T1B

mvscal wrote:

KC Scott wrote: Regime change by any method necessar ie; full scale invasion.

Tom is correct. Conquest of Iraq is a necessary precondition to a full scale invasion of Iran.

Conquest of Iraq?

They are in the midst of civil war.
Unless /until we reinstate the draft, there is no logistical means by which we could launch an invasion of Iran.
Your also discounting the fact we have used up all of our chits with our allies in this Iraq debacle.

No, unfortunetly that is why we are contemplating "discussions" with a known terrorist regime.
This will only further legitimize them, and their terrorist network, in the Muslim world.
It's the same way Arafat maniplulated his way to legitimacy.

mvscal wrote:

KC Scott wrote: Regime change by any method necessar ie; full scale invasion.

Tom is correct. Conquest of Iraq is a necessary precondition to a full scale invasion of Iran.

Invasion of Iran...

$200 per barrel oil...

The U.S. Navy laying at the bottom of the Straights Of Hormuz....

The opening of an all-out Shiite resistance in Iraq, leading to a subsequent Super-Stalingrad of U.S. forces...

A vast wilderness of American fighting vehicles smouldering on the approaches to Tehran...

This is like Christmas, New Year's and my birthday all rolled into one.
Pinch me, I must be dreaming.

Martyred wrote:
$200 per barrel oil...

The U.S. Navy laying at the bottom of the Straights Of Hormuz....

The opening of an all-out Shiite resistance in Iraq, leading to a subsequent Super-Stalingrad of U.S. forces...

A vast wilderness of American fighting vehicles smouldering on the approaches to Tehran...

This is like Christmas, New Year's and my birthday all rolled into one.
Pinch me, I must be dreaming.

You're dumb enough to be m2's little brother.

Yeah Iran will be totally different, not like the "cakewalk in Iraq".

And I'm the one with a screw loose...right....

I'm seeing an implication that Mahmoud would use nukes.

Is this the case ? I don't know. I can see the Stalingrad reference and the burned vehicles, the Navy thing has me guessing nukes, though.

Tom In VA wrote:I'm seeing an implication that Mahmoud would use nukes.

Is this the case ? I don't know. I can see the Stalingrad reference and the burned vehicles, the Navy thing has me guessing nukes, though.

What nukes?

Mikey wrote:

You're dumb enough to be m2's INBRED little brother.

FTFY dog.

Martyred wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:I'm seeing an implication that Mahmoud would use nukes.

Is this the case ? I don't know. I can see the Stalingrad reference and the burned vehicles, the Navy thing has me guessing nukes, though.

What nukes?

:wink: Clever dog. I'll be you planned it this way all along.

Tom In VA wrote:

Martyred wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:I'm seeing an implication that Mahmoud would use nukes.

Is this the case ? I don't know. I can see the Stalingrad reference and the burned vehicles, the Navy thing has me guessing nukes, though.

What nukes?

:wink: Clever dog. I'll be you planned it this way all along.

No, seriously Tom. What nukes?

I know they have the anti-ship missile capabilty and the resources to close down the Straights Of Hormuz by mining it.

It's called the Persian Gulf folks, because it borders Persia...(AKA ~ Iran)

Martyred wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Martyred wrote: What nukes?

:wink: Clever dog. I'll be you planned it this way all along.

No, seriously Tom. What nukes?

I know they have the anti-ship missile capabilty and the resources to close down the Straights Of Hormuz by mining it.

It's called the Persian Gulf folks, because it borders Persia...(AKA ~ Iran)

You better watch your ass here bucko... Rack Fu is about to roll in here and arrest your commie ass.

You suck you Islamic apologist cunt.

Derron wrote:
You better watch your ass here bucko... Rack Fu is about to roll in here and arrest your commie ass.

You suck you Islamic apologist cunt.

The big people are talking now, Derron. Go away.

mvscal wrote:

KC Scott wrote:Unless /until we reinstate the draft, there is no logistical means by which we could launch an invasion of Iran.

It was your suggestion.

Short term memory of this thread?

My original point was we should have targeted Iran after Afghanistan.
That window of opportunity has closed..... for the foreseeable future.
Hence our willingness to negotiate with a terrorist state.

Marty you need to sit this conversation out.
Your sounding like Gumsnapper.

mvscal wrote: While you're at it, take another (or even your first) glance at the map. It's a long ways to Tehran from the Afghan border or the Indian Ocean.

It is exactly 1,003 miles from Kabul to Tehran - and three hours by air from Diego Garcia.

Seriously, Loser: You post, and the whole Board makes you look stupid.

Why bother?

mvscal wrote:

KC Scott wrote: Regime change by any method necessar ie; full scale invasion.

Tom is correct. Conquest of Iraq is a necessary precondition to a full scale invasion of Iran.

How long has this been the case? Was this true during the '70s? I ask because you later say,

It's easy enough for you to wave your arms around and make vague noises about "targeting Iran", but real units need to know "with what" and "from where."

But in another thread, you stated,

[Jimmy Carter's] letting a virulently hostile Islamic theocracy take root in Iran is really working out well.

So what should Carter have done differently? Last I heard, Iran has been a sovereign country for more than a few years, and is entitled to determine its own form of government. The Islamic theocracy had taken root prior to the taking of the American hostages. The hostage taking was, of course, an act of hostility that justified the failed military action that was taken. Are you saying that he should have gotten the US involved in Iran's internal affairs prior to the hostage taking? If so, how? Or should he have sacrificed the hostages with an all-out assault on Tehran after the hostages were taken? What has changed between then and now that would have made what you're saying is now a difficult mission easier then? How would you have handled it?

mvscal wrote:We had allies inside the country. They are no longer there. Two completely different scenarios.

OK. So given the scenario back then, what was the proper course of action?

mvscal wrote:The Shah was dying of cancer so he was out of the picture one way or the other. Supporting the Prime Minister, Shapour Bakhtiar, with everything we had was the only real option. I'm not saying it would have worked for certain, but to not even try was almost criminally negligent.

My understanding of the situation is that the CIA and President ignored Israeli and French intelligence saying that Khomeini was bad news - anti-American, anti-Zionist, etc. The so-called American experts on Iranian affairs were unqualified and incompetent, unable to even speak Farsi. Nevertheless, the administration supported Khomeini, believing him to be the lesser evil and potentially easier to deal with. Obviously, this was a mistake. Not sure what the attitude of the Iranian people was toward the US, but I'm guessing it wasn't positive. It's doubtful that our support for either Bakhtiar or Khomeini would've made a difference.

Granted, Carter isn't going to go down as one of our country's best foreign policy Presidents, and finishes in the lower half of just about every poll ranking Presidential greatness. But he also finishes out of the bottom 10 in most polls and by most scholars. I'm reluctant to put much value into the poll results, however. A 2005 Gallup poll ranked Reagan and Clinton as the two best Presidents, ranking Carter ninth, ahead of Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt, and just behind Dubya.

His lawyers have been told to fetch his gear, so it looks like he's about to swing. Pity. I was so looking forward to the Oprah interview and book tour.

mvscal wrote:I'd say most of it. I know I would be shitting bricks if I were an Iranian looking at a sizable American military presence on both sides of the country.

The noose is tightening. It shouldn't come as any surprise that they are kicking and jerking on the rope.

Does all the black semen you inhale kill your brain?

Sizable military presence?



Do you pay attention Gill? We dont have enough military in Iraq now to control it and recruiting is set back 20 years? Holy shit you are a clueless fuck! They are voting on this matter this very moment!

And what did those fraidy cats do when you and your imaginary penis threatened them? They started building nukes!

My god you are the biggest fucking pussy on this planet. Do me a favor and call up JTR and tell him its his lucky day, he can fit in your pussy.

Gunslinger wrote:Sizable military presence?

We DO have a sizeable military presence there, GEDslinger.

The fact that we haven't chosen to drop bombs all over the place must have put you to sleep.

Either that or your daily dose of 14 bong hits.

Since we are trying to introduce these fucks in the middle east to the 21st century, wouldn't it be wiser to use a method that is more humane? Lethal injection?

RACK the Iraqis on bringing swift justice to that monster...they oughta hang him right at midnight on New Year's...drop him like the apple in Times Square.

Drop him like 40 feet so his head pops off. That would be cool.

Wes Craven would have a few ideas.

IndyFrisco wrote:Drop him like 40 feet so his head pops off. That would be cool.

Either that or put the noose around his neck and raise him up gently so his neck doesn't pop and he kicks around for awhile while he slowly strangles.

Either way he's dead in the end.

Sirfindafold raised an interesting point.

Mikey wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Drop him like 40 feet so his head pops off. That would be cool.

Either that or put the noose around his neck and raise him up gently so his neck doesn't pop and he kicks around for awhile while he slowly strangles.

Either way he's dead in the end.

Ok, then after that, drop him 40 feet so his head pops off.

Mikey wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Drop him like 40 feet so his head pops off. That would be cool.

Either that or put the noose around his neck and raise him up gently so his neck doesn't pop and he kicks around for awhile while he slowly strangles.

Either way he's dead in the end.

Reminds of this scene.

Biker #2: I say we kill him!
Biker Gang: [shouts] Yeah!
Biker #3: I say we hang him, then we kill him!
Biker Gang: [shouts] Yeah!
Biker #4: I say we scalp him!
Biker Gang: [shouts] Yeah!
Biker #4: Then we tattoo him!
Biker Gang: [shouts] Yeah!
Biker #4: Then we hang him!
Biker Gang: [shouts] Yeah!
Biker #4: And then we kill him!
Biker Gang: [shouts] Yeah!
Sirfindafold: [trying to throw voice without moving lips] I say we let him go.
Biker Gang: [shouts] No!
Biker Mama: [whistles] I say you let me have him first
Biker Gang: Yeah!

Tom In VA wrote:Sirfindafold raised an interesting point.

Noted. Filed for future reference.

Sin,
Iraqi Govt.

Mikey wrote: Either that or put the noose around his neck and raise him up gently so his neck doesn't pop and he kicks around for awhile while he slowly strangles.

Yeah. Just consult the Abu Ghraib manual on that one.

Toddowen wrote: That is what kills martydom.

I think we're all in agreement we will do anything to kill Marty...

:(

Martyred wrote::(

Buck up little camper. He said Martydom not Martyred.

Any argument to not kill Saddam because it will incite more violence is ridiculous.

Insurgents will "insurg" because that is what they do, sure they'll decry Saddam's death as being the cause but that's propaganda. They'd do the same thing were he to rot in jail.



That being said, he deserves a stint in Club Fed.

The insurgents are not followers of Saddam. He won't be a martyr to anybody but himself.

IndyFrisco wrote:

Mikey wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Drop him like 40 feet so his head pops off. That would be cool.

Either that or put the noose around his neck and raise him up gently so his neck doesn't pop and he kicks around for awhile while he slowly strangles.

Either way he's dead in the end.

Ok, then after that, drop him 40 feet so his head pops off.

Fair enough.

Then we let Tom have him.

:wink:

As with every single aspect of this Mother of All Quagmires, the current prospect of executing Saddam IS A BIG MISTAKE, especially with 15,000 or so new targets about to Surge into his roiled hood.

Bush and Cheney, Rummy, Condi, Pearle, and Wolfie, Firth and Scooter, THESE are the war criminals who deserve to be hanged today. Their day will come.

Toddowen wrote:
And by executing him, he wont become a martyr or even gain repect of factions that previously opposed him? You don't think any faction will turn Saddam away to become their latest and possibly most powerful recruitment poster boy?

No.

Saddam never was a Jedi.

Besides, that was only a movie. More likely is that the Fedayeen who run the Sunni resistance will see their last hope evaporate when Saddam is dangling from a rope and most of their followers turn and haul ass away from them.

poptart wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:Sizable military presence?

We DO have a sizeable military presence there, GEDslinger.

The fact that we haven't chosen to drop bombs all over the place must have put you to sleep.

Either that or your daily dose of 14 bong hits.

You are fucking stupid.

If the "sizeable military" was enough, then why are we building up our forces and that has been identified as the problem and every person that would knwo about military strength (ie Powell, Schwarzkopf etc), says we dont have enough?

Maybe our president will listen to you and mvscal. You guys are fucking brilliant.

Tom In VA wrote:Sirfindafold raised an interesting point.

The fuck he didnt, this board hasnt left the Paleozoic Era.

mvscal wrote:

Toddowen wrote:That's what I hope the outcome will be. But it just seems that the potential is there for a situation not unlike police run into during a domestic dispute: where both fighting parties suddenly unite when the cops slap the cuffs on one of them.

Was that neccesary? You sick fuck!