Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/30/2004 10:51:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 10:52:24 AM EST by kill-9]
From story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=16&u=/nm/20040827/pl_nm/bush_iraq_dc:



In the Times interview, the President also discussed the issue of North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that he would not be rushed to set deadlines.

The newspaper said "[President] Bush displayed none of the alarm about North Korea's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq."

It quoted him as saying about the leaders of North Korea and Iran: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators."

[President] Bush told the Times he would continue diplomatic pressure. It said he gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.

"I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does," the newspaper quoted [President] Bush as saying of the diplomatic approach.

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:51:54 AM EST
It will be Iran. Just watch and see.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:52:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By ar50troll:
It will be Iran. Just watch and see.



On what do you base that statement? I'd very much like to believe it's true.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:53:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By ar50troll:
It will be Iran. Just watch and see.



Not durring this presidents watch.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:54:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 10:55:40 AM EST by Leisure_Shoot]

Originally Posted By kill-9:
On what do you base that statement? I'd very much like to believe it's true.



Oh, the position of 150,000 soldiers and their equipment, for starters.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:54:47 AM EST
I took the little snippet different.

"You don't give dictators timelines."

WTF!

It was Bush who gave Saddam a timeline right? Sort of.

Fuck it, we've got the oil now I guess, there's no rush...



But don't get me wrong BUSH 04'
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:54:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 10:55:52 AM EST by Leisure_Shoot]
oops/double post.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:55:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
On what do you base that statement? I'd very much like to believe it's true.



Oh, the position of 150,000 soldiers and their equipment, for starters.



Exactly. All our boys got to do is turn and shoot from their current deployed position.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:55:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 10:56:47 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By kill-9:
From story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=16&u=/nm/20040827/pl_nm/bush_iraq_dc:



In the Times interview, the President also discussed the issue of North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that he would not be rushed to set deadlines.

The newspaper said "[President] Bush displayed none of the alarm about North Korea's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq."

It quoted him as saying about the leaders of North Korea and Iran: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators."

[President] Bush told the Times he would continue diplomatic pressure. It said he gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.

"I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does," the newspaper quoted [President] Bush as saying of the diplomatic approach.




He did TALK about the diplomatic process plenty prior to attacking Iraq...

Although personally I don't think we will ever invade Iran like we did Iraq...

There is enough of an anti-mullah movement there that the Iranian regime can be taken down from within...

Iraq needed outside help because of the scope of Saddam's control. Iran, OTOH, has periodic protests against the govt, and other indications that effective opposition can exist if we help it....
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:56:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By velocity:
I took the little snippet different.

"You don't give dictators timelines."

WTF!

It was Bush who gave Saddam a timeline right? Sort of.



Good point. I missed that one.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:58:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
There is enough of an anti-mullah movement there that the Iranian regime can be taken down from within...

Iraq needed outside help because of the scope of Saddam's control. Iran, OTOH, has periodic protests against the govt, and other indications that effective opposition can exist if we help it....



Didn't the Kurds demonstrate against Saddam after the Gulf War?
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:59:45 AM EST
I believe that Israel will step up to the fighter-jets once again "IF" the US doesn't take the ball on Iran. We (the US) will not stand by and watch our closest advisary in the middle east build nuclear arms. N Korea has already mastered the nuclear weapon (in a sense) ..And our troops are already in the striking distance of Iran. Logistically It makes no sense to move our troops to another region of the world..It is hard to say what will happen. If W is re-elected it will be one or the other, But if asshat is elected look for the same thing that happened in Somalia when slick willie took office.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:00:11 AM EST
Iran Sits Squarely Between IRAQ and Afghanistan. It would Greatly allow us to Expand our Islamic Empire. There all Shiites just like our new buddy Al Sadr. Couple that with the fact that they claimed they would strike First against us to pre-empt our troops from a Pre-emptive strike against their nuclear facilities. If we had Afghanistan, Iran, and IRAQ we could free all of the HOLY MOST HOLY shrines in islam except for Mecca and Medina. which could be our final Goal.

Oh well, I havent seen radical north koreans trying to blow our people up. They're at the back of the line again.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:01:31 AM EST
North Korea is a non-starter because they've already got nukes, and can shell Seoul. The horse has left the barn there. Iran is still working on it and can be stopped via judicious use of force and subversion.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:03:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By ar50troll:
It will be Iran. Just watch and see.





+1 on that.


If you live in Iran, look to the east and what do you see? US troops. Look to the west and what do you see? US troops. NOT a coincidence. They've been the "big fish" all along.


Yeah, we may have our hands full right at the moment but wait a year or so.......
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:04:37 AM EST
A flat-out invasion of Iran would be difficult, btw. Difficult terrain and a much larger population than Iraq. The tecchnique would probably be to use air and naval power to blow up critical installations, and then support a revolultion from within.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:08:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By ABNAK:

Originally Posted By ar50troll:
It will be Iran. Just watch and see.



+1 on that.

If you live in Iran, look to the east and what do you see? US troops. Look to the west and what do you see? US troops. NOT a coincidence. They've been the "big fish" all along.

Yeah, we may have our hands full right at the moment but wait a year or so.......



This is a nice opinion, but there's no evidence to support it and evidence in the form of official statements to contradict it. It's nothing more than speculation or, more accurately, wishful thinking.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:08:59 AM EST
I don't see a war scenario either, but I could easily imagine an option where local rebels are supported with captured Iraqi and Afghani arms and Special Forces training to overthrow the mullahs.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:09:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 11:09:55 AM EST by Guns_N_Shizzle]
The Iranians nuclear reactor will have to be dealt with after the election. The Oil Moarchies in the Gulf will support it. They fear the Iranians more than we do. The Israelis will support it, they might even pull the trigger.

The Eurotrash wont support it, but since when has that stopped GWB
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:10:00 AM EST
North Korea can be dealt with without sending troops. We can just point a bunch of nukes at them (if we already haven't), and give them a choice. Anything happens to us, every square inch of North Korea will get a sunburn.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:12:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By lu380:
North Korea can be dealt with without sending troops. We can just point a bunch of nukes at them (if we already haven't), and give them a choice. Anything happens to us, every square inch of North Korea will get a sunburn.



Do you really think that anybody in politics would consider this an option? It would be political suicide, even if it is the right thing to do.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:15:37 AM EST
I'd venture to say somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 to 750,000 troops would be needed to take down Iran AND KEEP IT THAT WAY. None of this "understaffing" shit that is going on in Iraq. Something more in line with Gulf War I troop levels (or more).


We don't have that number of people, you say? Well folks, there'll be a new kind of "lottery" game here in the U.S. soon. The "Pick-2-Million" game!


20 year old son still living at home and seeming aimless in life? Not for long.....
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:18:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Well folks, there'll be a new kind of "lottery" game here in the U.S. soon. The "Pick-2-Million" game!



Speaking of political suicide...
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:22:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Well folks, there'll be a new kind of "lottery" game here in the U.S. soon. The "Pick-2-Million" game!



Speaking of political suicide...





Does it matter, since if W wins he can't be elected again anyways?

As for the sunburn thing, anyone who would NOT respond to nuclear use against us in kind would be commiting political suicide.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 2:55:16 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 3:01:31 PM EST
Nah. No military force will be needed in Iran. Look for Bush to take a page from Reagan's playbook for this one.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 4:37:26 PM EST
if iraq stabilizes iran will go down as easy as Afghanistan.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:37:21 PM EST

We will be kicking more ass. What do ya think we are pulling those troops out of Europe and Asia for?
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 6:44:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By kill-9:
From story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=16&u=/nm/20040827/pl_nm/bush_iraq_dc:



In the Times interview, the President also discussed the issue of North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that he would not be rushed to set deadlines.

The newspaper said "[President] Bush displayed none of the alarm about North Korea's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq."

It quoted him as saying about the leaders of North Korea and Iran: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators."

[President] Bush told the Times he would continue diplomatic pressure. It said he gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.

"I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does," the newspaper quoted [President] Bush as saying of the diplomatic approach.




You must speek a different version of the English language than I do. Because there is nothing there that says he won't invade. In fact there is nothing of substance in that piece at ALL, just a reporters supposition.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:27:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
From story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=16&u=/nm/20040827/pl_nm/bush_iraq_dc:



In the Times interview, the President also discussed the issue of North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that he would not be rushed to set deadlines.

The newspaper said "[President] Bush displayed none of the alarm about North Korea's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq."

It quoted him as saying about the leaders of North Korea and Iran: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators."

[President] Bush told the Times he would continue diplomatic pressure. It said he gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.

"I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does," the newspaper quoted [President] Bush as saying of the diplomatic approach.




You must speek a different version of the English language than I do. Because there is nothing there that says he won't invade. In fact there is nothing of substance in that piece at ALL, just a reporters supposition.



There's nothing saying he WILL invade either. That's just the point. Iran has long been at the top of the list of nations supporting terrorism, yet President Bush is going to go the UN-approved diplomatic route. Until the government of Iran is toppled we are just treating the symtoms.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:33:51 PM EST
[golf clap]Finally, people are looking at a map...[/golf clap]

CW
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 7:35:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cold_Warrior:
[golf clap]Finally, people are looking at a map...[/golf clap]

CW



Finally my ass. I've been beating this drum since 9/12/01.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 8:45:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
From story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=16&u=/nm/20040827/pl_nm/bush_iraq_dc:



In the Times interview, the President also discussed the issue of North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that he would not be rushed to set deadlines.

The newspaper said "[President] Bush displayed none of the alarm about North Korea's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq."

It quoted him as saying about the leaders of North Korea and Iran: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators."

[President] Bush told the Times he would continue diplomatic pressure. It said he gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.

"I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does," the newspaper quoted [President] Bush as saying of the diplomatic approach.




You must speek a different version of the English language than I do. Because there is nothing there that says he won't invade. In fact there is nothing of substance in that piece at ALL, just a reporters supposition.



There's nothing saying he WILL invade either. That's just the point. Iran has long been at the top of the list of nations supporting terrorism, yet President Bush is going to go the UN-approved diplomatic route. Until the government of Iran is toppled we are just treating the symtoms.



He's just waiting for the election to be over, so he won't have to worry about upsetting the pussies of this country.
Top Top