Oh, all so very simple. We just fly over and bomb and pound Iran from ships. I see. And by doing so, they'll learn their lesson and will never threaten or harm anyone ever again. They'll never pass materials off to nameless terrorist organizations.....because let me guess......with Red's special forces team, like Team America, they will go in and destroy all of the deadly poisonous gas under cover of darkness. Let's do that with N. Korea, hell, all the Arabs huh? Is that what you propose? Do you read romance novels too Red?
In which we lose 3000 men and you and your ilk will be crying to "make love, not war." So we go into Iran, kill all the leadership or something and then head home huh? Cool idea. What do we do with all of this heavy military force Red?
We've heard it all before. How about American Imperialism. What right does America have to impose our form of government through out the world? They would say the US president did it to control the oil in the middle east, blood for oil, if it was a republican in office at the same time while ignoring oil for food. Just think about all the innocent civilians that would be killed not to mention Americans lost in these countries.
They had 2 a-bombs dropped on them too. That was a defeated society that would have pissed themselves on command.
Quit whining and pay attention, you might learn something. Ahmadinejad has threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz which would close oil supplies. The US will not let this happen, but it will be necessary to destroy Iran's navy and air force to keep the straits open. Stop misrepresenting my position. If you have some ideas, lets hear them, but you can't just make up stuff and attribute it to me. Nobody is fooled. No, but I read a lot of non-fiction on international geo-politics, physical gepgraphy, and military capabilities. You clearly know very little about such things. It's all about moonbats to you. Again, you make up things that I did not say instead of telling us what you think. Wise up will you! You can't find one single post where I have advocated "peace". I'm advocating smarter military policy, as are our generals, by the way. Military casualties do not upset me unless they are wasted, unneccessary casualties as in Vietnam and Iraq. Where did I say that? Nowhere, you made it up. I have never advocated an invasion of Iraq or a decapitation strike. I advocate being prepared to deal with Iranian transgression which will surely happen. They will either threaten US middle east allies and our bases with nuclear attack, or they will attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz, at which point we must take action. And the heavy forces will be needed in South Korea if Kim comes over the line. Why do you feel a need to make up stuff and put words into my mouth? I have clearly stated my position, but you keep trying to paint me with some other brush that you understand better. You have quarrelled with everybody on FSA and now you are quarrelling with yourself! :lol:
OK, so the Iranian transgression.....we'll deal with that right? What if the Iranian transgression is giving a bomb to nameless terrorists.....but there's no proof? What good will our heavy army do then? Iran won't have their name on anything. They won't get into a face to face war with us, you know that. You still act as if we can just sit and wait for them to act before we do anything. It's not what you say that's important cause you're living in an alternative reality. It's what you don't say that's important. You leave out the most plausible scenarios and then create scenario's that fit your view. Yes, if Iran attacked Israel, then yes our army would go in and push them back, destroy them then come home. Everyone gets that. But Iran won't attack Israel for that reason. OK, Red, everybody knows how smart you think you are so you can't quit attempting to remind everyone.
You can't "impose" Democracy on anybody. If Iraq has initiated democratic reforms it is because it was desired by the majority of Iraqies. Terrorism was never a real threat to the fledgling democracy, but sectarian violence is. Everyone has a right to be concerned it the sectarian violence continues, and worse, expands. So far it is not a full-fledged civil war, but it has the potential to become one. Iraq has been given the opportunity to really make something of their nation that is worthwhile, but if they can't stop hating each other that opportunity could become a wasted opportunity.
So how are you suggesting we deal with that? Seriously. We have ways to determine the origin of nuclear materials. They are highly classified, but involve the amounts/ratios of various radioactive isotope signatures that are detected. America does a lot of research and espionage to keep up with these things. I really don't think it is likely that Iran would give a nuclear weapon to terrorists that has its return address on it. The same thing was true about Saddam. It is too risky and has terrible consequences. Those terrroists could get caught and talk or the weapon could be captured. And even if they detonated it we could still determine its origin. And such an attack is the ONE thing that would cause the US to destroy Iran with nuclear weapons. We could easily target 3,000 weapons on Iran, although 30 or 40 would put them out of business militarily and industrially. What they want is to have a weapon as a deterrent. Not so much to deter America, but to deter their nuclear armed regional powers -- Israel, Pakistan, and India. Iran wants to be the main player in the Middle East. But I think Ahmahdinejad does think that if he owns a nuclear weapon, we will not try to stop him from closing the Straits. He is quite wrong, of course.
What he will do goofball is hand off some kind of material........uranium that can be exploded with a simple cell phone make L.A. a wasteland for about 25 years. That can come from Iran, Africa, Korea, Russia with no nametag attached. What good is our heavy military then genius?
