PDA

View Full Version : A what if or When if question



Sundown49 aka Otey B
02-13-2010, 08:14 PM
What do you think will be the reaction of the Obama administration when Israel blasts heck out of Iran?

YardleyLabs
02-13-2010, 08:25 PM
What do you think will be the reaction of the Obama administration when Israel blasts heck out of Iran?
CNN reported on an interesting military simulation done on this scenario. The conclusion was that it would solidify the government in Iran as opposition leaders rallied behind the government, that Iran would attack oil fields in Saudi Arabia, and that oil procies would triple.

road kill
02-13-2010, 08:44 PM
CNN reported on an interesting military simulation done on this scenario. The conclusion was that it would solidify the government in Iran as opposition leaders rallied behind the government, that Iran would attack oil fields in Saudi Arabia, and that oil procies would triple.

....and destroy the USA's economy.




rk

dnf777
02-13-2010, 09:17 PM
....and destroy the USA's economy.




rk

Oil prices nearly tripled last year, for completely unknown reasons. Wasn't much fun, but it forced us to be a little more responsible with our consumption. Made me price some Hondas even. :oops:

Hew
02-14-2010, 07:20 AM
CNN reported on an interesting military simulation done on this scenario. The conclusion was that it would solidify the government in Iran as opposition leaders rallied behind the government, that Iran would attack oil fields in Saudi Arabia, and that oil procies would triple.

Tripled oil prices vs. Israel being laid to waste? Not a hard choice in my mind.

The above scenario aptly explains why it doesn't really matter what Obama intends to do, because the reaction of the Iranians will determine what Obama does. In the above scenario we will meet any threats to oil production with force and protect our Persian Gulf allies...by destroying Iran's naval and air capacity.

I think Ackmadinnerjacket is likely bluffing about his nuclear intentions. But then I live beyond the means of his capacity to drop them on my childrens' heads and is a safe bet for me to make. Israel likely can't afford to make that bet given the little nutjob's statements about wipining Israel off the map and all. If/when Israel attacks I hope we give them all the logistical and intelligence help they need to do a thorough job. We're gonna get dragged into it or blamed whether we help them or not, so we might as well try to see that it's done right.

Franco
02-14-2010, 07:48 AM
If/when Israel attacks I hope we give them all the logistical and intelligence help they need to do a thorough job. We're gonna get dragged into it or blamed whether we help them or not, so we might as well try to see that it's done right.



They also don't have the deep bunker type bombs to do a thorough job which we could supply them with.

The Isralis will do something more than just talk. Of course both China and Russia will be really pissed at us as well as N Korea and the expression on Hugo Chavez's face will be priceless.

Didn't I hear Obamo saying something like; Drill here, drill now last week?

subroc
02-14-2010, 08:07 AM
The obama administration will wait 10 days to see which way the wind blows. They will than appologize to the world for something...anything. After that they will make a lame statement that will need days of clarification. In the early days of the event, the world will not know if we are with the Israeli's or against them, condem the event or support it, or are actually standing with Iran. The UN will condemn the action. Under this administration we will vasilate causing the Brits to stand alone with Israel. Hillary Clinton will shine, obama will look inept.

My prediction of a future event that may or may not happen.

YardleyLabs
02-14-2010, 08:28 AM
They also don't have the deep bunker type bombs to do a thorough job which we could supply them with.

The Isralis will do something more than just talk. Of course both China and Russia will be really pissed at us as well as N Korea and the expression on Hugo Chavez's face will be priceless.

Didn't I hear Obamo saying something like; Drill here, drill now last week?
What makes anyone think that "regime change" in Iran can be accomplished any more easily than regime change in Iraq? I do not think that there is any strategy, short of war, that can succeed in creating significant political change in Iran without willing participation of the Chinese and Russians.

I also suspect that a war -- whether initiated by Israel or the US -- will backfire completely. It will destroy the Iranian opposition, unite the Iranian public against us, isolate us further from Russia (not too serious) and China (which will cut off credit), possibly result in the destruction of Israel, and complete the bankruptcy of our economy. I see very little chance of any positive outcome from such a war in the short or long term.

In considering strategies, the last thing we need is decision-making based on a desire to prove our manhood. Rather, we need a strategy based on patience, persistence, and a recognition that a nuclear Iran would still probably leave Iran as the third most dangerous nuclear country in the world behind both Pakistan (the most dangerous) and North Korea (a distant second). Key elements of a strategy need to include:
Improving the relationship between Israel and its immediate neighbors, including Palestinians. That will not happen without significant pressure on Israel to give up its colonial role. It cannot survive as a country if it insists on occupying lands, and even settling lands, where it is not prepared to give rights of citizenship to the resident Palestinian population.
Increase connections between the Iranian people and the rest of the world. Iran, despite its government, has one of the more educated populations in the region and its people are much more open to western culture than its government. The more the country is isolated, the stronger the government will be. Extremism thrives in isolation.
Maintain and expand discrete support for the Iranian political opposition. Support that is too overt can back fire.
Work to reduce Russia's dependency on Iran. Russia is a potent ally for Iran and desperately needs Iranian oil. It is also uniquely positioned to further Iran's nuclear program without regard to our opposition.
Continue working with China to ensure that it understands that it will lose in the event of a confrontation between Iran and the US.
Accelerate our own move toward development of non-oil based energy sources. Anything that reduces our economic dependency on imported oil reduces Iran's ability to disrupt our economy.Progress in dealing with Iran will take years. A war-based strategy of confrontation will not make the process faster, but it will make the outcome more uncertain.

Franco
02-14-2010, 08:56 AM
What makes anyone think that "regime change" in Iran can be accomplished any more easily than regime change in Iraq? I do not think that there is any strategy, short of war, that can succeed in creating significant political change in Iran without willing participation of the Chinese and Russians.

I also suspect that a war -- whether initiated by Israel or the US -- will backfire completely. It will destroy the Iranian opposition, unite the Iranian public against us, isolate us further from Russia (not too serious) and China (which will cut off credit), possibly result in the destruction of Israel, and complete the bankruptcy of our economy. I see very little chance of any positive outcome from such a war in the short or long term.

In considering strategies, the last thing we need is decision-making based on a desire to prove our manhood. Rather, we need a strategy based on patience, persistence, and a recognition that a nuclear Iran would still probably leave Iran as the third most dangerous nuclear country in the world behind both Pakistan (the most dangerous) and North Korea (a distant second). Key elements of a strategy need to include:

Improving the relationship between Israel and its immediate neighbors, including Palestinians. That will not happen without significant pressure on Israel to give up its colonial role. It cannot survive as a country if it insists on occupying lands, and even settling lands, where it is not prepared to give rights of citizenship to the resident Palestinian population.
Increase connections between the Iranian people and the rest of the world. Iran, despite its government, has one of the more educated populations in the region and its people are much more open to western culture than its government. The more the country is isolated, the stronger the government will be. Extremism thrives in isolation.
Maintain and expand discrete support for the Iranian political opposition. Support that is too overt can back fire.
Work to reduce Russia's dependency on Iran. Russia is a potent ally for Iran and desperately needs Iranian oil. It is also uniquely positioned to further Iran's nuclear program without regard to our opposition.
Continue working with China to ensure that it understands that it will lose in the event of a confrontation between Iran and the US.
Accelerate our own move toward development of non-oil based energy sources. Anything that reduces our economic dependency on imported oil reduces Iran's ability to disrupt our economy.Progress in dealing with Iran will take years. A war-based strategy of confrontation will not make the process faster, but it will make the outcome more uncertain.

Who said anything about regime change in Iran? Any change in the leadership of Iran would have to come from its people.

I don't expect the Israelis to wait around on us or the rest of the world in securing their survival. In case you missed it, Akmadinajoke has stated seveal times that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. A threat the Israeli won't take lightly.

dnf777
02-14-2010, 09:53 AM
Whoever is proposing that we bomb Iran....how will we establish a stable secure gov't in the ruins afterwards? Does anyone think that radical-Islamists who REALLY hate America will just stand by and let us put one of our selected "good little Muslims" in charge??
And once that question is answered, my next question is, can we get the Chinese to loan us the money to carry our that plan?? We sure don't have it.

YardleyLabs
02-14-2010, 10:23 AM
Who said anything about regime change in Iran? Any change in the leadership of Iran would have to come from its people.

I don't expect the Israelis to wait around on us or the rest of the world in securing their survival. In case you missed it, Akmadinajoke has stated seveal times that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. A threat the Israeli won't take lightly.
What makes you think there will be anything limited about a war between Israel and Iran? As I noted before, I believe the outcome will be devastating for the US and Israel regardless of how such a war starts. From the perspective of the Iranian government, I suspect that there are few things that would serve it better than an Israeli strike against their nuclear facilities. By contrast, I do not think their government would survive a war that they initiated themselves.

Uncle Bill
02-14-2010, 12:09 PM
What makes you think there will be anything limited about a war between Israel and Iran? As I noted before, I believe the outcome will be devastating for the US and Israel regardless of how such a war starts. From the perspective of the Iranian government, I suspect that there are few things that would serve it better than an Israeli strike against their nuclear facilities. By contrast, I do not think their government would survive a war that they initiated themselves.

And you expect them to procrastinate forever? Waiting has certainly accomplished a lot so far eh?

The "war" with the muslim world started long time ago. It's just recently they've had the onions to become more offensive, and the day of reckoning is looming. The time for the linguini-spined vacillators to stand aside. Your approach to solving the problem is no longer valid.

The time for "meaningful" sanctions, like cutting off their supply of imported gasoline totally. A complete blockade that seriously stops all economy. And a lock on all their financial activities outside their borders.

If the non-muslim world can't see the dangers this murderous regime poses, and supports a complete close down of that nations activities, then a physical war will be inevitible.

UB

Hew
02-15-2010, 04:49 AM
Bolded text is mine...


What makes anyone think that "regime change" in Iran can be accomplished any more easily than regime change in Iraq? Who on this board or in American politics/military have suggested that regime change would be the goal of a military strike on Iran? Nobody that I'm aware of. I do not think that there is any strategy, short of war, that can succeed in creating significant political change in Iran without willing participation of the Chinese and Russians.

I also suspect that a war -- whether initiated by Israel or the US -- will backfire completely. It will destroy the Iranian opposition, unite the Iranian public against us, isolate us further from Russia (not too serious) and China (which will cut off credit), possibly result in the destruction of Israel, and complete the bankruptcy of our economy. I see very little chance of any positive outcome from such a war in the short or long term. Iran has supposedly been on the verge of revolution for years now. If Israel is betting their existence on the overthrow of a brutal and repressive regime by a bunch of students honking their horns and blowing whistles in a few of the largest cities I think that's probably not a wise wager. As for the premise that you and DNF promote that China will retaliate economically....sure they'll stamp their feet and take a few minor symbolic swipes at us, but the notion that they'd do anything to cripple our economy is absurd. For better or worse, we're tied at the hip in a two-way relationship, and they need us as much as we need them.

In considering strategies, the last thing we need is decision-making based on a desire to prove our manhood. Huh? Yes, I know the liberal conventional wisdom is that Bush invaded Iraq out of some Freudian desire to win the approval of his father or some such nonsense, but that psychobabble doesn't apply to every geopolitical conflict. We know you approved of our own civil war ('cause slaves are bad), and we know you would approve attacking a sessionist Texas ('cause state rights are bad), but attacking Iran to prevent them from obtaining the capacity to carry out their stated objective...the destruction of Israel, gets boiled down to some petty playground disagreement? Rather, we need a strategy based on patience, persistence, and a recognition that a nuclear Iran would still probably leave Iran as the third most dangerous nuclear country in the world behind both Pakistan (the most dangerous) and North Korea (a distant second). Key elements of a strategy need to include: We've exhibited a remarkable 30 years of "patience" (a compelling argument could be made for "appeasement") and we're no closer to bringing Iran into the fold of rational and civilized government than we were in 1980.

Improving the relationship between Israel and its immediate neighbors, including Palestinians. That will not happen without significant pressure on Israel to give up its colonial role. It cannot survive as a country if it insists on occupying lands, and even settling lands, where it is not prepared to give rights of citizenship to the resident Palestinian population. As always, it Israel's fault.
Increase connections between the Iranian people and the rest of the world. Iran, despite its government, has one of the more educated populations in the region and its people are much more open to western culture than its government. The more the country is isolated, the stronger the government will be. Extremism thrives in isolation. I'm sure all Obama has to do is ask the mullahs to open up their country and it will happen. Too bad our four previous presidents were so dumb and didn't know that was possible.
Maintain and expand discrete support for the Iranian political opposition. Support that is too overt can back fire. Agreed.
Work to reduce Russia's dependency on Iran. Russia is a potent ally for Iran and desperately needs Iranian oil. It is also uniquely positioned to further Iran's nuclear program without regard to our opposition. Per 2008 numbers, Russian isn't even one of the top 10 importers of Iranian oil. Most Iranian oil goes to Asia.
Continue working with China to ensure that it understands that it will lose in the event of a confrontation between Iran and the US.
Accelerate our own move toward development of non-oil based energy sources. Anything that reduces our economic dependency on imported oil reduces Iran's ability to disrupt our economy. We import no oil from Iran. Sure, it's a commodity and our prices would be affected by the overall supply, but we wouldn't be impacted nearly as much as Japan or China. The threat from Iran is near-immediate. Does Israel have a few decades to wait for non oil-based energy sources? Progress in dealing with Iran will take years. A war-based strategy of confrontation will not make the process faster, but it will make the outcome more uncertain. I don't know that Israel has years to wait. And Israel is only in danger more than us due to their proximity. How long before Iran starts to threaten the United States in the same way?

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 07:40 AM
Bolded text is mine...

Who on this board or in American politics/military have suggested that regime change would be the goal of a military strike on Iran? Nobody that I'm aware of.

What you have not done is to put forward any military strategy that would prevent Iran from developing nuclear capability as part of a "contained" campaign with a good chance of success. Were I Iran and you were the one directing a "surgical" strike, I would immediately respond in the most devastating way I could. That would include a strike on D=Saudi and Iraqi oil fields, which are well within reach of my current weapons, as well as a strike on the civilian populations of Israel. BTW, I agree that China, in many ways, is less likely to threaen our economy than other countries because of our co-dependent relationship. However, I believe that they are much better positioned in both the short and long term to withstand damage to our economy than we are. I also believe that they assume that the future relationship between our countries is one that they will dominate, and that thet are prepared to begin to assert that dominance more often.



Iran has supposedly been on the verge of revolution for years now. If Israel is betting their existence on the overthrow of a brutal and repressive regime by a bunch of students honking their horns and blowing whistles in a few of the largest cities I think that's probably not a wise wager. As for the premise that you and DNF promote that China will retaliate economically....sure they'll stamp their feet and take a few minor symbolic swipes at us, but the notion that they'd do anything to cripple our economy is absurd. For better or worse, we're tied at the hip in a two-way relationship, and they need us as much as we need them.
Iran has been "on the verge" of attacking Israel for 30 years and done nothing to back up its threats. As I understand the intelligence reports, Iran remains years away from developing an offensive nuclear capacity that represents a significantly greater threat than exists based on their non-nuclear capabilities. The reality is that any nation in the world with an educated scientific community and the will is in a position to develop nuclear weapons. The US, Russia, the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and the list will grow. If I am an Islamic country and believe the words of the right wing fanatics who say we are already at war with all of Islam, then I am a fool if I do not launch an immediate effort to develop nuclear capability to defend myself.


In considering strategies, the last thing we need is decision-making based on a desire to prove our manhood. Huh? Yes, I know the liberal conventional wisdom is that Bush invaded Iraq out of some Freudian desire to win the approval of his father or some such nonsense, but that psychobabble doesn't apply to every geopolitical conflict. We know you approved of our own civil war ('cause slaves are bad), and we know you would approve attacking a sessionist Texas ('cause state rights are bad), but attacking Iran to prevent them from obtaining the capacity to carry out their stated objective...the destruction of Israel, gets boiled down to some petty playground disagreement?

I actually believe that the entire neo-con strategy of deterring asymetric warfare by making an example of Iraq was an exercise in testosterone induced idiocy. The war was manufactured to make a point. In fact, it proved the opposite. It proved that our military might has limits that are much more finite than Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al, sought to demonstrate. In discussing the potential war with Iraq before a house committee in February 2003, Wolfowitz said that Iraq "presents a case of direct threat to the security of the United States and our allies. Indeed, I believe the most significant cost associated with Iraq is the cost of doing nothing. The simple truth is, disarming Iraq and fighting the war on terror are not merely related; disarming Iraq's arsenal of terror is a crucial part of winning the war on terror. If we can disarm or defeat Saddam's brutal regime in Baghdad, it will be a defeat for terrorists globally. The value of such a victory against a terrorist regime will be of incalculable value in the continuing war on terrorism," All this, by the way, was part of his explanation for not including any funds for the impending war in the budget...


We've exhibited a remarkable 30 years of "patience" (a compelling argument could be made for "appeasement") and we're no closer to bringing Iran into the fold of rational and civilized government than we were in 1980.
Interesting perspective. What about the 24 years of "patience" shown by the Iranian people living under the brutal regime of a Shah put into power by the US after a US engineered overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government? The fact is that Iran has its own government just as we have ours. It is theirs to determine. Since the end of the hostage crisis, they have not acted militarily against the US or Israel. They did act against Iraq and its dictator. Saddam Hussein. whom we were supporting. There's a pretty good argument that we were on the wrong side of that particular war. But, of course, our real strategy was simply to prevent either side from winning and establishing a dominant regional position. Had Iraq been on the verge of destroying Iran, I suspect we would have intervened on their behalf instead.


Improving the relationship between Israel and its immediate neighbors, including Palestinians. That will not happen without significant pressure on Israel to give up its colonial role. It cannot survive as a country if it insists on occupying lands, and even settling lands, where it is not prepared to give rights of citizenship to the resident Palestinian population. As always, it Israel's fault. It was Israel's choice to hold and colonize territories in which it was not willing to extend democratic rights. I actually would have had no problems if Israel had elected to annex some or all of the conquered territories. But for a democratic country, annexation means granting citizenship to the resident population. By holding the territories for decades, allowing "settlers" to build communities in the territories (often by displacing residents forcibly), and denying citizenship to the resident populations, Israel gave up its status as a democratic country. That is a conclusion I reached as a zionist who was present as Syrians shelled the kibbutz where I was located. I believe that it faces the same choice today that it faced in 1967 and 1973: return the territories (including any land confiscated from residents of the conquered lands unless compensated at full value) or give full citizenship to the residents.

Increase connections between the Iranian people and the rest of the world. Iran, despite its government, has one of the more educated populations in the region and its people are much more open to western culture than its government. The more the country is isolated, the stronger the government will be. Extremism thrives in isolation. I'm sure all Obama has to do is ask the mullahs to open up their country and it will happen. Too bad our four previous presidents were so dumb and didn't know that was possible. I believe that we have been trying to do this much of the time and that the use of Twitter during political battles inside Iran is testimony to this fact. However, these efforts can be easily destroyed by sanctions that are mis-directed and I believe that would nt be in our long term interests.

Maintain and expand discrete support for the Iranian political opposition. Support that is too overt can back fire. Agreed.
Work to reduce Russia's dependency on Iran. Russia is a potent ally for Iran and desperately needs Iranian oil. It is also uniquely positioned to further Iran's nuclear program without regard to our opposition. Per 2008 numbers, Russian isn't even one of the top 10 importers of Iranian oil. Most Iranian oil goes to Asia. Actually, the relationship is a little more complex. Russia is one of the largest exporters of oil in the world. It views its relationship with Iran as one that givs it leverage to develop a consortium for oil exchanges outside of western control. That would greatly enhance Russia's power as an energy tsar.
Continue working with China to ensure that it understands that it will lose in the event of a confrontation between Iran and the US.
Accelerate our own move toward development of non-oil based energy sources. Anything that reduces our economic dependency on imported oil reduces Iran's ability to disrupt our economy. We import no oil from Iran. Sure, it's a commodity and our prices would be affected by the overall supply, but we wouldn't be impacted nearly as much as Japan or China. The threat from Iran is near-immediate. Does Israel have a few decades to wait for non oil-based energy sources? Progress in dealing with Iran will take years. A war-based strategy of confrontation will not make the process faster, but it will make the outcome more uncertain. I don't know that Israel has years to wait. And Israel is only in danger more than us due to their proximity. How long before Iran starts to threaten the United States in the same way? The "immediacy" of the threat eludes me now, just as it dd when Wolfowitz and Cheney were promoting war with Iraq. They proved wrong then. I have no reason to believe that the hysterics are smarter today.

Hew
02-15-2010, 03:46 PM
What you have not done is to put forward any military strategy that would prevent Iran from developing nuclear capability as part of a "contained" campaign with a good chance of success. Were I Iran and you were the one directing a "surgical" strike, I would immediately respond in the most devastating way I could. That would include a strike on D=Saudi and Iraqi oil fields, which are well within reach of my current weapons, as well as a strike on the civilian populations of Israel. Were you an Iranian you'd better be prepared to meet your maker, as an Iranian escalation of that magnitude will certainly invite what most of the world wouldn't shed one tear about...the dismantling of Iran's military, infrastructure and command and control. It's awful hard to rule your people with an iron thumb beneath a few tons of concrete rubble or a hundred feet down inside a hole with your fingers in your ears. If Iran were crazy enough to respond like you described then they are crazy enough to have used a nuke on Israel in the first place...thus justifiying any attack on their nuke production. BTW, I agree that China, in many ways, is less likely to threaen our economy than other countries because of our co-dependent relationship. However, I believe that they are much better positioned in both the short and long term to withstand damage to our economy than we are. I also believe that they assume that the future relationship between our countries is one that they will dominate I agree with that, and that thet are prepared to begin to assert that dominance more often.

Iran has been "on the verge" of attacking Israel for 30 years and done nothing to back up its threats. Except for having their fingerprints on the death of 250 Marines in Lebanon, the bombing of a US embassy, the approvers, masterminds and armorers of the Khobar Tower bombers, funding terrorists in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, etc.... As I understand the intelligence reports, Iran remains years away from developing an offensive nuclear capacity that represents a significantly greater threat than exists based on their non-nuclear capabilities. The reality is that any nation in the world with an educated scientific community and the will is in a position to develop nuclear weapons. The US, Russia, the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and the list will grow. If I am an Islamic country and believe the words of the right wing fanatics who say we are already at war with all of Islam, then I am a fool if I do not launch an immediate effort to develop nuclear capability to defend myself. Ah, so you think other countries are going to be scared away from nukes because we twiddled our thumbs and did nothing as Iran told us to piss off time and again? That's an interesting take.

Iranians are Persians; not Arabs. Arabs generally do not like Persians and Persians generally do not like Arabs. I assure that the muslim governments in the Middle East are a helluva lot more scared of a nuclear Iran than a nuclear United States. If they persue nukes it will be to deter Iran from attacking them; not the US.

I actually believe that the entire neo-con strategy of deterring asymetric warfare by making an example of Iraq was an exercise in testosterone induced idiocy. The war was manufactured to make a point. In fact, it proved the opposite. It proved that our military might has limits that are much more finite than Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al, sought to demonstrate. In discussing the potential war with Iraq before a house committee in February 2003, Wolfowitz said that Iraq "presents a case of direct threat to the security of the United States and our allies. Indeed, I believe the most significant cost associated with Iraq is the cost of doing nothing. The simple truth is, disarming Iraq and fighting the war on terror are not merely related; disarming Iraq's arsenal of terror is a crucial part of winning the war on terror. If we can disarm or defeat Saddam's brutal regime in Baghdad, it will be a defeat for terrorists globally. The value of such a victory against a terrorist regime will be of incalculable value in the continuing war on terrorism," All this, by the way, was part of his explanation for not including any funds for the impending war in the budget...


Interesting perspective. What about the 24 years of "patience" shown by the Iranian people living under the brutal regime of a Shah put into power by the US after a US engineered overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government? The fact is that Iran has its own government just as we have ours. It is theirs to determine. Since the end of the hostage crisis, they have not acted militarily against the US or Israel. That's semantical hogwash. They funded, trained and supplied people who did (see my above comment for a partial list of their belligerence). They did act against Iraq and its dictator. Saddam Hussein. whom we were supporting. There's a pretty good argument that we were on the wrong side of that particular war. I don't think you'd want to take a vote of the Arab nations. You'd lose. But, of course, our real strategy was simply to prevent either side from winning and establishing a dominant regional position. Had Iraq been on the verge of destroying Iran, I suspect we would have intervened on their behalf instead. That may be right.
The "immediacy" of the threat eludes me now, just as it dd when Wolfowitz and Cheney were promoting war with Iraq. They proved wrong then. I have no reason to believe that the hysterics are smarter today.

Let's pretend, for argument's sake, that Iran is exactly one month away from having an operational nuke and the capacity to deliver it to Israel. What do you do as POTUS?

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 04:46 PM
Let's pretend, for argument's sake, that Iran is exactly one month away from having an operational nuke and the capacity to deliver it to Israel. What do you do as POTUS?
First, they are not anywhere near that stage. Second, I would take the posture we took vis a vis the Russians -- assured destruction on launch.

Wolfowitz and the neo-cons proposed a policy of action based on capability to threaten rather than based on actual threat. That was the fundamental justification for the invasion of Iraq. However, it actually represents a policy of action based on prejudice since there are many countries that threaten us more, based on the combination of capability and hostility, than Iran. And, as I noted before, if I were Iran, my target would be the Saudi and Iraqi oil fields long before I worried about Israel. However, I do not think there is a serious first strike threat from Iran. The government does not have that level of control over the country. I do believe that it would act forcefully against Saudi Arabia and Israel in response to an attack and doubt our ability to prevent such attacks from being effective. It is also possible that they would follow our own logic of preemptive strikes in the event that the threat of Israeli or American action appeared imminent.

From the government's perspective, such actions would not involve significantly more risk than waiting around to be buried under the rubble as you suggest. Saddam Hussein fundamentally believed that the US would not attack. He destroyed his WMD reserves, but never publicized that fact because of his fear that it would encourage dissident forces within the country. Iran knows that our ability to act against it is finite, but too great to risk a first strike. But if we are going to strike first anyway, there is no reason at all for them to hold back. Even if we prevail, the cost will dwarf the cost of the Iraq war and neither our bankers nor our taxpayers will support the effort.

dnf777
02-15-2010, 05:33 PM
Jeff,
One problem with that is that the strategy of 'mutual assured destruction' assumes that the understanding is binding between two rational entities. That may be a far stretch with Iran, especially, as you pointed out, the gov't does NOT have a firm level of control over the country, or more correctly, the country does not have control over its government! The threat of destruction does not jive with self-perceived martyrdom of one of the players.

Perhaps the old trick of finding Iran's top nuclear scientists and engineers, and making them offers "they can't refuse" would work. Just defuse their program with a systemic brain drain.

Hew
02-16-2010, 06:55 AM
One problem with that is that the strategy of 'mutual assured destruction' assumes that the understanding is binding between two rational entities.
Perfectly said.

The other part of the equation that messes up the MAD rationale is that the country being attacked has the capacity to respond in-kind and also destroy the attacker (or have a proxy do it for them). Israel's got some nukes for sure, but they're not on subs, in bombers around-the-clock, or sitting atop ballistic missles. In the event of an Iranian first strike, Israel likely wouldn't have the time necessary to mount more than a nominal nuke response (if at all). That means that the United States must be the guarantors of a nuke response to Iran. Does anyone really believe Obama would pull that trigger? I don't think for one minute he would. And even if he did, it would be a half-measure, token response..."Well, Iran delivered three nukes to Israel, we must respond with three."

YardleyLabs
02-16-2010, 08:12 AM
Perfectly said.

The other part of the equation that messes up the MAD rationale is that the country being attacked has the capacity to respond in-kind and also destroy the attacker (or have a proxy do it for them). Israel's got some nukes for sure, but they're not on subs, in bombers around-the-clock, or sitting atop ballistic missles. In the event of an Iranian first strike, Israel likely wouldn't have the time necessary to mount more than a nominal nuke response (if at all). That means that the United States must be the guarantors of a nuke response to Iran. Does anyone really believe Obama would pull that trigger? I don't think for one minute he would. And even if he did, it would be a half-measure, token response..."Well, Iran delivered three nukes to Israel, we must respond with three."
Such an interesting world, mixing delusions of grandeur with paranoia.:rolleyes:

First, to quote W. Andrew Terrill of the Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, "Iran, despite the zealotry and bombast of some of its leaders, has shown a consistent ability to conduct rational, national interest-based defense and foreign policies that would avoid deliberately provoking a nuclear war against their country." (See http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB854.pdf)

Second, the ability of Iran to launch an attack on Israel that would be sufficient to prevent nuclear retaliation by Israel at a level sufficient to destroy Iran depends on four things:
Development of a multiple, viable nuclear warheads by Iran. This is years away.
Multiple solid fuel missiles with the range needed. It is possible that Iran now has at least some of these based on its joint development projects with China and North Korea
Guidance systems and intelligence to be able to locate and destroy Israeli missile silos. It's not clear that Iran has either.
The ability to penetrate Israel's anti-missile defense system quickly enough to prevent response. This doesn't even appear to be close.Israel does not actually require any support from the US to destroy Iran in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. Obviously, however, Israel would also be destroyed in the process. That brings up a further deterrent to an Iranian nuclear attack. Such an attack would inevitably destroy Jerusalem -- one of the most holy cities of Islam -- and the majority of the West Bank Palestinian population.

I believe that diplomatic and military strategies can delay Iran's development of a nuclear capability, but cannot prevent it. We should maintain those efforts, but ultimately we will be dealing with a nuclear Iran unless there is a fundamental change in its political make-up. That change will not happen through war.

I'm still waiting to hear the military strategy that you believe would allow us to neutralize Iran (without losing Israel, Saudi oil, and possibly Iraqi oil in the process) and also your suggestions of how we will pay for that war and for the consequences of that war. Bombast makes for great theater, but poor military judgment. Let us not once again make the naive assumption that if we act, the Iranian people will miraculously overthrow their government and welcome us with flowers in hand.

zeus3925
02-16-2010, 09:24 AM
What does Iran have to fear from the US? We are in the process of destroying ourselves in so many ways:


We are bleeding the country white by funding two major wars simultaneously, while giving the Fortunate Few big tax cuts.


We have effectively transferred our jobs and manufacturing to China-- killing our economic base in the process.


We have failed to develop a sane energy policy in every administration since the 1973 Arab boycott. We still are hemorrhaging national treasure at an alarming rate to run our gas guzzlers.


Our banking system nearly destroyed the country with financial fictions aided and abetted by the government's failure to provide oversight--all in the name of smaller government.


The country is seeing the rise of the Tea Baggers and other assorted coyotes that are openly preaching secession, insurrection, and civil war.


The Congress has been reduced to band of bickering four year olds, that is way too busy calling names than being interested in working for the good of the Republic.



If I were Ahmadinejad, I'd not fear.

subroc
02-16-2010, 12:00 PM
...

The country is seeing the rise of the Tea Baggers and other assorted coyotes that are openly preaching secession, insurrection, and civil war..all inclusive?

that pesky first amendment...

Yeh, advocating for lower taxes is heresy, traitorous or even seditious.

Pete
02-16-2010, 12:08 PM
[QUOTE][
Improving the relationship between Israel and its immediate neighbors, including Palestinians. That will not happen without significant pressure on Israel to give up its colonial role. It cannot survive as a country if it insists on occupying lands, and even settling lands, where it is not prepared to give rights of citizenship to the resident Palestinian population.
Increase connections between the Iranian people and the rest of the world. Iran, despite its government, has one of the more educated populations in the region and its people are much more open to western culture than its government. The more the country is isolated, the stronger the government will be. Extremism thrives in isolation.
Maintain and expand discrete support for the Iranian political opposition. Support that is too overt can back fire.
Work to reduce Russia's dependency on Iran. Russia is a potent ally for Iran and desperately needs Iranian oil. It is also uniquely positioned to further Iran's nuclear program without regard to our opposition.
Continue working with China to ensure that it understands that it will lose in the event of a confrontation between Iran and the US./QUOTE]

Jeff
In dog terms that I can understand

roll over on your back and piss all over the carpet:)

Pete

Hew
02-16-2010, 12:20 PM
Israel does not actually require any support from the US to destroy Iran in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. Reading between the lines, you would not approve of any American military response to an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel. Is that correct? Obviously, however, Israel would also be destroyed in the process. That brings up a further deterrent to an Iranian nuclear attack. Such an attack would inevitably destroy Jerusalem -- one of the most holy cities of Islam -- and the majority of the West Bank Palestinian population.

I believe that diplomatic and military strategies can delay Iran's development of a nuclear capability, but cannot prevent it. We should maintain those efforts, but ultimately we will be dealing with a nuclear Iran unless there is a fundamental change in its political make-up. That change will not happen through war. You are at odds with, and to the left of Obama, who has said Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapon capacity is unacceptable.

I'm still waiting to hear the military strategy that you believe would allow us to neutralize Iran (without losing Israel, Saudi oil, and possibly Iraqi oil in the process) and also your suggestions of how we will pay for that war and for the consequences of that war. Earlier you were pimping the notion that the Iranian regime is rational and makes decisions based upon their nation's benefit. What is rational about bringing the entire weight of Israeli and US military down upon their military and infrastructure if they were to respond to a limited and targeted attack by Israel with US support with everything in their arsenal? I love how you fret the $$$ cost of a brief and fierce conflict with Iran in an effort to prevent nuclear proliferation to nutjobs and dangerous regimes, but cheer on crazy-expensive boondoggles like Obamacare, Tarp, Cash for Clunkers, et al. Bombast makes for great theater, but poor military judgment. And limpwristed appeasement doesn't make for a very sound or in the long run, safe, foreign policy. Just ask pre-WWII Europe (the ones Hitler didn't kill, anyway). Let us not once again make the naive assumption that if we act, the Iranian people will miraculously overthrow their government and welcome us with flowers in hand. That's the second time in this thread that you've pretended that anyone is actually advocating an Iraq-like invasion of Iran. You should put that straw man back in the closet until Halloween.
........................

Hew
02-16-2010, 12:23 PM
all inclusive?

that pesky first amendment...

Yeh, advocating for lower taxes is heresy, traitorous or even seditious.
C'mon, man. Didn't you get the memo? Since January of '09 dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism and it's no longer acceptable to speak truth to power.

Buzz
02-16-2010, 12:33 PM
all inclusive?

that pesky first amendment...

Yeh, advocating for lower taxes is heresy, traitorous or even seditious.

Interesting how you change the conversation from openly advocating succession, over to advocating lower taxes. As if lower taxes is the only message we're hearing out of the tea party.

Poor Dick Army really needs to get control of that movement.

YardleyLabs
02-16-2010, 12:45 PM
Israel does not actually require any support from the US to destroy Iran in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. Reading between the lines, you would not approve of any American military response to an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel. Is that correct? Where did I say that? You said Obama would not have the cojones to respond. I said Israel was more than capable of destroying Iran whether we helped or not.

I believe that diplomatic and military strategies can delay Iran's development of a nuclear capability, but cannot prevent it. We should maintain those efforts, but ultimately we will be dealing with a nuclear Iran unless there is a fundamental change in its political make-up. That change will not happen through war. You are at odds with, and to the left of Obama, who has said Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapon capacity is unacceptable. Actually not. I said that we should continue diplomatic efforts but that in the long term those efforts would only slow development, not prevent it. My view is consistent with that of War College analysts.

I'm still waiting to hear the military strategy that you believe would allow us to neutralize Iran (without losing Israel, Saudi oil, and possibly Iraqi oil in the process) and also your suggestions of how we will pay for that war and for the consequences of that war. Earlier you were pimping the notion that the Iranian regime is rational and makes decisions based upon their nation's benefit. What is rational about bringing the entire weight of Israeli and US military down upon their military and infrastructure if they were to respond to a limited and targeted attack by Israel with US support with everything in their arsenal? I love how you fret the $$$ cost of a brief and fierce conflict with Iran in an effort to prevent nuclear proliferation to nutjobs and dangerous regimes, but cheer on crazy-expensive boondoggles like Obamacare, Tarp, Cash for Clunkers, et al. Lots of words, but you still didn't indicate what you would do. Are you suggesting that you believe that Iran will not respond substantively if Israel or the US bombs their enrichment facilities into oblivion? What would you consider to be a measured response? Bombing 3-Mile island? Don't undertake a military action unless you are prepared to deal with a measured response. It seems to me that a measured response would be the destruction of similar facilities in Israel or the US. An alternative would be a destruction of US operated oil fields. These would be proportionate reactions, not disproportionate ones within range if Iranian missiles. Expecting that there will be no painful consequences is naive. Bombast makes for great theater, but poor military judgment. And limpwristed appeasement doesn't make for a very sound or in the long run, safe, foreign policy. Just ask pre-WWII Europe (the ones Hitler didn't kill, anyway). So you are equating Imadinnerjacket's public rhetoric with Hitler's invasion of neighboring countries? Talk about blowing things out of proportion. Let us not once again make the naive assumption that if we act, the Iranian people will miraculously overthrow their government and welcome us with flowers in hand. That's the second time in this thread that you've pretended that anyone is actually advocating an Iraq-like invasion of Iran. You should put that straw man back in the closet until Halloween. Actually, I've repeatedly asked you to be specific about what you are recommending, but you have not. My comments in red.

subroc
02-16-2010, 12:58 PM
Interesting how you change the conversation from openly advocating succession, over to advocating lower taxes. As if lower taxes is the only message we're hearing out of the tea party.

Poor Dick Army really needs to get control of that movement.



Interesting how you focus on the succession part of the message rather than the lower taxes part.

It says more about you than them.

So lets see, we have individual citizens that that are grouping together and call themselves a “Tea Party” as a compliment and at some level a complement to all those that came before. Their main issue is lower taxes. As an issue, they are the second coming of an issue that those who founded the United States advocated for. Both the founders and this group are advocating the same issue, lower taxes.

And they are bad or worthy of disdain or contempt because?

Hew
02-16-2010, 01:19 PM
Where did I say that? You said Obama would not have the cojones to respond. I said Israel was more than capable of destroying Iran whether we helped or not. The notion that Israel has the capability to deliver nukes after absorbing a first strike is as every bit open for conjecture as Iran's current state of capability. In other words, both are not completely known. So I'll clarify and ask you a second time, in the event that Israel cannot respond, do you or do you not favor an American nuclear response to Iran? It's a rather simple question.

Actually not. I said that we should continue diplomatic efforts but that in the long term those efforts would only slow development, not prevent it. My view is consistent with that of War College analysts. So then you do disagree with Obama. I'm sure the War College professor will be happy to know you agree with him.

Lots of words, but you still didn't indicate what you would do. My bad. I assumed the context of my posts on this thread would have provided some insight. If Israel wants to strike (they have the biggest dog in the fight so I'd defer to their wishes), we support them with the necessary intelligence, logistics, refuelling, and armaments they need/request. If Iran retaliates by striking back we again provide as much defense to the region as necessary to repel the Iranian response...anti-missle help, air cover/patrols, intelligence and sink every one of their naval ships that ventures out into the Gulf. If Iran wants to continue, then we move on to their infrastructure, command and control, etc... Iran, since they're as rational as you claim, will not want any part of a cruise missle exchange program with the US Navy and Air Force.

Expecting that there will be no painful consequences is naive. And relying on the good will and rationality of Iranian mullahs and Achmedinajiad is dangerously naive.

My comments in red.
Mine:black

YardleyLabs
02-16-2010, 02:04 PM
Mine:black
Where did I say that? You said Obama would not have the cojones to respond. I said Israel was more than capable of destroying Iran whether we helped or not. The notion that Israel has the capability to deliver nukes after absorbing a first strike is as every bit open for conjecture as Iran's current state of capability. In other words, both are not completely known. So I'll clarify and ask you a second time, in the event that Israel cannot respond, do you or do you not favor an American nuclear response to Iran? It's a rather simple question.

Actually not. I said that we should continue diplomatic efforts but that in the long term those efforts would only slow development, not prevent it. My view is consistent with that of War College analysts. So then you do disagree with Obama. I'm sure the War College professor will be happy to know you agree with him.

Lots of words, but you still didn't indicate what you would do. My bad. I assumed the context of my posts on this thread would have provided some insight. If Israel wants to strike (they have the biggest dog in the fight so I'd defer to their wishes), we support them with the necessary intelligence, logistics, refuelling, and armaments they need/request. If Iran retaliates by striking back we again provide as much defense to the region as necessary to repel the Iranian response...anti-missle help, air cover/patrols, intelligence and sink every one of their naval ships that ventures out into the Gulf. If Iran wants to continue, then we move on to their infrastructure, command and control, etc... Iran, since they're as rational as you claim, will not want any part of a cruise missle exchange program with the US Navy and Air Force.

Expecting that there will be no painful consequences is naive. And relying on the good will and rationality of Iranian mullahs and Achmedinajiad is dangerously naive.
I believe that the US should respond overwhelmingly if Iran launches an unproviked attack on Israel. I would provide no overt support to Israel for a first strike against Iran and would not reply aggressively if Iran launched a proportionate response against Israel following an unprovoked Israeli first strike. WSe must defend our ally, but we must not allow our ally to force us into a conflict we do not want.

If I were Iran responding to a first strike by Israel or the US, I would use the event to consolidate my power within Iran. I would also launch an attack on US oil assets in the region. If US forces based in Saudi provided any support for the Israeli action, I would target oil fields in Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, I would target oil fields in/near Kurdish areas of Iraq to minimize the impact on Iraqi Shiyas. I would also act to restrict traffic through the Persian Gulf. Any action launched from Saudi Arabia would be replied to with attacks on Saudi oil. Finally, if I could target two reactors in Israel, or two specifically military targets, I would. Otherwise, I would basically ignore Israel and blame the entire action on the US. If things stop there, Iran has succeeded in inflicting immediate damage on the US economy. Iran has lost two enrichment facilities that are irrelevant to their economy and to their actual military strength. Their alliance with Russia and China will probably be strengthened and they will certainly be much stronger at home. If the US and Israel pursue additional action, there will be a long and expensive war with an uncertain outcome but guaranteed massive damage to all involved.

If, by contrast, Iran accepts the destruction of its nuclear facilities without response, I suspect that the current government will be doomed. That is why I believe they will respond with force.

For what it's worth, your hypothetical scenario is exactly what was played out in a recent simulation at Harvard. In that action, Iran attacked Saudi oil fields and the US ended up a major loser.

zeus3925
02-16-2010, 04:41 PM
Interesting how you focus on the succession part of the message rather than the lower taxes part.

So lets see, we have individual citizens that that are grouping together and call themselves a “Tea Party” as a compliment and at some level a complement to all those that came before. Their main issue is lower taxes. As an issue, they are the second coming of an issue that those who founded the United States advocated for. Both the founders and this group are advocating the same issue, lower taxes.

And they are bad or worthy of disdain or contempt because?

Can't say I have an issue with that want lower taxes but the Tea Baggers are not the Holy Innocents that you portray them to be. If they are preaching civil war, insurrection, secession, and other mayhem because they want war and government for free, they are not of this planet. They are just another source of rectal discomfort.

subroc
02-16-2010, 04:44 PM
Can't say I have an issue with that want lower taxes but the Tea Baggers are not the Holy Innocents that you portray them to be. If they are preaching civil war, insurrection, secession, and other mayhem because they want war and government for free, they are not of this planet. They are just another source of rectal discomfort.


If you choose to focus on who the “Tea Party” movement really is, you will focus on a group of United States citizens that is advocating lower taxes.

If you choose to focus on the half truths, fringe elements, or sound bites that the left wing media, and extreme radical left wing groups use to characterize them, you can paint them any way you want, truth be damned.

No need to be honest with yourself.

huntinman
02-16-2010, 05:22 PM
Can't say I have an issue with that want lower taxes but the Tea Baggers are not the Holy Innocents that you portray them to be. If they are preaching civil war, insurrection, secession, and other mayhem because they want war and government for free, they are not of this planet. They are just another source of rectal discomfort.

Keep on kidding yourself this way. You are doing the exact same thing all the arrogant politicians have been doing. Looking down on the "average American". Politicians who keep their heads in the sand and ridicule the majority of Americans will find themselves out of office wondering what happened.

Hew
02-16-2010, 05:30 PM
I believe that the US should respond overwhelmingly if Iran launches an unproviked attack on Israel. I would provide no overt support to Israel for a first strike against Iran and would not reply aggressively if Iran launched a proportionate response against Israel following an unprovoked Israeli first strike. WSe must defend our ally, but we must not allow our ally to force us into a conflict we do not want. Any Israeli first strike would be in response to decades of Iranian provocation in the form of Iran's support of terror against Israel, and their pursuit of nukes in conjunction with a stated desire to destroy Israel.

If I were Iran responding to a first strike by Israel or the US, I would use the event to consolidate my power within Iran. I would also launch an attack on US oil assets in the region. If US forces based in Saudi provided any support for the Israeli action, I would target oil fields in Saudi Arabia. Well, since we haven't had any military worth mentioning in Saudi Arabia since we closed down the airbase in 2003 I think you'd have to come up with another excuse. How's this one...Saudi Arabia so much wants to see Iran's nuke ambitions cut off at the knees that they have quietly and privately agreed to turn a blind eye to Israeli overflight of their kingdom to make it happen. Otherwise, I would target oil fields in/near Kurdish areas of Iraq to minimize the impact on Iraqi Shiyas. I would also act to restrict traffic through the Persian Gulf. If you'd like to review your navy from a glass bottom boat then sending them out into harms way in Gulf might be a good idea. Any action launched from Saudi Arabia would be replied to with attacks on Saudi oil. Finally, if I could target two reactors in Israel, or two specifically military targets, I would. You hit a nuclear reactor in Israel and that's tantamount to nuking them. Maybe any Iranian survivors can open a glass bead shop where your headquarters once stood (in about 75 years or so). I thought you said the Iranian regime was rational. Otherwise, I would basically ignore Israel and blame the entire action on the US. If things stop there, Iran has succeeded in inflicting immediate damage on the US economy. Iran has lost two enrichment facilities that are irrelevant to their economy and to their actual military strength. Their alliance with Russia and China will probably be strengthened and they will certainly be much stronger at home. If the US and Israel pursue additional action, there will be a long and expensive war with an uncertain outcome but guaranteed massive damage to all involved.

If, by contrast, Iran accepts the destruction of its nuclear facilities without response, I suspect that the current government will be doomed. That is why I believe they will respond with force.

For what it's worth, your hypothetical scenario is exactly what was played out in a recent simulation at Harvard. In that action, Iran attacked Saudi oil fields and the US ended up a major loser.
.................

zeus3925
02-16-2010, 06:17 PM
If you choose to focus on who the “Tea Party” movement really is, you will focus on a group of United States citizens that is advocating lower taxes.

If you choose to focus on the half truths, fringe elements, or sound bites that the left wing media, and extreme radical left wing groups use to characterize them, you can paint them any way you want, truth be damned.

No need to be honest with yourself.

Well, subroc, here's one for you!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35416483/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

zeus3925
02-16-2010, 06:26 PM
Keep on kidding yourself this way. You are doing the exact same thing all the arrogant politicians have been doing. Looking down on the "average American". Politicians who keep their heads in the sand and ridicule the majority of Americans will find themselves out of office wondering what happened.

Well, I'm a pretty average American and there is a lot to admire about those us of similar persuasion. But the Tea Baggers are not the "average American". Real Americans don't countenance secessionism, or insurrection against their country as a vehicle to achieve their agenda.

YardleyLabs
02-16-2010, 06:29 PM
Any Israeli first strike would be in response to decades of Iranian provocation in the form of Iran's support of terror against Israel, and their pursuit of nukes in conjunction with a stated desire to destroy Israel.
There is always provocation and I have yet to see a situation where it didn't go both ways. First strike is first strike. If you want to go back in history, I'm not sure where you draw the statute of limitations. I mean, we still boycott Cuba for throwing out the Mafia.:rolleyes: Where does our ouster of the elected government if Iran and our installation of the Shah fit into that equation? There are no white hats in the Middle East.

Hew
02-16-2010, 06:35 PM
There are no white hats in the Middle East.
That's the dang truth.

subroc
02-16-2010, 07:15 PM
Well, subroc, here's one for you!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35416483/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

your makin' my point!

re-read above.

huntinman
02-16-2010, 08:22 PM
Well, I'm a pretty average American and there is a lot to admire about those us of similar persuasion. But the Tea Baggers are not the "average American". Real Americans don't countenance secessionism, or insurrection against their country as a vehicle to achieve their agenda.

There are extreme views in any group, but most tea PARTIERS are not as you describe. By continuing to denigrate them, you only make yourself look ignorant.

Sundown49 aka Otey B
02-16-2010, 09:14 PM
Zeus, ratherthan reading what the media has to say about the "tea partiers" the next time they have a meeting in your area go see for yourself what they are advocating. Probably surprise you very much....

Franco
02-16-2010, 09:43 PM
I attended the first Tea Party rally here in town last April 15th. I have no problem with the movement as long as they stick to Fiscal Conservatism. Lets face it, our government is out-of-control. What really set them off was when Obama signed the 800 billion Porkulus Bill laden with pork and earmarks.

At the July 4th rally, there were many religious leaders there leading the group with prayer and wanting to incorporate other issues. That's when I decided I didn't belong.

JDogger
02-16-2010, 09:47 PM
Yer average tea bagger;

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/moran.jpg

Need I say more?


JD

subroc
02-17-2010, 10:59 AM
How does this view of the original tea party and the current tea party square with your view?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/17/party_like_its_1773.html

JDogger
02-17-2010, 11:30 AM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0205/Tea-party-movement-lessons-from-earlier-uprisings

How does this square with yours?

Ken Bora
02-17-2010, 11:34 AM
You know guys,
Somebody should have seen this back at the end of WWII. In my opinion. After the war when the united nations decided to parcel up Palestine and create a homeland for the Jews. The homeland was already populated. If, back then, the U.N. had given the Jews Florida there would be a lot less violence in the world.

.

ducknwork
02-17-2010, 11:55 AM
Yer average tea bagger;

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/moran.jpg

Need I say more?


JD

Yore avreaeg Obama votre

http://i474.photobucket.com/albums/rr104/sedwards_08/misc/i-have-a-deram-789848.jpg

Need I say more?

JDogger
02-17-2010, 12:04 PM
No, but it does point out that whatever your position on any subject, there is something on the internet to support it.:)

JD