PDA

View Full Version : Armchair Warriors



menmon
03-08-2012, 12:11 PM
Let's chew on this for a while.

All these politicians on the campaign trail are talking tough talk about attacking Iran, with the exception of Ron Paul.

Let's frame this against the Cuban Missile Crisis. Back then the republicans had different views of how to handle this too, and this went down in history as an act of real deplomicy that did not cost American lives or huge sums of taxpayer dollars.

Now lets consider the negative consequences of going to war in Iran:

Stockmarket tumbles, as it adjust for the disruption in the middle east

Gasoline skyrockets

American give their lives

Huge financial burden on American

Now lets consider the positive consequences of going to war in Iran:

Defense stocks rally as defense contractors profit from it

Jobs are created by these contractors

Oil companies make huge profits off the skyrocketing oil prices

Fewer unemployed because they are at war

Now think about the interest groups that want this war and think about the cost of American lives and something closer to your heart, the massive debt to finance it and the tax burden it will create:(

Franco
03-08-2012, 12:53 PM
Inspectors will give an accurate assessment as to whether they are buiding weapons. We should know soon what Iran's intentions are.

The three candidates thumping thier chest is only because the far right has come to embrace war over peace and gather votes from the uninformed.

And, if they are going to build nuclear weapons, it would be in the interest of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to handle that situation. It is not "our fight"! If we attack Iran, we only galvenize thier hate of the west. Iran is falling apart from within and we should work that option instead.

Also, what about the missing USSR nukes, radical Islam within Pakistan and N Korea? Captain America to the resue?;-)

swliszka
03-08-2012, 01:11 PM
Folks-I had boots on the ground in that part of the world in the early 1970s.
I was trained by the USA to cover your butts before the deluge hit. Now ,
remember Ronald Reagan's best White House vistor/buddy Sadaam Hussain who used American poison gas to kill his own Kurdish people? Moreover , what about the war between Iraq-Iran where 600,000 Iraqi died and one million Iranians. You want a "ground war?" Whose ready to send their son? The neo-cons talk smart when their blood won't be spilled . I am not a pacifist!

Hew
03-08-2012, 01:37 PM
A bunch of fairy tales packed into a few posts...

- Who in their right mind, on either side of the aisle is proposing a boots-on-the-ground or all-out war with Iran?!?

- "Iran is falling apart from within." By what standard of measurement do you claim that? Their's is one of the few economies that has flourished in the current global recession. Seen any political protests/upheaval in Iran lately? Yeah, me neither. Waiting for Iran to whither and die will be an awful long wait; particularly if they're sitting on a stockpile of nukes.

- As a small point of fact, Saddam Hussein never visited the White House or had any meetings with Reagan. As a large point of fact, the United States did NOT supply Iraq with chemical weapons. That's pure fantasy.

Hew
03-08-2012, 01:51 PM
I would tell the Iranians that they need to immediatly stop their uranium enrichment program. If they don't within three days agree to, then I would suggest destroying from the air. Experts estimate it would take about 1,000 sorties to do enough damage deep enough to put them out of business.


Who was that masked neo-con?!? :D:-P:D

swliszka
03-08-2012, 02:38 PM
Donald Rumsfield talked to Saddam as did Reagan via phone. Secondly we tactically
advised , directed and taught the Iraqis how to "defeat the great Ayatollah" using all types of weapons. We exchanged one-psuedo enemy for a greater one! Naivete is not my suit nor is fantasy. Don't do the talk unless you did the walk!

Jason Glavich
03-08-2012, 03:29 PM
Donald Rumsfield talked to Saddam as did Reagan via phone. Secondly we tactically
advised , directed and taught the Iraqis how to "defeat the great Ayatollah" using all types of weapons. We exchanged one-psuedo enemy for a greater one! Naivete is not my suit nor is fantasy. Don't do the talk unless you did the walk!

Including the ones we sold them.

BonMallari
03-08-2012, 03:31 PM
Does Israel bombing Iran change the outcome of our election in Nov

or

Does the outcome of our election in Nov determine if Israel bombs Iran


which scenario does the current admin want to see

which scenario are you more afraid of

road kill
03-08-2012, 03:39 PM
Folks-I had boots on the ground in that part of the world in the early 1970s.
I was trained by the USA to cover your butts before the deluge hit. Now ,
remember Ronald Reagan's best White House vistor/buddy Sadaam Hussain who used American poison gas to kill his own Kurdish people? Moreover , what about the war between Iraq-Iran where 600,000 Iraqi died and one million Iranians. You want a "ground war?" Whose ready to send their son? The neo-cons talk smart when their blood won't be spilled . I am not a pacifist!



Donald Rumsfield talked to Saddam as did Reagan via phone. Secondly we tactically
advised , directed and taught the Iraqis how to "defeat the great Ayatollah" using all types of weapons. We exchanged one-psuedo enemy for a greater one! Naivete is not my suit nor is fantasy. Don't do the talk unless you did the walk!

Which is it??

I beleive I "walked the walk" enough to comment on your credibilty based on your posts.

RK

Franco
03-08-2012, 04:40 PM
Does Israel bombing Iran change the outcome of our election in Nov

or

Does the outcome of our election in Nov determine if Israel bombs Iran


which scenario does the current admin want to see

which scenario are you more afraid of

Here is the CATO Institutes take on the subject of an Irainan Nuclear threat. The most realistic that I've read as well as the most sane approach.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/nuclear-iran-is-exaggerated-threat

No wonder the Koch Brothers are attempting a hostile takeover of the CATO Inst.
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/08/the-koch-brothers-the-cato-institute-and-why-nations-fail/

menmon
03-08-2012, 04:57 PM
Does Israel bombing Iran change the outcome of our election in Nov

or

Does the outcome of our election in Nov determine if Israel bombs Iran


which scenario does the current admin want to see

which scenario are you more afraid of

This is not about the election....Israel could care less about our election regarding this subject.

Now all these nominees want to spin it that Obama is weak on national security while trying to make you believe they are not.

I'm sure Obama would rather not be dealing with this but that is his job. His track record on national security and the war on terror has been excellent so obviously he is listening to the right people and using good judgement:)

So what is your point?

BonMallari
03-08-2012, 05:11 PM
This is not about the election....Israel could care less about our election regarding this subject.

Now all these nominees want to spin it that Obama is weak on national security while trying to make you believe they are not.

I'm sure Obama would rather not be dealing with this but that is his job. His track record on national security and the war on terror has been excellent so obviously he is listening to the right people and using good judgement:)

So what is your point?

Oh really ??? I would think they have more than just a passing interest in how the election pans out....If Iran pushes any further and tensions are escalated, they wont wait for BHO's blessing...if BHO loses and they feel that a new administration will back them without any reservations they may hold off any attack

That was my point

menmon
03-08-2012, 05:45 PM
Oh really ??? I would think they have more than just a passing interest in how the election pans out....If Iran pushes any further and tensions are escalated, they wont wait for BHO's blessing...if BHO loses and they feel that a new administration will back them without any reservations they may hold off any attack

That was my point

So what your saying is they want a sugar daddy to pay the bills to go to war. And if they think one of the idiots running for president could win and pay for their war, they would wait to go to war...must not be that critical if they have that luxury of choice.

Having said all that, we better hope that Obama wins so that we are not paying for Isreals war:rolleyes:

BonMallari
03-08-2012, 05:48 PM
So what your saying is they want a sugar daddy to pay the bills to go to war. And if they think one of the idiots running for president could win and pay for their war, they would wait to go to war...must not be that critical if they have that luxury of choice.

Having said all that, we better hope that Obama wins so that we are not paying for Isreals war:rolleyes:

How do you leap to that conclusion...

menmon
03-08-2012, 05:52 PM
How do you leap to that conclusion...

so you are saying they would wait if obama losses

menmon
03-08-2012, 05:57 PM
Actually your point is not that far off....our history with them is us paying more than we should. If I could convince someone else that my problem was theirs to get them to fit the bill, that would be a better course of action that me paying for it.

Obama gets this. Isreal is trying to get a large financial commitment out of him and he has not bitten yet, nor will he.

BonMallari
03-08-2012, 06:25 PM
so you are saying they would wait if obama losses


seems like you have a real habit of trying to put words in peoples mouths....my original post was a question....you seem to want to connect the dots and come to a conclusion ....

Matt McKenzie
03-08-2012, 07:47 PM
seems like you have a real habit of trying to put words in peoples mouths....my original post was a question....you seem to want to connect the dots and come to a conclusion ....

Bon, you know what they say about 'rassling a pig. You just get muddy and sooner or later you realize that the pig is enjoying it. I already got enough mud in my hair from this one.

Franco
03-08-2012, 07:50 PM
A bunch of fairy tales packed into a few posts...

- Who in their right mind, on either side of the aisle is proposing a boots-on-the-ground or all-out war with Iran?!?

- "Iran is falling apart from within." By what standard of measurement do you claim that? Their's is one of the few economies that has flourished in the current global recession. Seen any political protests/upheaval in Iran lately? Yeah, me neither. Waiting for Iran to whither and die will be an awful long wait; particularly if they're sitting on a stockpile of nukes.

- As a small point of fact, Saddam Hussein never visited the White House or had any meetings with Reagan. As a large point of fact, the United States did NOT supply Iraq with chemical weapons. That's pure fantasy.

Can't have you pie and eat it too;-)

It could take several thousand sorties to incapacitate Iran's nuke capabilities. And, we would have to repeat it every two years to keep in inoperatable. Unless, someone puts boots on the ground. Better to keep the sanctions around their neck until they allow regular inspections. Lets don't forget that the Israelis have over 300 nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

Matt McKenzie
03-08-2012, 08:01 PM
Can't have you pie and eat it too;-)

It could take several thousand sorties to incapacitate Iran's nuke capabilities. And, we would have to repeat it every two years to keep in inoperatable. Unless, someone puts boots on the ground. Better to keep the sanctions around their neck until they allow regular inspections. Lets don't forget that the Israelis have over 300 nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

Because sanctions worked so well with Saddam and Kim Jong Il, right? I'm not convinced we need to start launching tomahawks, but what we're doing isn't working. I haven't seen a single situation where economic sanctions stopped a tyrant or rogue regime from achieving their ends. The last time things got really warm with Iran, we had to blow up some oil platforms to get them to settle down. I know, because I was there, "walking the walk".
It's a complex issue that is easy to demagogue and oversimplify for political gain. The Republican candidates are doing it just like Obama did when GW was in office. Remember all the things Obama was going to do differently than W? Gitmo, Patriot Act, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But of course once he got into office, he followed the same programs almost to the letter. I pay close attention to what they say about economic and fiscal policy, but not much about what they say about the Iran situation. One man's opinion.

Hew
03-09-2012, 02:11 AM
Donald Rumsfield talked to Saddam as did Reagan via phone. Secondly we tactically
advised , directed and taught the Iraqis how to "defeat the great Ayatollah" using all types of weapons. We exchanged one-psuedo enemy for a greater one! Naivete is not my suit nor is fantasy. Don't do the talk unless you did the walk!
I'm glad to see you've revised your previous innacuracies about a) Reagan meeting w/ Saddam in the White House, and more importantly b) that we sold Iraq chemical weapons. Kudos to you, sir.

Hew
03-09-2012, 02:17 AM
It could take several thousand sorties to incapacitate Iran's nuke capabilities. And, we would have to repeat it every two years to keep in inoperatable. Unless, someone puts boots on the ground. Better to keep the sanctions around their neck until they allow regular inspections. Lets don't forget that the Israelis have over 300 nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
LOL. Pssst...you were the masked neo-con who said:



I would tell the Iranians that they need to immediatly stop their uranium enrichment program. If they don't within three days agree to, then I would suggest destroying from the air. Experts estimate it would take about 1,000 sorties to do enough damage deep enough to put them out of business.


What a difference a few years makes, I guess. Malleable much? I hope Ron Paul doesn't ask his minions to drink any strange tasting kool-ade. ;-)

paul young
03-09-2012, 05:22 AM
LOL. Pssst...you were the masked neo-con who said:


What a difference a few years makes, I guess. Malleable much? I hope Ron Paul doesn't ask his minions to drink any strange tasting kool-ade. ;-)

i'm just one person, but i voted for Reagan because i saw him a a centrist.-Paul

ooops, wrong quote. i was responding to Gerry.....

Franco
03-09-2012, 11:34 AM
LOL. Pssst...you were the masked neo-con who said:


What a difference a few years makes, I guess. Malleable much? I hope Ron Paul doesn't ask his minions to drink any strange tasting kool-ade. ;-)

Well, things change.

A couple of years ago, I too was just another paranoid Republican before I heard the voice of reason;-)

road kill
03-09-2012, 11:37 AM
i'm just one person, but i voted for Reagan because i saw him a a centrist.-Paul

ooops, wrong quote. i was responding to Gerry.....
Just out of curiosity, is that the same rationale you used in voting for Obama???:cool:


RK

menmon
03-09-2012, 04:09 PM
I want a president that keeps us out of this. It is not our war and we can't afford it. End of story!