Page 51 of 66 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 657

Thread: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

  1. #501
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Air attacks obviously can be very destructive--the problem is identifying targets. It looks like there's been some success, but the attacks seem to be small-scale and sporadic.

    Al Nusrah Front tweets photos allegedly showing aftermath of coalition airstrikes - The Long War Journal

    French defector David Drugeon, Ahrar al Sham allegedly targeted in Idlib strikes - Threat Matrix

  2. #502
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    All the more reason to do the nastiness now and not wait till their intercontinental delivery is in place.
    I would like to hear more public discussion by military experts about the possibility of using a blockade against the Islamist regime in Tehran. Iran, whose economy relies heavily on oil exports, and which has a long coastline and a very weak navy, seems to be vulnerable to one. Why could empty tankers en route to Iranian ports not be turned back well outside the Straits of Hormuz, while tankers bound for other Gulf ports were escorted in and back out again?

    No doubt other Gulf nations, seeing the opportunity to sell more of their own oil, would increase their production to make up for what was no longer coming from Iran. The notion that Iran could block the Strait against the world's most powerful navy, using swarms of speedboats, strikes me as alarmist and far-fetched. And it might choose not even to try, if the U.S. made clear it would respond by destroying Iran's nuclear sites and many other military targets from the air. The regime might not survive the humiliation either way, but the idea would be to make it accept a blockade as the lesser of two evils.

    President Kennedy used a blockade in 1962 to prevent any further deliveries of Soviet nuclear missiles to Cuba. Even though the USSR had an enormously powerful military with about 3,000 nuclear weapons, it chose not to challenge the blockade with force. Part of the reason it did not was that Kennedy had made clear the blockade was a first step, and that depending on how the USSR responded, other actions might follow. He was obviously referring to air strikes on the missile bases in Cuba as a next step, and after that a full-out invasion. The fact about 1,000 armed aircraft and 100,000 troops had been moved into position to do these things made the implied threat something Khrushchev and his advisers had to take very seriously.

    This President's pandering to the Khomeinists has allowed them to come very close to making nuclear weapons. If they get them, Israel may not be able to survive under that pressure, and nations like Saudi Arabia will probably try to get nuclear weapons of their own. What's not talked about as much is that a nuclear-armed Islamist Iran, with so many terrorist proxies at its disposal, would present this country with a threat of nuclear terrorism that we could never afford to live with.

  3. #503
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:14 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,399

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I would like to hear more public discussion by military experts about the possibility of using a blockade against the Islamist regime in Tehran. Iran, whose economy relies heavily on oil exports, and which has a long coastline and a very weak navy, seems to be vulnerable to one. Why could empty tankers en route to Iranian ports not be turned back well outside the Straits of Hormuz, while tankers bound for other Gulf ports were escorted in and back out again?

    No doubt other Gulf nations, seeing the opportunity to sell more of their own oil, would increase their production to make up for what was no longer coming from Iran. The notion that Iran could block the Strait against the world's most powerful navy, using swarms of speedboats, strikes me as alarmist and far-fetched. And it might choose not even to try, if the U.S. made clear it would respond by destroying Iran's nuclear sites and many other military targets from the air. The regime might not survive the humiliation either way, but the idea would be to make it accept a blockade as the lesser of two evils.

    President Kennedy used a blockade in 1962 to prevent any further deliveries of Soviet nuclear missiles to Cuba. Even though the USSR had an enormously powerful military with about 3,000 nuclear weapons, it chose not to challenge the blockade with force. Part of the reason it did not was that Kennedy had made clear the blockade was a first step, and that depending on how the USSR responded, other actions might follow. He was obviously referring to air strikes on the missile bases in Cuba as a next step, and after that a full-out invasion. The fact about 1,000 armed aircraft and 100,000 troops had been moved into position to do these things made the implied threat something Khrushchev and his advisers had to take very seriously.

    This President's pandering to the Khomeinists has allowed them to come very close to making nuclear weapons. If they get them, Israel may not be able to survive under that pressure, and nations like Saudi Arabia will probably try to get nuclear weapons of their own. What's not talked about as much is that a nuclear-armed Islamist Iran, with so many terrorist proxies at its disposal, would present this country with a threat of nuclear terrorism that we could never afford to live with.
    Iran has a very long land boarder that is already used to undermine the present sanctions. I assume that a blockade would require cutting off that route also.

  4. #504
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    When the agreement was made, it was George W. Bush.
    Who is the head of the US govt?

  5. #505
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    By talking to Iran, Obama has done more to stop it than Bush did. All Bush did was wag his finger at them.

    I will ask you the same question: If we knew Iran was researching nuclear weapons (which we did), and there's no way to stop it short of military action (debateable, but since that's the usual conservative response, I'll give it to you), why invade Iraq instead of Iran? It would seem to me that Iran was a much bigger threat to security than Saddam was in his wildest dreams.
    You are really all over the place. Obama is absolutely fine with Iran gettting nukes, he hasn't done anything to stop it-what he's done is posture for political capital here.

    Why didn't Clinton invade Iran?

  6. #506
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I'm not sure there's a way to stop proliferation. The secrets are out there, and there to be had if the price is right.

    The best thing is to maintain our arsenal as a deterrent and make it clear that we're not going to stand by if they are used. It's also possibly the world's worst kept "secret" that Israel has nuclear weapons, which is another strong deterrent for Iran.
    Sounds like you are ok with the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism getting nukes. And Israel has already stated it WILL go to war with Iran should they get a nuke, or even get close.

  7. #507
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,580

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Who is the head of the US govt?
    We, the people. We're the head of the government.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #508
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Why wasn't their sovereignty important before Saddam was gone? It was still an independent nation, was it not?
    A nation that violated the ceasefire repeatedly over the 90's. Its why Clinton made regime change the official position of the US.

  9. #509
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Iraq invasion will go down in history as the single biggest, US fustercluck of ALL time.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  10. #510
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,580

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    A nation that violated the ceasefire repeatedly over the 90's. Its why Clinton made regime change the official position of the US.
    and it was up to the US to fix things, why again?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Page 51 of 66 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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