Posted: 7/17/2006 9:40:52 AM EDT
|
I'm fairly younger than all of you, but I defend the war as I can. I'm in an arguement, and I need help responding to the guy's message. My Comment: I think I'd make a great president, opinion wise. Am I smart enough? Hell no. First thing I would do is send a message to Iran, saying: "Listen children, you've had your fun. Why don't you stop jerking off with your nuclear intake, before we start bombing your asses." We need to start taking action instead of letting countries talk shit, trying to scare us. His response: Isn't that what Bush did? And now he's costing USA billions in tax payers dollars to fight the conflict in Iraq? Strategy wise, its not smart to open a two front war. So I'd put that against you unless you know a way to finish Iraq. Also, Im Canadian so thats against you too. What should I respond with? I have somewhat of an idea, but not specifically. |
Ask him how a war in two neighboring countries constitutes a "2 front war". Fighting North Korea right now would be a strategic mistake,but fighting Iran when we have it surrounded on two sides is about as sensible as it gets in ending the war on radical Islam. His strategic sense is rather flawed. |
+1 If you look at the major terrorist groups in the region (Hezbollah, the Badr Organization, and HAMAS), they all recieve major assistance from Iran. It's gotten so bad that the Sunnis in Iraq, who up until now hated the US occupation, have asked the US to stay to prevent an Iranian Shiite takeover. Iranian funded Shiite militants are the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East. |
|
I have an update. He posted: Just because Iran and Iraq are neighbouring countries doesn't mean that they will all fight at one spot. There would be more than one front since Guerrila warfare is impossible to quell, unless they all came to one spot and fought on the same spot, which is kind of doubtful to happen. A problem seen with Iran that I can easily see, Great Tsung Zhu, is that Iran is mountains on each side, so how are the soldiers supposed to get into Iran in a short amount of time with a enough numbers to fight against a resitant enemy without having to draw upon imaginary divisions? |
We can use C-130's, C-17's and helicopters. Oh wait, Canada doesn't have any of that, they went to Afghanistan without any helicopters. The Iranians are planning a decentralized war. Local units will be autonomous. Supplies will be scattered around the country, ala Iraq. Hopefully, the pentagon will realize that securing the fuel and weapons depots should be a high priority. Iran would have little choice but to try to retake them. In the mean time, every bridge in Iran is turned into junk and the Iranians can't move their heavy equipment around much. We can establish local air superiority, and local ground superiority during the early stages of the conflict. we can move in heavy equipment behind the advanced units, either through the mountains, or by sea, since we can pick our location. Their big nuke reactors are, conveniently, near the ocean. Hot damn, they would be pissed. |
Where is this dickhead. Send link. I'll jump in. I debate those tree hugging c0cksuckers all the time. Mention his new pretty boy Stephen Harper and the soon to be demise of the NDP. Then you can tune on him about his socialist POS country and their failing hellcare system. www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/ . And you can also mention how his country is killing and eating babies in Afghanistan also, eh? Bwahahahahaa. Go ahead and link him the video just to get him boiling... www.ogrish.com/archives/canadian_and_afghan_forces_engage_taliban_in_firefight_Jul_14_2006.html |