The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: A what if or When if question

  1. #21
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    ...
    • 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.
    Last edited by subroc; 02-16-2010 at 11:06 AM.
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,771

    Default

    [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

  3. #23
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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.
    ........................
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    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.
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    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.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  6. #26
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    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?
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  9. #29
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    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.

  10. #30
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    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.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •