanon's entire civil infrastructure here. The analogy of trying to swat a fly with a nuclear bomb springs to mind.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hezbollah is not the "Lebanese people", it's a fringe group operating from within the southern regions of the country (where they are, admittedly, popular, but not in the rest of the country). If you wanna take out Hezbollah, aim for the regions from within they operate, but don't bomb the whole country to sh*t in the vain hope that you might hit something (which is clearly what happened here, since Hezbollah were hardly affected by the massive bombing campaigns). That is simply counterproductive.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except Turkey's "democracy" is far more flawed and basically a quasi-military dictatorship. Remember, this is a country where referring to the Armenian genocide can land you in prison.
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,624
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2007, 09:25:13 am »

Hezbollah is not the "Lebanese people", it's a fringe group operating from within the southern regions of the country (where they are, admittedly, popular, but not in the rest of the country). If you wanna take out Hezbollah, aim for the regions from within they operate, but don't bomb the whole country to sh*t in the vain hope that you might hit something (which is clearly what happened here, since Hezbollah were hardly affected by the massive bombing campaigns). That is simply counterproductive.
Except that it isn't a fringe group.  link
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
<snip>
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except Turkey's "democracy" is far more flawed and basically a quasi-military dictatorship. Remember, this is a country where referring to the Armenian genocide can land you in prison.
More flawed than Lebanon?  Turkey has some issues as you mention, but it's still more stable by a long shot than Lebanon is.  And that goes for today and most of the past half a century.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2007, 10:56:57 am »
« Edited: November 22, 2007, 11:00:14 am by Michael Z »

Hezbollah is not the "Lebanese people", it's a fringe group operating from within the southern regions of the country (where they are, admittedly, popular, but not in the rest of the country). If you wanna take out Hezbollah, aim for the regions from within they operate, but don't bomb the whole country to sh*t in the vain hope that you might hit something (which is clearly what happened here, since Hezbollah were hardly affected by the massive bombing campaigns). That is simply counterproductive.
Except that it isn't a fringe group.  link
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
<snip>
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It'd be interesting to know if that poll was taken before or after the bombings, but either way, I wasn't aware that Hezbollah enjoyed such widespread support in Lebanon - I suppose there still are some sour grapes dating back to the 1982 invasion.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except Turkey's "democracy" is far more flawed and basically a quasi-military dictatorship. Remember, this is a country where referring to the Armenian genocide can land you in prison.
[/quote]More flawed than Lebanon?  Turkey has some issues as you mention, but it's still more stable by a long shot than Lebanon is.  And that goes for today and most of the past half a century.
[/quote]

That's true, but I felt it needed to be pointed out that Turkey is far from the stable democracy many in the West profess it to be, and that it still has some way to go, insofar as human rights issues are concerned. Either way, I think Lebanon's instability stems primarily from the fact that it constantly faces interference from neighbouring countries, specifically Israel and Syria. I suppose it suffers from the sort of dilemma most small countries stuck inbetween competing bigger regional powers face (eg. Korea in the 19th century) - they usually end up being reduced to some sort of geopolitical playground.
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 #38 on: November 24, 2007, 01:32:04 pm »
« Edited: December 04, 2007, 10:45:38 am by tsionebreicruoc »

Discussion has spread on Libanon and Turkey, I would like to add elements about these two countries.

First, Lebanon. We can't say Lebanon supports Hezbollah, it's not so simple. Lebanon is a very splinted country, maybe one of the most splinted of the world. In this country there are about 17 communities. There different sorts of Muslim (Shiite, Sunni, Druze, concerning the mains), different sorts of christians (Catholics, different sort of Orientals, different sort of Orthodoxes), and a Jew community, here are for the main communities which share this country. This unified country seems to be quite a sort of miracle in the middle East. The lebanese political system is shared by all communities in the way these are all represented and have a representation which reflect their importance. So, the post of president is reserved to a communuty, so is the prime minister post, the commandant of the army post, etc. The current president Emile Lahoud is part of a community which is pro-syria, so which support Hezbollah, but the prime minister is from a community anti-syria.

Concerning the general agreement of Libanon to Hezbollah, it's good to think about its two decades ago civil war (civil wars are surely the worst wars that exist), and in July 2006, what lebanese feared it was a new civil war so they prefered not criticizing the shiite community (about 30% of the lebanese population, occupating about 30% of Lebanon) which Hezbollah pretends to represent. More of that the stupid massive bombing of Israel on whole Lebanon, destroying unusefully this country which didn't need it, helped the lebanese to prefer Hezbollah than Israel. An israeli action was legitimate, they had been offensed, but the way they took was so scilly and counterproductive.

To finish on lebanon, it's good to know that Hezbollah wins most of his popularity cause he has iranian oil dollars and it uses it to take care of the peoples. For example after the sutpid israeli bombing, Hezbollah offered 10.000 $ cash (in tickets) to all the ones who had lost their home in the bombing, how to get more popularity?

Concerning Turkey. It's interesting to speack about this country cause to me he could play a not negligible role if a open conflict with Iran begins.

First concerning the freedom and democracy in this country. It's good to wake up and to think about the fact that we're speacking about a traditional muslim country, so in this country we don't envisage the society and the individual like we do in Occident. This said, it's also the muslim country who is the most close of Occident and its current government is surely the most open government that Occident can have to cooperate with.

Then, this country is also a young republic and it can explain that we can go in jail when we speack about something that put in cause the country, like armenian genocide. Remember that Southists and Yankees met troubles each other when USA was a young republic and I'm not sure it was easy to have a free opinion in this time, we can also speack about Mc Carthy, could we speack freely 50 years ago in USA? Franco left Spain in 1975, and in 1914-1918 war, France executed the soldiers who did not go on war. So, things are not so simple, we are all men and we have to remember about what we are and about what we were a few time ago before going on cristicisms so easily.

I don't legitimate what is Turkey, I just say Turkey has a history and it explains its present, we can't put western cristicisms on it without thinking about it. We can't say "I don't like you! You have to change!" or if you say it you must have a deep, strong and honest reason, otherwise it's just some basic self interest and in this case it's good acknowledge it, otherwise it's some hypocrisy. When the question of the justification is ruled, I think it's good to be aware that if change can need force it especially needs time and pedagogy.

Concerning the role which could play Turkey if a military conflict is open with Iran.

Like I said the current government is surely the most Occident-friendly turkish government that Occident can currently have in Turkey. But in the population there are nationalist and ultra-nationalist forces and I think it's good to be aware that there are possibilities for them to go on power, by democracy or by a coup. For example, I think that what's currently happening in Kurdistan is important, if the current turkish government continues to listen the current US government, so if it does not decide a big military intervention in iraki Kurdistan and if the Kurds, who fight for an independant Kurdistan, continue to make problem to turkish army, it could make growing the nationalism and the anti-USA, anti Occident feeling in Turkey. More of that, yesterday a trial opened, it's the trial of the murderers of 3 evangelicals (2 Turks, 1 German), the murderers killed these evangelicals in the name of nationalism, pretending that evangelicals are a threat for Turkey and that they act to serve the foreign interests (for the reason they are maybe not so wrong, look at what happened in Ivory Coast, anyway currently evangelicals are just about 3.000 in Turkey for about 100 millions peoples). What is good to know in this story it is that, according to a serious media in France, the public opinion supports these ultra-nationalist murderers.

All of this to show that to me there is a nationalist danger in Turkey. The decision of USA to attack Iran could encourage nationalism to take the power to use the situation to invade the iraki Kurdistan and to breack the cooperation with the USA, and then maybe making Turkey joining an eventual, but possible to me, anti-Occident coalition which could be composed of at least, like I've already said, Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela.

Here are some possibilities, and high probabilities to me if the current world trends stay like they are. In this way it would be just a question of time to me, less than a year? 5 years? More? Less? Let us see but I still think it's good to be aware about these possibilities.
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 #39 on: December 05, 2007, 10:05:31 am »

What's the reaction of the candidates for presidency after the report of American intelligence agencies?

Do they support Bush position? Is he alone on this position? What's about the public opinion? The media? 
Logged
MODU
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,049
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2007, 10:10:02 am »


If there was serious concern, yes, there would probably be a strike.  However, at the moment, it doesn't look like we're at that point.

The public would support an attack if there is a real threat.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,092
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.09


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2007, 04:32:13 pm »

Absolutely not.
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 #42 on: January 10, 2008, 11:31:50 am »
« Edited: January 10, 2008, 12:05:39 pm by tsionebreicruoc »

Back of this topic on Iran.

I reopen it because I want to announce that I've just opened a new topic on Iran in the rubric of this forum named "International general discussion" to speak there about Iran in general and about the consequences of strikes there. Last event, the one between US and Iranian warships. You can find it here.

So, I really want to dedicate this topic to which impact could have on the presidential campaign  an attack from G.W. Bush on Iran and to the position of the different candidates on the Iranian crisis.

For example, which candidates do you think could decide to strike on Iran if they are elected. Personally, I think that Obama, Edwards and maybe Romney could be the only ones, through the credible to be elected, who would not decide to strike on Iran.
Logged
JSojourner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,525
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2008, 08:24:43 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?

100%.  If the Commander in Chief orders it, our brave men and women obey.  That's the system.  And it works...err...used to work.

We handed the keys to the asylum to the two chief lunatics eight years ago. Frankly, I think The Decider and Count Dickula are frustrated they can't figure out a way to circumvent that little "no third term" thingie...
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,624
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2008, 11:10:24 pm »

Well Bush wouldn't attack Iran because he woke up in a bad mood one morning, he would need an excuse.*  And if he had an excuse, he could sell it to the military.  Especially if the military is the one that gave him the excuse in the first place Wink



*-assuming of course that Bush is chomping at the bit to attack Iran, something I personally don't buy into 
Logged
JSojourner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,525
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2008, 12:58:23 am »

>>> Well Bush wouldn't attack Iran because he woke up in a bad mood one morning, he would need an excuse.*  <<<


Jesus told him to?
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,624
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: January 11, 2008, 03:26:01 am »

If he wanted to use that excuse...errr, I should say, If he thought he could get away with using that excuse, he would have already....one would assume.
Logged
JSojourner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,525
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: January 11, 2008, 12:50:31 pm »

If he wanted to use that excuse...errr, I should say, If he thought he could get away with using that excuse, he would have already....one would assume.

I suppose you're right.  But Jesus tells him lots of things -- I'm just afraid he might act on it.  Unless Jesus suddenly starts telling him to do justice to the poor and oppressed.  But Jesus would never do that.
Logged
jacob_101
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 647


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: January 11, 2008, 07:55:20 pm »

No Bush would not attack IRAN unless IRAN attacked us first or we found out that they were very close to getting nuclear weapons and using them.
Logged
Aizen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,514


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -9.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: January 11, 2008, 08:07:08 pm »

No Bush would not attack IRAN unless IRAN attacked us first or we found out that they were very close to getting nuclear weapons and using them.


Close like Iraq?
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