Pontiac GTO Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,430 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, most of us knew all along Iran has been supplying insurgents with material to kill our soldiers. Our Intelligence "supposedly" has hundreds of pages of proof and confiscated weapons with the year 2006 printed on them and further evidence that point to the top leaders of Iran as supplying insurgents with weapons. We also know how good our intelligence is at times :rolleyes:

Iran has been provoking, and trying to instigate us into a confrontation.The real question now is.... How does our President deal with this? I have said all along, we are fighting Iran. We are fighting Iran on Iraqi soil. Iran is fighting a clandestine war, and now the proof is out, or so we are told. If we remember, dead Iranian "soldiers" have been found in the past mixed in with dead insurgents.

How should we deal with Iran now? Your opinions on how to handle it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
That would be nice, however the political/ethical ramifications are too costly.
I would prefer to see some of the doomsday terror scenarios that we hear
about happening here, happen there! Dirty bomb, anthrax, deadly bio-chem
warfare, that almost any terrorist, worth its name, could be capable of carrying out.
Then it would be just a mystery...With a conspiracy theory pointing to the USA/CIA
as always of course. :cool :cool
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,430 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
They are begging us to come after them. Just begging for it. They have a trap set.

We all know we cannot rely on the UN for help. We need every ally willing to stand up to strictly sanction and enforce it. But who? As soon as they do terroristic acts will escalate on their soil. France will pack up and head for Mexico. NO imports whatsoever to Iran. Limited exports. They want us to blockade the Gulf, they are showing us they have weapons courtesy of Russia that they will use to fire at our war ships.

We should enforce the borders where Iran and Iraq meet and any movement into Iraq should be dealt with deadly force. I just wonder what side of this situation Billary will emerge over this, she will have to check with Bill to see how she should react. Will be interesting to what solutions the Demos have on this.

I see a a situation comparable to the Cuban missile crisis emerging.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,445 Posts
That would be nice, however the political/ethical ramifications are too costly.
I would prefer to see some of the doomsday terror scenarios that we hear
about happening here, happen there! Dirty bomb, anthrax, deadly bio-chem
warfare, that almost any terrorist, worth its name, could be capable of carrying out.
Then it would be just a mystery...With a conspiracy theory pointing to the USA/CIA
as always of course. :cool :cool
Funny you should say that. A scientist involved in the Iranian nuclear program turned up dead less than a week ago. Most people are looking at Mosad, but a few are saying it has the fingerprints of the CIA on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
True, it’s obvious what Iran is up to… US presence in Iraq is a threat to Iran and they have an interest to help destabilize the US occupation any way they can… This is another thing that the Administration overlooked… or refused to consider… And it’s probably not just Iran that is interested in Iraqi destabilization. China and Russia fear the US control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves… Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey all do not want US bases in Iraq… And all our enemies are happy as hell and laughing as we are wasting our military resources away in Iraq…

Like I said on a different thread… there are smart ways to fight terrorism and there are the stupid ways…

If we thought there wasn’t enough terrorists in the world and needed more, this is the way to do it… If this country needed another Vietnam style war with no justification, benefit, or an end, this is the way to do it…

Bin Laden is saying, “We fight Americans there in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here in Afghanistan…”

He knows the more fronts we fight the better his chances… A war with Iran will only benefit Bin Laden further… Stretch our defenses even more…Many wars in history have been lost when defenses are stretched thin…

IMO, Iraq is lost… Staying there only prolongs the inevitable… Especially if we have the same people in Washington making the decision…

You know, one hour Bush saying, “I’m convinced” Iran is supplying arms and the very next hour says, “I don’t think we know”. I think the later is more true in a sense he really doesn’t know what he’s doing…

BTW, what does it say about the situation in Iraq when coalition troops won’t even mount a recovery operation… I guess if you stand still for a minute you’re pretty much dead… It’s gotten that bad there…

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/13/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Iraq.php
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,445 Posts
True, it’s obvious what Iran is up to… US presence in Iraq is a threat to Iran and they have an interest to help destabilize the US occupation any way they can… This is another thing that the Administration overlooked… or refused to consider… And it’s probably not just Iran that is interested in Iraqi destabilization. China and Russia fear the US control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves… Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey all do not want US bases in Iraq… And all our enemies are happy as hell and laughing as we are wasting our military resources away in Iraq…

Like I said on a different thread… there are smart ways to fight terrorism and there are the stupid ways…

If we thought there wasn’t enough terrorists in the world and needed more, this is the way to do it… If this country needed another Vietnam style war with no justification, benefit, or an end, this is the way to do it…

Bin Laden is saying, “We fight Americans there in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here in Afghanistan…”

He knows the more fronts we fight the better his chances… A war with Iran will only benefit Bin Laden further… Stretch our defenses even more…Many wars in history have been lost when defenses are stretched thin…

IMO, Iraq is lost… Staying there only prolongs the inevitable… Especially if we have the same people in Washington making the decision…

You know, one hour Bush saying, “I’m convinced” Iran is supplying arms and the very next hour says, “I don’t think we know”. I think the later is more true in a sense he really doesn’t know what he’s doing…

BTW, what does it say about the situation in Iraq when coalition troops won’t even mount a recovery operation… I guess if you stand still for a minute you’re pretty much dead… It’s gotten that bad there…

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/13/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Iraq.php
The shame of it is we keep trying to fight this nice war. The same thing we did in Korea and in Vietnam. You would think we would learn to break as much as possible and kill anybody that is on the other side until they submit. That's how the Romans and Greeks did it. That's how we did it in WW2. When you look back through history the successfull conquerors always crushed their enemies. Until we get that mindset again and tell the liberal media to shut up, we will continue to get mired in no-win situations.

I'm convinced that sources inside Iran are helping the insurgents. I'm not convinced the Iranian government is.

We have bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey now, so I'm not sure why they wouldn't want the US to have bases in Iraq. Syria wouldn't be happy. Neither would Russia and China.

Some things to think about. The Iranians don't want us around, so if they keep the insurgancy up we will never leave, unless they believe that we will listen to the media and the dems and cut and run if the going keeps being difficult.
The Saudi's also don't want us setting up a democracy in Iraq. The fear there is it will spread to their country.
Turkey isn't quite sure what our plans are with the Kurds, and they really don't want an independent Kurdish state. Turkey is afraid that the Kurds in southern Turkey will try to revolt and join in with an independent Kurdish state in Iraq.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Actually, I don’t think most people think we should be nice… just smart…

“I'm convinced that sources inside Iran are helping the insurgents. I'm not convinced the Iranian government is. “
That’s the kicker, isn’t it? What action can we take if the government isn’t doing it… maybe cooperation with the Iranians to clamp down on border crossings but that would be perceived as being nice… Hey, Reagan ended the cold war by talking to the enemy… Unless you think he was a coward appeaser too…

BTW, we do not have bases in Saudi Arabia… US pulled all our bases in Saudi Arabia when we invaded Iraq… Relations with Turkey are extremely tense right now – our airbase in Turkey may be in jeopardy… Don’t you remember before the invasion the US haggling with Turkey to use their air space to launch attacks? I think Turkey demanded 20 billion dollars if I remember… We ended up not using their airspace…

It’s not democracy they’re afraid of… it’s a military foe on their border… Remember, Iran is a democracy…

We are a free society with a free press… what do you want to do about it? Censor the US media? The media has been far too complacent with this administration. Not asking the tough questions and not representing the facts… There would be no Iraq war if the Press had some balls instead of cowering under fear of being unpatriotic… I’m like an elephant – I remember the rhetoric before the war… If you weren’t for the war then you were for the enemy… Forget there were no facts about why we needed to go to war but if you questioned it then you were a traitor, appeaser, and a supporter of Saddam…

That was the media then… and it was that bad…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
Just wanted to clarify one thing.... Reagan did talk to the enemy, and he did have a respectable relationship with Gorby, but the real cause the cold war ended was because we outspent the enemy. Remember the great arms race of the '80's? We spend bazillions of $$ on all kinds of new goodies and the Russians spent themselves bankrupt trying to keep up with us. That plus the zillions of rubles they poured in Afghanistan.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,430 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
One thing that is vastly different from Regan's presidency to Bush's is, the "enemy" had a bit more respect for Regan than they do Bush. Regan did talk tough to the USSR, but he didn't rant on and on and on as Bush does which has them more determined to take him down as opposed to Regan. Regan was more of a diplomat, where in the eyes of the 'enemy" Bush is more of a war monger.
Regan dealt with a different kind of foe as Bush is dealing with. Regan didn't have to deal with the evil Muslim empire and Regan didn't go into a war either, so the analogies between the 2 are so different.

There wasn't a war between the Demos, and Republicans back then either where the "enemy" seen this and exploited it. Regan wasn't hated by his own as Bush is. Regan's cabinet was more astute than Bush's. What would Regan have done if we were attacked then? Regan would not have avenged his Dad's mistake of going after Saddam. No one will know for sure what he would have done. I don't think he'd a gotten us into the situation Bush has, he was too smart.
We do have to deal with Iran smart, but I have doubts of Bush's "smartness." The Iranian Republican guard has a sect of the army that deals outside of the country, I forget the name but it's something like Quarad. They are the Bastards that are reeking havoc, NOT "mischief" as Kerry says it is. They are taking orders from the top. Adolph Dumdementedjad is dirty in this.

I have serious doubts on our intelligence, they proved to be way off base in the past, and their total credibility is questionable.

Bush has to talk to Iran as Regan did his foes back then. He's too stubborn. He's got to swallow some of his "pride" and try diplomacy.

I just saw in the news the military is just now closing the boarders between Syria, and Iran. This should have been done from the offset, and then closed in pushing the enemy inward and surrounding them. It's just unbelievable this was not done in the beginning. I have no faith in our military commanders. Too many changes have taken place with upper brass being replaced. There is discord between Bush and his commanders, it's no wonder their disarray is getting our soldiers killed.

But alas, Billary is going to end the war "when" she's elected. Oh. Boy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
Yeah, those are two totally different situations with two totally different enemies, and the cold war can't be compared to the war on terror. I was just commenting on one of the big reasons why Reagan was successful in ending the cold war: Russia ran out of money.

As for Hillary winning the election, I don't even want to think about it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,430 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I really don't think Billary is going to win. She may win the primary but I maintain Rudy will be the next President.

Here is why I think so.... The country is yearning for a leader. He is the only candidate in the race with a proven track record of leadership. He turned NY around, crime was reduced, he balanced the budget etc etc etc. Everyone knows how he handled the situation on 9-11. He is not without critics and he has issues as well as the others. Yea he's too liberal for many of the conservatives in the Republican Party and many will not agree with a lot of what he is for. Many are riding high cause there is a black in the race, and a woman. I personally think that when it comes right down to it, people will want a proven leader. Unless Rudy really becomes radical and his platform reflects this he has an excellent shot.

Rudy's popularity is still high, it is evident in all the polls. You cannot rely on the polls it's way to early, but I think he possess more appeal than does Billary. I am not politics buff, but I watch all of them and he to me has more moxie than the others. I think it will come down to him and Billary, and I think the masses are not ready for a woman president, and she really is disliked bad. A vote for her is a vote for Bill, Bill will president us again by proxie. The Far Left (Obama supporters) will have a field day with her on her flip flopping of her war vote. Thats my take on it, and how I see it. We don't need a Billary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,445 Posts
I remeber some tough talk from Reagan. I remember him calling the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire" and the press went nuts. They said Reagan destroyed any chance of winning the respect and trust of the Soviets that he had.

I remeber Gorby saying that the US should trust the Soviets to disassemble their weapons and Reagan replying with a simple "Trust, but verify" and he didn't back down.

I also remember the tear down this wall Speach and it was not talking nice to the Soviets.

Reagan beat the Soviets. He beat them as was said by using the strength of Capitlism to break down the weakness of Communism/Socialism. We found more efficient ways to build arms and built better arms through competition. It was a true survival of the fittest.

Unfortunately we are being nice. We didn't beat the enemy into submission. We need to destroy to gain respect from our enemies. We need to show no quarter.

It goes hand in hand with the problem we have with Mexico. We are being invaded by a foriegn country. We need to kill anyone that enters the country illegally. The mainstream liberal press would go nuts. If we killed those illegals that did try, they would stop trying.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,430 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
And when an illegal is shot with JUST cause..... the shooter goes to jail. Then the illegals in prison team up and try and kill them while the warden turns the other way.... I haven't heard a peep from the ACLU on how this situation is being handled. Wonder why. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Judge, There is and was nothing wrong with our intelligence… It was the piss poor handling of the intelligence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902250.html

Senate Democrats and Republicans disagreed yesterday over the meaning and importance of a Defense Department inspector general's conclusion that a Pentagon policy office produced and gave senior policymakers "alternative intelligence assessments on Iraq and Al Qaida relations" that were "inconsistent" with the intelligence community's consensus view in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

This is almost akin to little children in the Whitehouse: “I wanna do it!” …and they couldn’t wait! Now when thing go to crap they start saying, “BUT, it was that kid down the street, he lied to me! It wasn’t my fault!” I wouldn’t let my child get away with that kind of excuse – why do think we should allow this administration to get away with using this excuse… It was their choice not to verify anything… In fact, they didn’t WANT to verify anything… And now they don’t want to take responsibility… Just like little children that never been taught responsibility…

A good spanking is in order… In the form of a criminal investigation…

God forbid we hold our leaders accountable for anything….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
I remeber some tough talk from Reagan. I remember him calling the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire" and the press went nuts. They said Reagan destroyed any chance of winning the respect and trust of the Soviets that he had.

I remeber Gorby saying that the US should trust the Soviets to disassemble their weapons and Reagan replying with a simple "Trust, but verify" and he didn't back down.

I also remember the tear down this wall Speach and it was not talking nice to the Soviets.

Reagan beat the Soviets. He beat them as was said by using the strength of Capitlism to break down the weakness of Communism/Socialism. We found more efficient ways to build arms and built better arms through competition. It was a true survival of the fittest.

Unfortunately we are being nice. We didn't beat the enemy into submission. We need to destroy to gain respect from our enemies. We need to show no quarter.

It goes hand in hand with the problem we have with Mexico. We are being invaded by a foriegn country. We need to kill anyone that enters the country illegally. The mainstream liberal press would go nuts. If we killed those illegals that did try, they would stop trying.
:agree +1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
What Reagan did was defuse the posturing... Diplomacy is not something Bush knows how to do very well but is something EVERY leader must do. Diplomacy is far less costly than war.

Don't forget we were spending ourselves into debt during the cold war as well...
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top