Iran

[crunch]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/17/coverstory.tm.iran.tm/index.html

 

[JB]

Re: Iran

Howdy, CBC.

Please, when you want to post a link to a story or blog, say something about it. . . what it is about, etc.

As slow as this board is, it is annoying to have to click the link to get any idea what the poster is trying to say.

Thanks,

 

[crunch]

Re: Iran

I'm not trying to say anything, just haven't seen this discussed... hypothetically that is... and lets face it, one click isn’t all that hard to do d

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Iran

yes it is from here, most times I cannot link to a cut and paste link so I usually dont bother anymore.

 

[crunch]

Re: Iran

Link works, must be your 'puter.

 

[crunch]

Re: Iran

One reason I don't want to say anything is, I don't want to be attacked by certain factions as being a war monger, being of a violent nature, left/right wing radical, etc.

Just curious about the thoughts of others on the developing problem with Iran... hence the title d

 

[puddle jumper]

Re: Iran

One reason I don't want to say anything is, I don't want to be attacked by certain factions as being a war monger, being of a violent nature, left/right wing radical, etc.

Just curious about the thoughts of others on the developing problem with Iran... hence the title d

I hear you there.Ive been thinking the same thing.

 

[ob]

Re: Iran

If one wants to avoid getting mud on them ,best not to get near the mud puddle.
I detect a vague inuendo.Let the attacks begin.8)

 

[crunch]

Re: Iran

8)

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Iran

Talking till we are blue in the face didn't help with N Korea, doubt it will with Iran either.

"One reason I don't want to say anything is, I don't want to be attacked by certain factions as being a war monger, being of a violent nature, left/right wing radical, etc."
I kind of agree with you, there are some very thin skinned people, who when faced with facts, just launch personal assults.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Iran

ok lets attack, who among our congrees and senate will reinstate the draft?
we are running low on troop and equipment levels.
I say draft any mentally compent male/female between the ages of 18 and 35 no exceptions or deferments. those in a wheel chair or otherwise handicapped can perform stateside admin and support, douhnut rings can be provided for those with anal cysts.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Iran

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/17/coverstory.tm.iran.tm/index.html

CNN?

 

[ob]

Re: Iran

I say draft any mentally compent male/female between the ages of 18 and 35 no exceptions or deferments. those in a wheel chair or otherwise handicapped can perform stateside admin and support,

I'm sure you meant mentally competent.I must say the handicapped comment is a little wierd if not extreme.What exactly is your point?I'm not sure that our mission is to throw huge numbers of troops instead of technology at an allout situation ,if things were to escalate beyond our current engagement needs.Who in the know besides you feels a need to impliment the draft?

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Iran

nope, if your mentally competent between the age of 18 and 35 your eligible.
even wheel chair folks can type.
it takes as many troops behind the battle for support as it does for the battle.
technology is great, it wont win, its a tool. the only way to win is boots in the dirt.
technology wont defeat ideaologly.
hasnt in the past wont in the future. its simply a tool.
the logistics supply line starts in the far rear.
but the supply line is just as critical as the boots with a rifle.
procurement and distribution of the procured supplies is absolutly a must and it takes a lot of paperwork
we used a lot of high tech in vietnam, in fact it was a wonderful playground for testing toys, was a miserable failure as far as the boots were concerned.
we did not lose vietnam over a troop failure, but over an arrogance that high tech would overwhelm ideaology.
the guy with flat feet that cannot march can always drive a truck,fuel an aircraft or do air traffic control and scheduling.
we will lose this due to the same arrogance I fear.
as far as troops, all the field commanders are subtly asking for more and based on the degradation they are right.
they cannot ask outright or they will follow their predecessors in history.
they know it.

 

[crunch]

Re: Iran

In the case of Iran and it's Nuke ambitions, you don't need “boots on the ground”, just bombs on target... that is if your only goal is to stop their Nuke development.

 

[ob]

Re: Iran

Well so far,technology is what is allowing you and me to discuss what we're discussing.And,I'm not refering to computer technology.This ain't freakin Waterloo here.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Iran

ob
in the end you either have to occupy or leave.
its been that way for millenia.
we can bomb them till the cows come home but it wont make them like us nor convert to our ideaology.
technology can aid but its the rifleman on the ground that keeps the peace and security. technology can aid but its not a subsitute.
so far no credible intel has actually pointed out what Irans ambitions are and our president wont even talk with theirs. they see that as a slap and will refuse to cooperate.
mostly they want attention just like north korea.
the world is vastly different today than in the 50's. we are using 50's diplomacy still.
china nor russia support noth korea, they are looking at the market share .
neither country supports Cuba either yet they are looking at the market share.
both russia and china are rapidly going more capitalist than communist and are looking for markets worldwide.,
the US may be the sole military superpower but if we are not careful we will be regulated to a second world economic power.
the 10 year afghan debacle that russia did was the last straw for them.
however I just invested a lot of money in the US so I am banking on it .
but all that military tech and all them boots get very expensive.
very very expensive, the money must come from somewhere.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Iran

so far no credible intel has actually pointed out what Irans ambitions are and our president wont even talk with theirs. they see that as a slap and will refuse to cooperate.
mostly they want attention just like north korea.
the world is vastly different today than in the 50's. we are using 50's diplomacy still.

Unbliveable, now Iran is the good guy and W is wrong, once again.
I see a UN ambasador for Iran is in your future.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Iran

ok eric
show me a trusted govt site with intel that shows a weapons program. if you can I will change my mind.
until then I no longer trust my govt to be forthrite.
for you I see a high level placement in pat robertsons army.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Iran

ok eric
show me a trusted govt site with intel that shows a weapons program. if you can I will change my mind.
until then I no longer trust my govt to be forthrite.
for you I see a high level placement in pat robertsons army.

How can I? They won't let inpectors in. I know that you trust the UN inpectors right? So why won't Iran let them in?