View Poll Results: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nukes?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    12 21.05%
  • no

    45 78.95%
Page 57 of 60 FirstFirst ... 7475556575859 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 598

Thread: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

  1. #561
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    So we go after Iran, which if you think Iraq caused us trouble, it will be nothing like the trouble that would be caused by Iran. Then we go after North Korea, which has nuclear weapons. Then we move onto other countries. And by that time, we will have more and more enemies.

    No, this wouldn't be "simple".
    A very large part of our trouble in Iraq was Iran. Without someone shipping them weapons and supporting an insurgency, which is what Iran was doing in Iraq, then it will be a lot less troublesome. Also, we developed new tactics. The smart move would of been to take Iran out first then Iraq. Iran is the last bastion of terror sponsorship in the region, now that Syria is in trouble and unable to do anything.

    And NK having nukes is only a problem if we don't strike first, otherwise, they won't have them to use after the initial attack. Start with some B-2 bombers along with F-117s taking down their launch capability and key air defense systems, and it's not a big deal anymore. Assuming of course that some idiot at the pentagon trying to save money has actually left us some F-117s to use.

  2. #562
    Student John.NoseTip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Music City
    Last Seen
    10-17-12 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    287

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Why do people keep debating whatever the current excuse for war is? This plan was set in motion a long time ago and Obama the "Peace Prize" winner is continuing the plan. Remember Chavez handing a book to Obama? The title of that book was "Hegemony or Survival" and I think the government has made it's choice.



    this thread has quite a few posts so if someone has already posted this apologies.
    BTW it was an interesting book

  3. #563
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by John.NoseTip View Post
    Why do people keep debating whatever the current excuse for war is? This plan was set in motion a long time ago and Obama the "Peace Prize" winner is continuing the plan. Remember Chavez handing a book to Obama? The title of that book was "Hegemony or Survival" and I think the government has made it's choice.



    this thread has quite a few posts so if someone has already posted this apologies.
    BTW it was an interesting book
    Sorry, cannot take you seriously. Anyone attempting to use Wesley Clark in a discussion of military operations and wars demonstrates from the start that they don't know jack about the subject. As a Military leader Wesley Clark was a contemptible joke.

  4. #564
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I think we should continue diplomatic efforts towards keep them from developing nuclear weapons, and that may mean negotiating with Israel to disarm their nukes and for us to live up to our end of the NPT.
    So, you don't want us to do it but it's ok if isreal does?


    The do as I say, not as I do, approach has never been an effective negotiating position, with anyone.
    You know what, wag your finger after they launch a nuke.

  5. #565
    Student John.NoseTip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Music City
    Last Seen
    10-17-12 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    287

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Sorry, cannot take you seriously. Anyone attempting to use Wesley Clark in a discussion of military operations and wars demonstrates from the start that they don't know jack about the subject. As a Military leader Wesley Clark was a contemptible joke.
    What a great point dismiss the messenger

    Wesley Kanne Clark, Sr. (born December 23, 1944) is a retired general of the United States Army. Graduating as valedictorian of the class of 1966 at West Point, he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford where he obtained a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, and later graduated from the Command and General Staff College with a master's degree in military science. He spent 34 years in the Army and the Department of Defense, receiving many military decorations, several honorary knighthoods, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    Clark commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000.

    wiki
    I don't know what I was thinking it's not like he has any credentials

  6. #566
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by John.NoseTip View Post
    What a great point dismiss the messenger



    I don't know what I was thinking it's not like he has any credentials
    He wasn't "the messenger" he was the originator of what he expressed. Personally I don't find that we had such a plan so surprising. We knew long before 9/11 who the primary sponsors of terrorism around the world were. If we plan to end terrorism and the states sponsoring it, then yeah, we had to have a plan. Of course, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy, so any time table was just pure speculation. Further,

    "Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader. Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril."--George W. Bush

    The war on terror was never only about Al Queda, it was about all sponsors of terror and terrorist groups. Perhaps you and others may think that he was referring to only Al Queda, but in fact, it is not what he said. Nor was that the policy of his Administration.

    As to his credentials, yeah, he has them, duh, he was a general. Just not a very good one. What you don't know and don't take in consideration is how he actually performed as a leader. He was a manager not a leader and a micro-manger at that. His leadership during the war on terror was almost identical to that of Major General Lloyd Fredendall during the battle of Kasserine Pass in Tunisia during WW II. The big difference is that Fredendall faced an enemy that could actually defeat him. Wesley Clark was a Clinton General, at the start of the Clinton regime, he wanted to cut the military in half in only 1 or 2 years vs a timed step down that G.H.Bush had initiated. When the Generals told him it was impossible to do that level of cuts and still maintain readiness and meet the specified wartime requirements, Clinton bypassed the normal promotion process in order to find Generals that would tell him it could be done. Following that time, Clinton always promoted and appointed Generals primarily based upon their political agreement with him and the ability to actually lead and anyone who placed actual military needs above Clinton's political wants were not promoted. Since a large part of officer promotions are sponsorship based, with this new focus, only those junior officers that expressed agreement were promoted up. This has been a problem since then and is still a problem today because other than Petraeus, Bush did not interfere with the officer promotion system. Petraeus had a working tactic that was effective in Iraq and so Rice brought him to the attention of Bush. Wesley Clark is the General who initiated the failed tactics in Iraq prior to Petraeus taking over. Unfortunately for us and the Army, Petraeus was never given a position worthy of his talents and allowed to "infect" the rest of the officer corps. As a protractor of Obama's policies, he of course was never allowed to have any more influence than was necessary and that only because he was actually effective and even then, he was effectively demoted and moved back to a lower command level after Obama took office.

    Clark was in command in Kosovo, but due to the fact that Clinton wanted a zero casualty war, after all, he really didn't care about what happened, he only wanted people to focus on something other than Monica. Because of the zero casualty mentality, Clark did not effectively prosecute the war and many, many more refugees and ethnic Albanians died that did not need to. Of course there is a lot of controversy about the war and what our real objectives were.

    Next he Commanded the US for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan (From a Bunker in Tampa Fl). Him and his subordinate commanders used considerations of potential losses to limit which weapons systems were to be employed. As a result, the most affective airborne systems for supporting ground troops were not deployed. This was also due to some problems in the Air Force which was struggling to fund systems and deciding which to get rid of, however, Clark clearly knew of the systems and allowed it to happen. Undoubtedly, this caused greater casualties for US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, however just how many additional casualties were endured cannot be calculated and are only a matter of speculation.

    For Operation Iraqi Freedom, he did move his bunker location to the middle east but still far out of danger. He only visited there after it was "secured".

    Instead of employing decentralized Command and Control procedures he used centralized command and control with everything passing through his command post, thus cause timely delays in decisions. Previous US doctrine was for the commanders on the field of battle to make the decisions and report back when the could, not Clarks style of them having to ask permission before doing anything. Ironically, Clark was using the centralized command and control, the same as the Iraqi doctrine and cause of the collapse and disorganization of Iraqi forces when their command and control links were severed.

  7. #567
    Student John.NoseTip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Music City
    Last Seen
    10-17-12 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    287

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    I think that we decided to invade seven countries based on speculation an astounding proclamation. However my original point was none of this is about Al Qeada, democracy or nukes it is to maintain hegemony over that part of the world period. Isn't Al Qeada leading the people trying to overun Syria now but we support them in this instance therefore who the bad guys are seems to change.

  8. #568
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    08-09-13 @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,600

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by John.NoseTip View Post
    I think that we decided to invade seven countries based on speculation an astounding proclamation. However my original point was none of this is about Al Qeada, democracy or nukes it is to maintain hegemony over that part of the world period. Isn't Al Qeada leading the people trying to overun Syria now but we support them in this instance therefore who the bad guys are seems to change.
    John: I wouldn't be surprised if there were some old AQ fighters in Syria, but I think for the mot part the rebels are disaffected Sunnis.

    The real issue may be the Alawite and their total dominance in Syria.

  9. #569
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by John.NoseTip View Post
    I think that we decided to invade seven countries based on speculation an astounding proclamation. However my original point was none of this is about Al Qeada, democracy or nukes it is to maintain hegemony over that part of the world period. Isn't Al Qeada leading the people trying to overun Syria now but we support them in this instance therefore who the bad guys are seems to change.
    That theory just might hold water if we actually had any hegemony in the region to begin with. Also, I pretty sure that Bush probably wouldn't even know what it means, much less how to employ it. No, he was fed up with terrorist and he wanted them gone. The same countries participating in state sponsored terrorism haven't changed in awhile. Wasn't real hard to come up with a list.

    Syria was perhaps the most active of them at the time of Iraqi Freedom
    Lebanon right behind them, but then, current gov there is pretty much an extension of Syria.
    Iran would be the next active.
    Libya was not very active at all, a little
    Somalia, hard to take down a government that doesn't exists.
    Sudan, yeah, should of been higher on the list.

    The correct order should of been Iran, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon (assuming taking out Syria didn't actually change things there first) and Somalia last. Maybe his priorities on which to do when was a bit screwed up, but cannot say that taking out any of them at the time would actually of been "wrong". That time line actually only works if all we do is invade and then pull out without any reconstruction. Rather a poor plan if that is what they actually thought we could do.

    I also find it strange that he brings up the Al Queda link to Iraq. As a General that high up, he should of known what the Administrations policies/stance were. As pointed out, it was never Al Queda only, but any state sponsor of terrorism.
    Last edited by DVSentinel; 08-31-12 at 10:39 AM.

  10. #570
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Welfare and other socialist like programs are a grave threat to our country. Look at what socialist like things have done to our economy. Jobs outsourced and companies abandoning our country. Medical cost and medical insurance has gone through the roof since the government started tinkering with it. Since Kennedy and his crowd first introduced modern Welfare and other socialist changes in the US and throughout all the changes after that, take a look at our economy, except for one fairly short period which was sustained by credit and doomed to failure, it has been constantly suppressed. Take a look at our crime rate and gang problems, centered mostly around welfare neighborhoods. Take a look at our soaring prison population since the start of welfare.

    The welfare state costs us more annually than the two wars in the mideast ever did and if we actually got two barrels of oil from Iraq, that is more than welfare has ever given back to our society.

    So how is spending money on the war less useless than spending on welfare, simple, the war actually helped someone, provided jobs and we got something back out of it, none of which can be said about welfare and the medicaid system which provides healthcare to welfare. Welfare and other socialistic institutions are a black hole sucking us dry and will eventually kill us if we don't start getting control of it.
    Welfare is a part of any mixed economy. Stating that it's socialist over and over again doesn't make it socialist. And you're blaming crime and overcrowded prisons on welfare? That's crazy. These "welfare neighborhoods" are places of POVERTY. If you want to blame anything, blame POVERTY for crime and overcrowded prison populations.

    When you get old, don't collect any Social Security or any government assistance.

Page 57 of 60 FirstFirst ... 7475556575859 ... 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
  •