Neville Chamberlain
by Booman
Since Kevin James couldn't do it, I'll answer Chris Matthews question. What did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in Munich in 1938?
I'm going to gloss over a lot of detail here for brevity's sake. Adolf Hitler invaded Austria in March 1938 as part of a larger program that was sold as a unification of Germanic peoples. His next step was to demand that a German speaking area of Czechoslovakia (called the Sudetenland) be ceded to Germany. Czechoslovakia had a mutual defense treaty with France, and France had a mutual defense treaty with England. If Germany invaded Czechoslovakia then France was duty-bound to declare war on Germany. And if France found itself at war with Germany, then England was duty-bound to come to France's aid.
In other words, Hitler's irresponsible demands were threatening to pull all of Europe into a Second World War. Just twenty years earlier, in the First World War, France had suffered 1.7 million killed and 4.2 million injured, while the U.K. suffered one million killed and 1.7 million injured. In total, the war had cost 20 million people their lives and injured another 22 million. And when it was all over, no one could make a convincing argument for why the war had been necessary. It was in this context that Neville Chamberlain sought to avoid a resumption of a continent-wide war, with new and more powerful weapons. He decided to sell-out the Czechoslovakians, and got France's agreement to renege on their treaty obligations. Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier decided to use a strategy of appeasement to prevent war. Here is what happened:
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler in Berchtesgaden on 15 September [1938] and agreed to the cession of the Sudetenland. Three days later, French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier did the same. No Czechoslovak representative was invited to these discussions.Chamberlain met Hitler in Godesberg on September 22 to confirm the agreements. Hitler however, aiming at using the crisis as a pretext for war, now demanded not only the annexation of the Sudetenland but the immediate military occupation of the territories, giving the Czechoslovakian army no time to adapt their defence measures to the new borders. To achieve a solution, Italian prime minister Benito Mussolini suggested a conference of the major powers in Munich and on September 29, Hitler, Daladier and Chamberlain met and agreed to Mussolini's proposal (actually prepared by Hermann Göring) and signed the Munich Agreement accepting the immediate occupation of the Sudetenland. The Czechoslovak government, though not party to the talks, promised to abide by the agreement on September 30.
The Sudetenland was occupied by Germany between October 1 and October 10, 1938. This unification with the Third Reich was followed by the flight or expulsion of most of the region's Czech population to areas remaining within Czechoslovakia.
The remaining parts of Czechoslovakia were subsequently invaded and annexed by Germany in March 1939.
The initial reaction to the Munich agreement in England and France was very positive. No one wanted war. But the strategy backfired because it only made Hitler stronger and more ambitious. And it made it much harder to defeat him when war eventually became unavoidable.
Ever since, it has been an article of faith that it is never a good idea to appease your enemies. However, this hard won lesson is being misappropriated by the Bush administration, and McCain and Lieberman, to suggest that simply talking to your enemies is constructively the same as appeasing them. Neville Chamberlain isn't reviled by history for traveling to Munich and holding discussions with Adolf Hitler. He is reviled for handing over the Sudetenland to Hitler without a fight, as if that would make the problem of National Socialism go away.
Chamberlain made a gamble for peace. He tried to spare the world a catastrophe. And, remember, while Germany lost the war, England lost their empire. Ultimately, Chamberlain made the wrong call. He did so in part because he so wanted to avoid war. He also misjudged his enemy. And that is the real key.
Hitler did not have limited territorial objectives, but nearly boundless territorial ones. And everywhere he sent his armies he intended to commit atrocities of unprecedented and unimaginable savagery. Not only that, but he had the military wherewithal to carry these ambitions out. And the question we need to ask McCain, Lieberman, and Bush is, how does modern day Iran resemble Nazi Germany in any of these respects?
They have no military wherewithal to seize and hold territory. They are making no territorial demands. Their human rights record is fairly deplorable but nothing compared to Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe. If you ask Iran what they want, they want assurances that we won't attack them, not the other way around. They would like normalized relations and a lifting of sanctions. It's hard to see how they have much of anything at all in common with Nazi Germany.
The one area where there is a similarity is in their anti-Semitic pronouncements, and in their aid to groups that commit and have committed lethal acts against innocent Jews. As long as Iran engages in this rhetoric and behavior, they have to be considered as a hostile nation. They cannot be rewarded or appeased for their irresponsible actions. But that doesn't mean that we can't talk to them. It means that if we are going to give them anything we must get something in return.
Iran is more powerful because we toppled Saddam Hussein and insisted on letting the Iraqis elect a Shi'ite-dominated government. They now have an ally in Iraq, rather than an implacable foe. That may have been a strategic error on our part, but it not Iran's fault. We must now live with the consequences of our actions. We have a weaker negotiating hand than we had before Bush became president and ran our foreign policy off the rails. But Iran did not suddenly become as powerful as Nazi Germany. They do not require appeasement, nor do we need to attack them now before they get stronger. They cannot and will not attack Israel, except by proxy. And we have no good reason not to talk to them in the interests of peace.
Yes, they are our enemies and the enemies of Israel. But talking to them is not appeasing them. Neville Chamberlain didn't make a mistake by talking to Hitler. He made a mistake by caving in to his demands. No one is suggesting that we cave in to Iran's demands. And Iran isn't about to conquer half of Central Asia and exterminate 9 million innocent people if we get our strategy wrong. Enough of the warmongering. It's time to have a little diplomacy for a change.
- Original article
- FILED UNDER: Guest Blogger
- May 16, 2008
Bravo for common sense
Thank you, thank you, thank you for breaking down the false analogy so succinctly. And yes, the real issue is how, exactly, is Iran an unmanageable threat? Their view of the Middle East may not align with ours but isn't that their right as a sovereign nation? And they may be hostile to Israel, but the debate over the legitimacy of the creation of the state of Israel has been taboo for too long in this country. Israel was created in the aftermath of a European conflict that engulfed the whole world, in a majority non-Jewish, non-European area by guilt-ridden European, or at least 'Western' states. We may abhor the tactics of Palestinians and Lebanese who are living with the results of the less than just policies carried out in the wake of World Wars I and II in their backyard, but those who see themselves as having more in common with the losers in Europe's post-colonial manipulations understandably see it quite differently. We should at least acknowledge the rationality of our enemy's position if we want to understand how to effectively deal with it. Then maybe we can find a large enough space of common agreement for the majorities on both sides to isolate those who feel that suffering on their side justifies committing atrocities against the other side-an interminable causus belli. That will take some honest discussion. Even about Israel.
We are dealing with the governments in U.S., Israel, and Iran
Three entrenched factions, whose leaders have eyeballs so close together, that they chafe. Three eccentric governments that
don't represent the majority of their beautiful populations.
Oil-puppets were run out of Iran, because of their disconnect
with the population. Islamic fundamentalists gained a foothold,
because of the oil companies failure to comprehend the dynamics on the ground. They are doing it again today.
Every time one pulls up to a fuel pump, they enforce the righteousness of several diluded, disconnected causes.
Blame the oil companies for hampering the natural free-flow of democracy, and an unintimidated intellectual community atmosphere, in the Middle East.
Never ask an oil company to do your diplomatic and leglislative
processes for you.
In conclusion, the proper direction is clear. Open dialogue between the three cultures, that carefully transcends the
mistakes of the past.
Those who must conceive a frame of open dialogue as a sign of weakness, will avoid direct communication with everybody outside their safe circle. This trait stems from minds used to stabbing...and being stabbed...in the back.
We must demand open venues of civilian interaction between the cultures. Surrounded by as many layers of acceptable security checkpoints to soothe the uncomfortable. Then set back and let the magic take place.
Another differance....
...is that when Chamberlain was at Munich he was negotiating from a position of weakness...ie even though Germany wasn't totally re-armed France/Britain weren't ready for a general war and as stated the general public had no stomach for one. Basically Hitler was in the drivers seat...especially since Italy was backing them (at that time Italy was considered more militarily capable than they actually were)
Even with Iraq the U.S would be talking to Iran from a position of military strength (ie while an invasion isn't wanted or practicle or even pheasable at this point....naval/air strikes certainly have the ability to destroy much of the Iranian military capabilities) The Iranians would have a lot of incentive to come to some sort of accomidation and they could claim "victory" by having "forced" the U.S to talk to them as equals.
If the next admin is willing to swallow Irans "victory" I think we could make some progress in direct talks. It's going to take some courage by Obama to do that as he will be hit with all the current B.S arguments but if he achieves something from the talks that will go away.
If the talks produce nothing....he'll take a political hit IMO.
Actually, upon further review....
...it's going to take alot of Political courage for Obama to have direct talks with the Iranians.
He'll be taking a chance that the screwy Iranians will come to the talks with no intention of caving in to the "Great Satin".
I'm sure his political/foreign relations advisors will be advising him of all the risks. It's much easier and politically safer to just not talk to them than put yourself out on that limb. It takes no courage to talk tuff from a position of military strength...it's the easy way out--politically safe.
Along with Iraq, talking to Iran will be the first real test of the Obama administration. It'll set the table for the rest of his administration....very real chance to make him look weak....if he doesn't talk with him he renigs on a campaign promise....if he fails, well, who knows.
I think he has the courage to carry through but it has a lot of pitfalls he'll have to overcome. The Iranians have to have a way to accomadate us AND not look like they're caving in......very nuanced diplomacy.
By SgtDMay 16, 2008 - 6:02am
The problem with negotiating with militant Islamic regimes is that unlike the Nazis who were just a bunch of homicidal megalomanias, the militant Islamists are also suicidal. THAT is the problem. Lenin and Stalin were megalomaniacs but not suicidal which is why the US and Russia never came to blows. The Islamists seem to have NO issues dying in the pursuit of killing us, that is why they can NEVER be allowed to possesses the technology to build a nuclear device.
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 7:16am
Quit spewing your Islamophobic bigotry. Your mindless bullshit means nothing here.
Your "militant Islamimists" are a small minority of Muslims. Just as you dumbfuck right-wing nutjobs are a minority of Americans.
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 7:57am
Ok then Jizzmik tell me ONE point where I'm wrong. Iran is backing the killing of our troops in Iraq, that is an act of war, plain and simple. Iran is also in violation of UN (not that I really give 2 Shiites about the UN) resolution 1737 of 2006 by continuing to enrich uranium. That plus their STATE support of militants in Iraq has earned them a good thumping of their nuclear facilities. I'm not advocating an all out assault on their cities and infrastructure; just eliminate the ILLEGAL nuclear facilities.
Oh and just for good measure, (if you haven' t heard) the US Senate in a (76-22 vote) declared the Iranian Qods Force a terrorist organization....JUST LIKE AL QUEDA... The difference, the Qods Force is backed by a government.
Now, if you argue that Iran is NOT a state supporter of terrorism, I fully understand that your TOTAL ignorance of Iran is leading you to mistakenly consider them a legitimate entity. The rest of the world INCLUDING Obama understands Iran is INDEED a state supporter of terrorism (and while I’m not real partial to the Saudis, the aren’t STATE supporters of terrorism, it isn’t their official policy). That FACT alone should preclude them from EVER being allowed to possess the ability to EVER produce a nuclear weapon....
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 8:50am
Iran is backing the killing of our troops in Iraq, that is an act of war, plain and simple.
Do you have any proof of that other than your propaganda sources? Most of the shit that you post here is nothing but right-wing talking points. And even though there are sanctions, the UN has not specified any immediate threat from Iran.
How is us invading and occupying Iraq not a threat against their neighbors? The US is the largest supporter of terrorism in the world. Doesn't that justify the rest of the world to bomb the shit out of us?
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 8:56am
"Do you have any proof of that other than your propaganda sources? Most of the shit that you post here is nothing but right-wing talking points."
Wow Jizz, you may have been born at night but I didn't realize it was LAST NIGHT...
OK, here we go!
1. Under Kyl-Lieberman (76-22, including 29 DEMS),
-"Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq...providing LETHAL capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state."
2. "We have weapons that we know through serial numbers … that trace back to Iran," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said in an interview with USA TODAY.
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-30-iraq-iran_x.htm
3. "U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006."
"Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah."
http: // abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501
Now unless EVERYBODY is a liar, you can go back to your TV and put the foil hat back on, the aliens are trying to control your little brain....
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
EXCUSE ME!
Saudi Arabia, through its madrassas, FOSTERS THE EXACT SAME ANTI-AMERICAN AND ANTI-ISRAELI HATRED AS IRAN.
Saudi Arabia SUPPORTS THE SUNNI SIDE OF THE VIOLENCE AS IRAN SUPPORTS THE SHIITE SIDE OF THE VIOLENCE.
Where's the outcry, Fight4it??... WHERE'S THE FUCKING OUTCRY?!... REMEMBER FALLUJAH??
Need I remind you of the nationality of the motherfuckers that attcked us on 9-11??... If you ask me, we invaded the wrong goddammed country. WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED SAUDI ARABIA.
And President Shit-For-Brains is in Saudi Arabia AS WE SPEAK, trying to suck more oil out of King Abdullah's dick... IT'S PATHETIC!
Dude, you REALLY need to broaden your thinking. You're walking around with horse blinders on, sipping on Rove-flavored Kool-Aid.
WAKE UP!
http://dohiyimir.typepad.com/bush-abdulah.jpg
Amen brother....
....the friggin Saudis....
Gotta hand it to them....they certainly know how to talk out of both sides of their mouths.
Big brother Allie (U.S) ensures Iraq (1991) or the Iranians can't farg with them and at the same time support the folks killing our boys....and funding Madrasa's....and 13 of the 19.....
Gotta hand it to the SOB's.
By SgtDMay 16, 2008 - 9:34am
I'm no fan of the Saudi's but it is NOT the official policy of that government to support terrorism. Are there terrorist elements in the country?...OH HELL YES and if they take over and officially take the stance that terrorism is fine then they become an enemy....
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
Not OFFICIAL policy....
....but what difference does that make if they fund Madrasa's that teach folks to hate our friggin guts?
I dont think they need to be taught in Madrasa's to hate us
I think we have given them MANY reasons to hate us. Can any right winger ever take ANY responsibility for what America has done to these people?
Official policy
The royal family IS the government AND they are the one doing the funding. There is no separation. They support our position openly then send money to the other side behind our backs. So as long as they are duplicit, you are OK with it?
By Fight4itMay 16, 2008 - 9:43am
"I'm no fan of the Saudi's but it is NOT the official policy of that government to support terrorism. Are there terrorist elements in the country?...OH HELL YES and if they take over and officially take the stance that terrorism is fine then they become an enemy...."
NEWS FLASH!! We FULLY support TERRORISM, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND A DICTATORSHIP - SAUDI ARABIA. 13 OF THE 19 9/11 HI--JACKERS WERE ... SAUDI'S. And you can thank your Monkey-In-Chief ...
Flighty, for once, PULL your head out of your ASS.
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
re: By Pookie2112 May 16, 2008 - 10:54am
When the US supports terrorists, we call them "Freedom Fighters" which makes it OK!
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 11:01am
Silly me! I forgot the Taliban were freedom fighters in the 80's and, since we are now funding BOTH sides in Iraq, why Iraq is just FULL of freedom fighters!!
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
By Pookie2112May 16, 2008 - 1:23pm
Ohhh, and guess what, at one time the English and French were our bitter enemies. Times change. At one time Saddam was an ally. That changed. At one time we teamed up with the Russians to beat Hitler then we teamed up with the Germans to destroy the Soviet Union.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” – Lord Palmerston…
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
By Fight4itMay 16, 2008 - 1:44pm
At one time the US used good judgement in deciding to attack other countries or not. Now the US is aggressive and a sponsor of terrorism. How things change.
By Fight4itMay 16, 2008 - 1:44pm
Gee, really? Aw, shucks! That's awfully kind of you to educate me, Mister. I feel so good now that I'm going down to the soda shop to buy a root beer float!
So we fund both the Shitte and Sunni ... and in one form or another, they kill our troops. Yup, that makes sense!
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
By Fight4itMay 16, 2008 - 8:50am
The Nazi's WEREN'T suicidal? They weren't mass murderer's?
Explain to me the logic then as to why many Nazi officers bite the cyanide. Explain to me how sticking millions in gas chambers and ovens, massacres where entire towns were killed by shooting squads and sick medical experiments difers than some nutcase walking into a crowded store and blowing all there to kingdom come.
Please provide your proof that Iran is in Iraq killing our soldiers - and going by what Monkey Boy says doesn't count. Please explain why, both the military and intelligence experts have refuted every single instance where Monkey Boy claims that Iran has nukes, Iran is sending extremists into Iraq. Please explain why both the military and intelligence experts have refuted Monkey Boy's claims that IED's being used against our soldier's in Iraq are produced in Iran. Again, Monkey Boy's word does NOT count.
Please explain. Then perhaps we here can all understand why you get wood over war, war, war and why you shit your pants when you think the word "muslim".
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
Good Point!
The whole damned COUNTRY was suicidal!
All of Germany jumped off a cliff like so many lemmings... What the hell were they thinking?
Oh yeah... I know what they were thinking. The citizenry thought they could be aggressively militaristic while sitting at home without paying a price.
Hmmm... Sounds vaguely familiar.
GOOD PLAN!
By A GMay 16, 2008 - 11:03am
It's a GREAT plan to be used by future administrations!! BRILLIANT!
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
By Pookie2112May 16, 2008 - 10:49am
The Nazi's WEREN'T suicidal? They weren't mass murderer's?
They were MOST certainly mass murderers, that is why I called them megalomaniacs. As far as suicidal; did many of them commit suicide at the end? YEP, but that doesn't equate to the suicide bombings we see from Muslim terrorists. Do you not see the difference?
Now, as far as proof that Iran is backing Iraqi insurgents? If you aren't going to accept that statements of our GENERALS than I can't post anything else (your problem, not mine) If you want to call our Generals liars, that is your business. You’ve already called Obama a liar. (Remember, you said that he didn’t mean it when he threw “Reverend” Wrong under the bus.”
Did GWB say that Iran HAS a nuke? I'm not sure but I don't think so (post a link if I'm wrong). He wants to stop them from getting the capability of MAKING ONE. And that, they have...So put that Straw Man back in the cornfield.
Here is one such place...
ISFAHAN - Uranium conversion plant
Isfahan uranium conversion plant
Iran is building a plant at a nuclear research facility to convert uranium ore into three forms:
Hexafluoride gas - used in gas centrifuges
Uranium oxide - used to fuel reactors, albeit not the type Iran is constructing
Metal - often used in the cores of nuclear bombs. The IAEA is concerned about the metal's use, as Iran's reactors do not require it as fuel.
http: // news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
What is the difference
What is the difference between strapping on a bomb and blowing up hundreds of people at once and gassing hundreds of people at once and burning the bodies?
What is the difference between strapping on a bomb and blowing up hundreds of people at once and shooting ENTIRE VILLAGES and dumping their bodies on a fucking ditch?
NONE. MURDER IS MURDER, REGARDLESS HOW IT IS CARRIED OUT, DICKHEAD.
LOL - You listen to the generals when it suits your BIGOTRY and NEED FOR MORE WAR. You ignore the generals when it does NOT suit your BIGOTRY and NEED FOR MORE WAR. You conveniently GLAZE OVER those generals who have CLEARLY stated we can NOT start another war; you GLAZE OVER those generals who have CLEARLY stated that IRAN IS NO WHERE NEAR NUCLEAR BOMB CAPABILITY. Why is that, flight? Why do you cherry-pick your sick justifications for MORE FUCKING WAR? YOU are the one calling OUR GENERALS LIARS. YOU are the one who refuses to acknowledge that OUR GENERALS SAID WE CANNOT FIGHT ANOTHER WAR. YOU are the one who refuses to acknowledge that OUR GENERALS HAVE STATED REPEATEDLY THAT IRAN IS IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM IN ANY POSITION TO DEVELOP NUKES. YOU are the one puking out Monkey Boy's PROPOGANDA. So take YOUR LYING and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.
Why don't you go to your CO and VOLUNTEER to go overseas instead of sitting on your ass at the nurses desk WAITING for your orders.
As far as Reverand WRIGHT is concerned, just because YOU couldn't COMPREHEND my statement, it does NOT mean I said Obama was a LIAR. So take your LACK OF COMPREHENSION and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.
You would be correct - I fully admit my error. Monkey Boy said they are CAPABLE, which both the MILITARY & CIA have stated, they are YEARS away from that capability. Although, considering ALL THOSE WMD'S Monkey Boy said Saddam had ...
That's funny that you're chiding me on a "straw man" ... this from the tool who relies on reich-wing PROPOGANDA to make a silly and illogical pointless point.
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
By Pookie2112May 16, 2008 - 1:19pm
What is the difference between strapping on a bomb and blowing up hundreds of people at once and gassing hundreds of people at once and burning the bodies?
-Not much, but I'd much rather fight an enemy that is merely homocidal than one who is homocidal AND suicidal. Do you understand the difference? They both are bad news but one is MUCH worst to deal with....
As far as reich-wing Propaganda...If that is what you call the sworn testimony of our Generals, that is your problem. You seem to have no problem calling honorable men liars. But that is your choice, I can't help that...
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 1:50pm
".If that is what you call the sworn testimony of our Generals, that is your problem."
If you haven't bothered to notice, Georgie has a tendency to fire generals that don't agree with him and replace them with generals that do. That way, he can get the sworn testimony that he desires.
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 1:55pm
As stated....If you want to call our Generals liars, that is your right. Go for it...
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 2:12pm
If you want to call our Generals liars, that is your right. Go for it...
As if the fact that they're generals makes them inherently truthful. They are no less likely to lie to keep their jobs than any other member of society. How many of them got to be generals by kissing up to their superiors and telling them exactly what they thought their superiors wanted to hear? Just like the fact that you are in the military doesn't make you a genius on government or international relations.
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
YOUR Generals for the most part
are treasonous war criminals. They are following illegal orders from an insane commander in chief. They are committing crimes in the name of the American people. But you dont care. You have no sense of honor.
I really dont think
that anyone cares who a terrorist and war criminal like you considers honorable men. Nothing about this war or the people who run it is honorable. So Iran and Iraq are worse than NAZI Germany? You have got to be the stupidest, biggest moron in this country. You are dumb as a stump!
By Fight4itMay 16, 2008 - 1:50pm
mur·der
–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object) 4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
–verb (used without object) 7. to commit murder.
—Idioms8. get away with murder, Informal. to engage in a deplorable activity without incurring harm or punishment: The new baby-sitter lets the kids get away with murder.
9. murder will out, a secret will eventually be exposed.
10. yell or scream bloody murder, a. to scream loudly in pain, fear, etc.
b. to protest loudly and angrily: If I don't get a good raise I'm going to yell bloody murder.
Murder is murder, anyway you slice it.
mur·der·er –noun a person who commits murder. a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being)
A murderer is a murderer, anyway you slice it. Whether it be a brownshirt stomping on a child's head or a Islamic fundamentalist blowing himself up next to a child's head.
"As far as reich-wing Propaganda...If that is what you call the sworn testimony of our Generals, that is your problem. You seem to have no problem calling honorable men liars. But that is your choice, I can't help that..."
Now THIS is laughable coming from you! You STILL IGNORE those GENERALS who have said IRAN IS NO WHERE NEAR DEVELOPING NUKES. You STILL IGNORE those GENERALS who have said WE ARE IN NO POSITION TO ATTACK IRAN. YOU seem to have the following:
1. No problem calling honorable men liars;
2. No problem cherry-picking to justify your pointless points;
3. Comprehension issues.
I can't help if it YOU CHOOSE to be a sheep, following the reich-wing PROPOGANDA in order to satisfy your desire for MURDER.
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 7:57am
"Your "militant Islamimists" are a small minority of Muslims."
-That MAY be true, but that "SMALL MINORITY" has the guns and CONTROLS the Iranian military and KILL a bunch of people, some on YouTube...
I would respectfully suggest that the non-militants go out and dispose of the militants so that all this crap can stop....Oh and by the way, the "militant" Muslims are doing Allah's work according to Muhammod as reported by the Koran....
Do try and keep up....
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
And I suggest you stop
your anti american propaganda. You are an enemy combatant and you are committing war crimes. Your support of the Bush administrations terrorist acts will no longer be tolerated. You are guilty of war crimes just as Bush is. Stop your collaboration with these traitors now before it is too late.
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 9:40am
"Oh and by the way, the "militant" Muslims are doing Allah's work according to Muhammod as reported by the Koran...."
Bullshit! There you go again! You use out-of-context excerts from one translation of the Koran to support your sorry bigotted Islamophobic bullshit! The Koran actually says for the followers of Allah to practice peace.
Pull your head out of your ass and get in touch with reality!
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
"Oh and by the way, the
"Oh and by the way, the "militant" Muslims are doing Allah's work according to Muhammod as reported by the Koran...."
Do you work for the RNC? Is bigotry a requirement to work for the RNC? Stop with the reich-wing PROPOGANDA. The POPE knows more about fucking Islam than you do.
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
For Starters...
Ahmidinijad is NOT running Iran.
Ahmidinijad is a figure head only... The Mullahs run Iraq.
Much like OUR lame-duck leader, Ahmidinijad's job is to run around spouting off like a fucking jackass.
Rhetoric is NOT policy.
There is plenty of room and plenty of time to pressure Iran, WITH THE HELP AND GOOD WILL OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, into moderating their policies.
No one is going to allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapon... Not Obama, not ANYBODY... so don't worry about it.
=========================
The answer to EVERY problem IS NOT SABRE RATTLING FOLLOWED BY WAR.
If you can't think of at least a half dozen ways to box in Iran without war, THEN YOU'RE NOT THINKING HARD ENOUGH.
You also need to keep in mind that President Shit-For-Brains has totally broken our military... You want to enter a THIRD WAR ??... Who are you going to send, Figh4it??... The fucking Boy Scouts??
You're a good man, Fight4it. Of all our right-wingers, I hate you the least! So I say this with affection that you really need to broaden your thinking and see a doctor about that pesky "knee-jerk" reaction.
By A GMay 16, 2008 - 8:32am
C'mon AG you're better than that. What's with the Straw-Man...
Did I EVER say to INVADE Iran? NOPE. I patently stated (on several occasion) that invading Iran is NOT a good idea (nor needed). Iran's nuclear facilities can be destroyed (at least beyond the ability to be used any time soon) with air strikes and cruise missile attacks, MUCH like Reagan did in Libya and Clinton did in Iraq AND Kosovo. If after the attack they want to "up the ante", they will need to cross open territory to hit us either in Iraq or Afghanistan. In these days, crossing open country with an army is not a good idea. Ever hear of the Highway of Death?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 9:08am
How does your tiny mind not comprehend that airstrikes would constitute an invasion of Iran? Are you so fucking naive that you would belive that Iran would just roll over on their backs and not respond?
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
So Clintons bombing of Serbia was....
....an invasion?
NO!
It was a UN sanctioned intervention on behalf of the people who were being eradicated.
The bombing of Serbia wasn't U.N...
...sanctioned. It was a NATO action.
Never got brought up in the security council because Russia/China would have vetoed it....look it up.
I'll concede the NATO point
That's what I get for not googling first. but it was still an intervention to halt a genocide, and a successful one at that. It ended with zero American casualties and Milosovic in the Hague.
Success...
....doesn't equal right.
It did end the killing so that's definately good....people die in civil wars though and I don't think anybody here advocates getting involved militarily in every civil war to stop the killing.
Every time? No
But if it can be done as it was then and achieve long standing peace, then I am for it.
Better to fight a war to stop the killing than to fight one to start it as GWB has done.
For reference....
The United Nations Charter does not allow military interventions in other sovereign countries with few exceptions which in general need to be decided upon by the United Nations Security Council. The issue was brought before the UN Security Council by Russia, in a draft resolution which - inter alia - would affirm "that such unilateral use of force constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter". China, Namibia and Russia voted for the resolution, the other members against, thus it failed to pass [20][21] (PDF). The absence of a legal basis for the intervention thus led observers to argue that the intervention undermined international law.
On April 29, 1999 Yugoslavia filed a complaint at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague against ten NATO member countries (Belgium, Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the USA). The Court did not decide upon the case because it ruled that Yugoslavia was not a member of the UN during the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_the_Federal_Republic_o...
re: By SgtD May 16, 2008 - 9:17am
For one thing, it was a NATO action, not the US acting unilaterally. And it was in response to genocide by Serb soldiers in Kosovo.
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
Well....
...the KLA wasn't a bunch of boyscouts and before they were the "good guys" were labeled a terrorist organization and was responsible for murdering Serb police/government officials ect. IMO if the shoe was on the other foot (ie if the Kosovo Albanians were the better armed group) the roles would have been reversed.
I don't think NATO had the right to bomb the crap out of Serbia without U.N approval......and I considered it a civil war.
I certainly don't think England/France should have taken the South's side in our civil war (they didn't but considered it) because it was our business...just sayin.
My Point.
I think the central point here is that Fight4it seems simply unable to conceive of ANY solution to ANY problem OTHER THAN KILLING PEOPLE... HE CAN'T CONCEIVE OF ANY SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE PUTTING AMERICAN MILITARY PERSONNEL AT RISK.
... and that's just plain fucking STUPID.
Anyone that thinks of military force as the FIRST resort rather than the LAST resort IS A FUCKING MORON... PERIOD.
=========================
You know, this is nothing but macho bullshit. This is nothing but posturing and threat jestures... a debate over who has the biggest dick. It is the sign of a small mind.
Thank God we have come to the end of the era of the Neo-Cons.
=========================
I leave you all with this:
IRAN WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO THREAT AT ALL HAD PRESIDENT SHIT-FOR-BRAINS NOT INVADED IRAQ AND DID FOR THE IRANIANS WHAT THEY COULD NEVER HAVE DONE FOR THEMSELVES... REMOVE THE ONE OBSTACLE TO IRANIAN REGIONAL INFLUENCE.
... And do you know WHY it happened??... It happened because our president thought then, like Fight4it thinks now.
... GOOD PLAN!
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 9:12am
"How does your tiny mind not comprehend that airstrikes would constitute an invasion of Iran? Are you so fucking naive that you would belive that Iran would just roll over on their backs and not respond?"
-Just like Syria did when Israel hit that Nuke site? Just like Saddam did when Israel hit that nuke site? Just like Libya did when Ronaldus Magnus hit them?
Hey Jizz, you're making yourself look like an ass. You might want to quit before you show yourself to be even MORE of an idiot....
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
Iran is FAR more capable of taking action than any of those.
They are side by side with not one, but two countries currently occupied by US forces AND are in a position to cut off ALL use of the straight of Hormuz. This has all been explained to you before but you ignore it in order to continue playing stupid.
By gt6May 16, 2008 - 9:36am
You really think that Iran can keep the straight of Hormuz if we wanted it? And you are right, they are SURROUNDED by US Forces on two sides. Thanks for making my point for me...
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
Stop your collaboration with
the Bush traitors now. You will not be allowed to murder anymore innocent people. You dont even have a childs view of the world. Your stupidity, ignorance and fear will not be allowed to murder anymore innocent people. You are a war criminal and a terrorist. Stop this anti american behavior now.
Guess what, tinkle-brain.
All it would take to block the Straights of Hormuz is to scuttle a couple of well placed tankers.
It is VERY narrow and VERY shallow.
Don't deceive yourself into thinking that Iran couldn't ...
HEY WAIT A MINUTE!!... THE POINT IT MOOT!
Iraqi oil production is miniscule... ALL THE IRANIANS HAVE TO DO TO STOP OIL FROM GOING THROUGH THE STRAIGHTS... IS TO STOP SHIPPING IT!!... IT'S VIRTUALLY ALL IRANIAN OIL!
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO FIRE A SHOT.
... Yeah... That'll get us in good with our European allies. (snicker!)
GOOD PLAN!
By Fight4itMay 16, 2008 - 9:46am
"You really think that Iran can keep the straight of Hormuz if we wanted it? And you are right, they are SURROUNDED by US Forces on two sides. Thanks for making my point for me..."
What part of "OUR MILITARY IS FRACTURED", don't you get?
What part of "OUR MILITARY IS STRETCHED TO THE LIMIT", don't you get?
What part of "OUR MILITARY DOESN'T HAVE THE STRENGTH TO FIGHT ANOTHER WAR", don't you get?
Unless you and the rest of the nurses plan on REPLACING those OVER-EXTENDED, TIRED and FATIGUED soldier's ... STFU.
Why don't you VOLUNTEER to go there instead of WAITING IN COMFORT FOR ORDERS?
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 9:27am
No, you're the war-mongering idiot that's making a total ass of yourself. The fact that Syria, Iraq, or Libya didn't respond doesn't mean shit about Iran. If you are a bully on the playground, eventually somebody is going to stand up to you.
If you are such a brave motherfucker with large brass balls, take your sorry ass over to Iran and attack those sites rather than sitting on your sorry fat ass in Florida! What's the closest you've come to war? Japan? Cuba? Florida? It's so safe to be an armchair general so far away from the battlefield! It's no wonder that you're a nurse in Florida and not a military strategist!
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 10:40am
Hey Jizz, I'm in the military. I go where I'm ordered. If I'm ordered to the Mid-East, I'll go. If I'm ordered back to JTF-GTMO to work in the prison, I'll go. If President Obama says that we're pulling out of Iraq, then that's policy and I'll support it. If President McCain brings back a draft (actually it'll be congress that'll do it) and we put 300K men on the ground, I'll support it. While on active duty, that's my job; once I retire it's a completely different matter....
And yes, if I were ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan and refused the order I'd expect a Courts Martial and to be kicked out with malice...
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 10:48am
But I notice that you entered the Navy as a nurse, not the Marines or Army in infantry.
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
Bingo!... In the rear, with the gear.
I think he should pick up a fucking rifle and stand a post.
Big Talk from a guy wearing scrubs in an air conditioned hospital.
He's fully behind our troops... about 500 MILES behind them (snicker!)
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 10:51am
WRONG again Jizz...
I didn't enter the Navy as a Nurse. I entered as an enlisted kid and worked my way up. I wasn't an officer then, I was just a kid who worked hard in his job, went to school off-duty and was selected for a program.
Any more errors you wish to make?
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
No you entered the military
because you were too stupid to make it in the real world. You took the easy way out and have been feeding at the govt trough ever since. It just makes me sick that true Americans have to support your war criminal, terrorist ass. You had better change your anti american attitude very soon, scumbag. Your right wing utopia is coming to a quick end.
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 11:11am
Oh, so you worked your ass off to get to where you could safely advocate sending others into danger while you were thousands of miles away from the action.
And meanwhile, members of the National Guard who joined to serve their state and local community are sent halfway around the world to die.
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 11:31am
Look at your wording..."Joined"....
And guess what NOBODY was FORCED to JOIN. We don't have a draft (although I'd like to see that changed). And since this war has gone on for a LONG time now, EVERY single one of those Guardsmen/women have had the chance to either get out at the end of their hitch or joined up after it all started.
Oh and by the by, I was selected for my college program during well before 9/11 and in this job my chances of getting close to the action are MUCH greater than in my old job. You would be amazed at how few members of the military are on the “front lines” or have even been "deployed"… Should we put a rifle in the hands of our cooks or computer repair people or should we leave it up to the infantry? Just askin’… General Gaz. We all have our jobs to do. AND ALL OF US VOLUNTEERED…
Jizz, face it, you know nothing... Don't go away mad, just go away...
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
So were those national guard and army reserves
told that they would be shipped off to Iraq to fight in a war that was based on lies? Was that on the application? You are a fucking traitor and a war criminal. You will answer for your crimes against my country soon.
By hufflarry2000May 16, 2008 - 11:47am
"Was that on the application?"
Well, actually, yes it was. Since you asked...Here is one of them....
§ 127A-37. Enlistments in national guard; oath of enlistment.
(a) Enlistments in the national guard shall be for such periods and subject to such
qualifications as prescribed by the secretary of the appropriate service.
(b) Enlisted men shall not be recognized as members of the national guard until
they shall have subscribed to the following oath of enlistment:
"I do hereby acknowledge to have voluntarily enlisted this __________ day of
____________, ______, in the (Army) (Air) National Guard of the State of North
Carolina and as a Reserve of the (Army) (Air Force) with membership in the
(Army National Guard of the United States) (Air National Guard of the United
States) for a period of (Years – Months – Days) under the conditions prescribed by
law, unless sooner discharged by proper authority.
"I, (First Name – Middle Name – Last Name), do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State
of North Carolina against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the
United States and the Governor of North Carolina and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, according to law, regulations, and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, so help me God." (1917, c. 200, s. 30; C.S., s. 6820; 1921, c. 120,
s. 6; 1957, c. 136, s. 6; 1959, c. 218, s. 10; 1975, c. 604, s. 2; 1999, c. 456, s. 59.)
www. usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-27-495596377_x.htm
I will obey the orders of the PRESIDENT, Governer and Officers over me.....
Game, set, match...
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
Where is the part
that says that they agree to be sent to a war that was based on lies? Where is the part that says they must obey illegal orders and participate in war crimes? You stupid fuck!
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 11:42am
What a disingenuous fuck! Most of those Guardsmen never joined to be sent to needless war based on lies! Just because dumbfucks like you fall for the lies, it doesn't make them truths!
Many of them were sold on the idea that they could serve their neighbors in the time of natural disasters. But we have a president the feels that he can mindlessy throw their lives away like yesterday's newspaper!
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 11:42am
"And since this war has gone on for a LONG time now, EVERY single one of those Guardsmen/women have had the chance to either get out at the end of their hitch or joined up after it all started."
And I suppose next that you're going to tell me that there is no Stop Loss Policy?
"Should we put a rifle in the hands of our cooks or computer repair people or should we leave it up to the infantry? Just askin’…"
We shouldn't have ignorant fucks like you sitting back on your fat asses and advocating policy for those whose asses are actually on the line.
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 12:20pm
There is MOST certainly a "Stop Loss" policy... And guess what, you have to SIGN on that line too.
Stop-loss, in the United States military, is the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty service under the enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service (ETS) date. It also applies to the ceasing of a permanent change of station (PCS) move for a member still in military service. Stop-loss was used immediately before and during the first Persian Gulf War. Since then, it has been used during American military deployments to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s and after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the subsequent War on Terror.
The policy has been legally challenged several times, however federal courts have consistently found that military service members contractually agree that their term of service may be involuntarily extended.
From Wikipedia....
PS: IT'S A CONTRACT with risks and benefits. Don't like it? DON'T SIGN!
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 12:35pm
You're the idiot who made the statement that Guardsmen were free to leave when their enlistment was up. Make up your fucking mind! Were they free to leave, or is there stop loss preventing members from leaving?
And lose the "they signed the contract" bullshit. It still doesn't give the president a free pass to send them to die.
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 12:41pm
"And lose the "they signed the contract" bullshit. It still doesn't give the president a free pass to send them to die."
Are you saying that the President as the Commander in Chief doesn't command the military? You may want to check your pocket copy of the Constitution.. If you don't have one, you can get a free one here...
www. heritage.org
As far as how long any given Soldier or Marine can be kept via stop loss, I can't find any specific numbers but if you have some showing that it's longer than a year I'd be happy to look at it...
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 1:04pm
You are a fucking moron! When you ride an amusement park ride, you agree to a waiver stating that you may be injured or killed. But that doesn't authorize the operators to wantonly injure and kill people.
And the fact that the president is the commander-in-chief doesn't give him the authority to indiscriminately send US citizens to their deaths based on bullshit to keep us at perpetual war to control sheeple like you with your own fear. I'm the war-time president! I'm the commander-in-chief! I'm the decider! It just doesn't cut it.
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 1:14pm
"I'm the war-time president! I'm the commander-in-chief! I'm the decider! It just doesn't cut it."
Ummm, if you bother to look at this thing called the Constitution....It does. That said, IF he has overstepped his office it is up to the Congress (Under the "leadership" of the Democrats Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) to impeach and convict him.... Ohhhhh, they haven't... So much for your "point".....
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
re: By Fight4it May 16, 2008 - 1:54pm
"That said, IF he has overstepped his office it is up to the Congress (Under the "leadership" of the Democrats Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) to impeach and convict him.... Ohhhhh, they haven't... So much for your "point"....."
Why do you keep displaying your ignorance? They do realize that they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of impeaching him because there are enough obstructionist Bush boot-licker Republicans in the Senate to keep it from ever happening.
And if you notice, any attempts to investigate the president or any of his subordinates meets heavy resistance. Even the justice department refuses to cooperate. George isn't really that much different than somebody like Saddam.
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
By Fight4itMay 16, 2008 - 9:08am
Flakey - Knowing FULL WELL that airstrikes will start a ground war HERE and THERE, please explain how our DESTROYED military can handle ANOTHER war. Please explain what makes you think that once we start bombing the SHIT out of Iran, that THEY WILL NOT RETALIATE? Please explain how this DESTROYED country can PAY for ANOTHER war. Come on, pull some of those talking points out of your ass ... PLEASE.
Who's a bigger threat:
Pakistan with nukes;
North Korea with nukes;
Monkey Boy with nukes;
Iran with nukes ... about 10 years into the future ...
ENLIGHTEN me, oh-brilliant-one ...
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
By Pookie2112May 16, 2008 - 11:02am
Let's look at your premise first...
Flakey - Knowing FULL WELL that airstrikes will start a ground war HERE and THERE, please explain how our DESTROYED military can handle ANOTHER war.
Ummm, do you have a crystal ball somewhere? Neither you nor I KNOW FULL WELL that a ground war will start when we hit their illegal nuclear facilities.
AND, our military is destroyed....Really? I had no idea that we didn't have 12 aircraft carriers each one with a full compliment of fighters and bombers... OHHHH and we have the Air Force too with fighters and bombers and these REALLY cool things called cruise missiles! Is our Marine Corps and Army stretched a little thin...Yep. But when did I advocate and invasion of Iran. Exactly how big and more importantly how good is the Iranian Air Force/Navy?
Now, let's say they do strike back AFTER THEY CROSS the open ground to get to our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the two or three tanks left (again, refer to the Highway of Death) would be quickly destroyed.
Last point...How are they gonna attack us here? Unless you believe there to be terrorist cells in the US already. And if there are, they by definition are already waiting to attack us...
NOW:
North Korea with a nuke - China will take care of them. AND what national security interests are there in N. Korea?
Pakistan - Not a state sponsor of terrorism, if that should change, I'll get back to ya..
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
You assume
that the Iranians will be stupid enough to meet us on our terms. They will not.
1) Much of the borders with Iraq and Afghanistan is mountainous terrain. They will infiltrate by the thousands to multiply the guerrilla wars fought by the insurgents there just as the North Vietnamese did through the Ho Chi Minh trail. One of the lessons of Viet Nam is that that can continue for years despite massive bombing.
2) They will shut down the Straight of Hormuz. They do not need to hold it, just disrupt it. If a half dozen tankers go down, No insurance company will cover another. That will halt ALL shipments from Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain as well as much of Saudi and Iraqi oil.
3) Yes we still have a powerful Navy. It is the ground forces that are stretched to the breaking point. Adding a million or so Iranians to the insurgencies would tax them beyond endurance.
By gt6May 16, 2008 - 12:12pm
Good points and no insults. How not like the typical blogger on this site...
OK, one by one..
1) Much of the borders with Iraq and Afghanistan is mountainous terrain. They will infiltrate by the thousands to multiply the guerrilla wars fought by the insurgents there just as the North Vietnamese did through the Ho Chi Minh
-You are correct Sir. I totally agree. The problem is, I don't think we will invade or attempt to occupy Iran as we did in Viet Nam. It will be air strikes aimed at the illegal nuclear facilities. Soooooo, they can head into the mountains all they want, what are they gonna do, eat sand? That's the problem when you have a bunch of guys, you have to feed them....
2) They will shut down the Straight of Hormuz. They do not need to hold it, just disrupt it. If a half dozen tankers go down, No insurance company will cover another. That will halt ALL shipments from Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain as well as much of Saudi and Iraqi oil.
-Sure business as usual would be interrupted but do you think we would let ANY tankers in that area until it has been secured? C'mon...
3) Yes we still have a powerful Navy. It is the ground forces that are stretched to the breaking point. Adding a million or so Iranians to the insurgencies would tax them beyond endurance.
-Hate to tell you but it seems that the Iranians seem to already be helping the insurgency in Iran. That is the thing about a "surge" in forces, it gives you more targets. And again, how many Iranians do you think will give up what is generally a good lifestyle to fight against us if all we do is take out nuclear facilities and not towns? How many Syrians really got pissy when Israel took out the Nuke facility?
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
I am not insulting you
I am telling you what you are. You are a war criminal and a terrorist. You are advocating illegal acts in my name. You are nothing but a frightened warmonger, a murderer of children and a fucking liar. You are trying to destroy the American way of life. Your behavior will no longer be tolerated.
Styrike 3
and you are out.
1) we do not need to invade them for this to be a problem. We are already mired on both sides of Iran. There are more than a hundred thousand Americans at risk and Iran can send Millions over the border.
2) They really don't care if they sink any freighters or not as long as the flow stops and they can keep it stopped for years. $20 dollar a gallon oil would be assured. Beyond the damage that would do to our already sinking economy, many industries would be unable to run due to shortages.
3) Allegedly aiding in the training of a few hundred insurgents is NOTHING compared to adding millions to the fight. How many Iranians? How many joined in the human wave attacks in their war with Iraq? Millions.
You stubbornly continue to insist that not only can we attack
Iran, but we should do it, and we will suffer no consequences by doing so.
Everything action in this world has consequences. It is something that we try to drill into the head of every child as we raise them. Unfortunately, repubs seem to have either had poor parenting skills, or their kids were too dense to get their message.
Lets look at this from a couple of angles. First, look at it from our side. If we attack Iran's nuclear facilities, it will require nukes, according to the Pentagon and the President, as some underground facilities can't be destroyed in any other way (again, that is from the military experts and the Clown Prince). So, we use small nukes to take out a fully-fueled nuclear reactor as well as several thousand centrifuges full of radioactive materials. The result? Huge amounts of radioactive fallout spread over hundreds of thousands of square miles. It is estimated 3 million would die of radiation exposure in the first 3 weeks, in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Nor would it stop there. It would continue on to China, Japan, Korea and probably beyond. And that's if the winds carry it only to the east. If not, the fallout could move into Iraq (and our troops), Russia, Europe, etc.
Not only do you have to count the human cost in millions of lives immediately, but you have to consider that huge amounts of agricultural land and fishing areas will be permanently contaminated, rendering them forever useless. More people dying because of lack of food. And of course, there is the small fact that those Iranian oil fields will be contaminated, rendering a sizable portion of the world's oil reserves permanently inaccessible.
Now, look at it from the Iranian side. You are the victim of an unprovoked attack by US forces. Your country has literally millions of dead, and huge portions of its territory are too contaminated to ever be populated for many lifetimes to come. What do you do? First of all, you retaliate with all the tools at your disposal. On the off chance that not all your oil production is ended by radioactive contamination, you shut down all remaining production. You also attack anything you can with weapons at your disposal. You hit any tankers you can in the Gulf, shut down the Straits of Hormuz, and you take out as many US ships, especially carriers, as possible. Hell, your country is already obliterated, so what can the US do beyond that? They have a lot of cruise missiles that even our own navy admits can't be detected until it is too late, and we don't have the weapons to stop them. Iran would use the same tactics that Russia had planned on using, saturation attacks with cruise missles on the carriers. Expect to lose one or both carriers in such a counterattack, and perhaps some escorts if the Iranians target them too. So, one carrier gone is 6000 dead right away, and billions of dollars of hard to replace military power gone too.
Also, make life hell on US troops in Iraq. Iran is now on friendlier terms with Iraq than they have been in decades. Hell, Ahmedinajad received a warmer reception than Bush when he visited there. None of that would have been even remotely conceivable before we invaded Iraq. So, Quds Force operatives already in Iraq will immediately begin operations against US forces that are already finding it difficult or impossible to keep the lid on in Iraq.
To recap, in order to make the Clown Prince feel like a real man, instead of the pathetic loser that he is, he is willing to kill millions, destroy the world economy and sacrifice thousands or tens of thousands of American lives. Now, exactly who is the rogue nation led by a madman again? It's certainly not who you think it is.
What do you mean AG
that this scumbag frightenedtwit is a good man? He advocates mass murder, for Christs sake! He is completely ill informed about what goes on in the world because he gets his news from a lying drug addict. This guy would stab you in the back at anytime. He is nothing more than a war criminal and a terrorist. What the hell kind of person would think that a murderous traitor to America is a good man? This guy is the scum of society and should be removed from it. What the fuck is wrong with you? He supports every murderous act Bush has committed. Is Bush also a good man to you?
Fight4it gets extra credit.
I give Fight4it points for trying.
He comes here every day and makes his case in a relatively civil manner (more civil than ME, frankly) ... Hell, sometimes he even gets it.
He may be wrong but he's not nuts... which is more than I can say for YOU.
Well I am glad that you dont think
advocating mass murder and supporting mass murder based on lies is crazy. I am glad that you dont think that supporting a war based on lies that has killed a million people isnt nuts. I am glad that you think that destroying the constitution over irrational fear isnt nuts. He is just as responsible for this disaster as Bush is. He is a war criminal and terrorist. Your tolerance of a mass murderer like him makes you just as bad as him. How you could have ANY tolerance for anyone like him is beyond me. But then again, YOU ARE NUTS OR MAYBE JUST ANOTHER FASCIST COLLABORATOR!
Thus speaks the Clintonista
...whose darling candidate has almost as much invested in the continuance of the Iraq occupation as Darth Cheney.
But hey, whad'ya know...just this morning (and I can't find the link now or I'd post it), her campaign staff began to admit that she CAN'T win the nomination, and talking about how to pull the Democratic Party back together behind the obviously better candidate: Obama.
I'm not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat! ~~~Will Rogers
Oh go fuck yourself
you dont know anything about me, you unreconstructed asshole. Do something useful and try going after the real enemies of America.
Ah
So when TRUTH and LOGIC fail you, you resort to your favorite page in the g0p playbook and go with the personal attacks.
How much have you donated to McCain's campaign, anyway? Have you made Pioneer level yet?
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith
The truth is that
half the party voted for Hillary just like I did. The truth is that Obama will lose and your support of him means that you are supporting McCain in the end. Stupid libtard.
Umm...WHO will lose?
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Take off those Clintonista-issue blinders and look:
Total delegates: Obama 1893, Clinton 1720 (Obama + 173)
Superdelegates: Obama 294, Clinton 274 (Obama + 20)
Pledged delegates: Obama 1599, Clinton 1446 (Obama + 153)
I especially like the superdelegate number...I've watched it steadily swinging over the past week. Last week, Clinton led by 16. Just this morning, Obama led by 18. As I write this he leads by 20.
Billary needs to do the right thing and gracefully bow out. After Obama's served his two consecutive terms, ending January 2017, she can step up and try again. By that time she should be thoroughly vetted and have enough experience in high-end national and international politics to be considered a viable candidate by the American public.
I don't tell jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. ~~~Will Rogers