BF2S Forums US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

Turquoise wrote:

But wait, I thought Al Gore was full of shit in your opinion?  So, is he only speaking truth when he mentions Saddam in a threatening context?

Personally, I think Gore is much better suited for addressing environmental issues, because we've already proven this statement by him to be untrue.

Clinton also made the mistake of assuming Saddam was a valid threat in the late 90s, as did much of the industrialized world.

Maybe when we stop being so paranoid about the Middle East, we won't end up getting stuck in unnecessary and expensive wars.

Besides, Afghanistan and Pakistan are where our attention should be, not Iraq.

Agreed, but rather than being stuck in the past we should be focused on an exit that will not leave a disaster upon our withdrawal. I think it is incredibly morally irresponsible just to leave.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

But wait, I thought Al Gore was full of shit in your opinion?  So, is he only speaking truth when he mentions Saddam in a threatening context?

You should know by now that Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, et cetera are all evil socialist lying untrustable scumbag criminals until they say something that agrees with the current administration. Additionally. once one of them has been quoted as backing the administration's claims, all of us liberals are supposed to stop arguing because the names of those we worship have been invoked.

I believed them back then, so did you guys right?

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

But wait, I thought Al Gore was full of shit in your opinion?  So, is he only speaking truth when he mentions Saddam in a threatening context?

Personally, I think Gore is much better suited for addressing environmental issues, because we've already proven this statement by him to be untrue.

Clinton also made the mistake of assuming Saddam was a valid threat in the late 90s, as did much of the industrialized world.

Maybe when we stop being so paranoid about the Middle East, we won't end up getting stuck in unnecessary and expensive wars.

Besides, Afghanistan and Pakistan are where our attention should be, not Iraq.

Agreed, but rather than being stuck in the past we should be focused on an exit that will not leave a disaster upon our withdrawal. I think it is incredibly morally irresponsible just to leave.

I thought it was morally irresponsible to enter Iraq, but then again, I think we're past morality at this point.

This is about money and the lives of our soldiers, Iraqis be damned.  I know this is going to come off as nationalistic and maybe even racist, but I care a lot more about American lives than the lives of these people.

Fuck the Iraqis.  They're a waste of our money and time, and even if it is morally irresponsible, leaving is still the best option in my mind, because you can't help people that can't even keep from killing each other.

One last thing...  Do you think the Iraqis or any other culture would do the same for us?  I don't think so.  If we were on the other end of this situation and the Iraqis were the occupying force in America, they'd either leave or just beat us down until we submitted unconditionally.  We've played this game with the kid gloves on, and because of this, we're losing.

If we plan on staying and actually going somewhere with this, then we're going to need to be as brutal as Saddam was.  That's not in the cards though, so we should just leave instead.

Fen321 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Varegg wrote:

So we can divide up the Iraq conflict into two halves, the victory and the .... ??  ... that other thing we`re not so good at ....

Are you not able to perceive the difference between combat operations and an occupation? It is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Are you able to perceive the difference between a tactical victory and a failure of an overall strategic failure that is Iraq? I understand you are stating  this to differentiate the two but here me out....

We don't start wars because we want to see who has a bigger penis in terms of decimating another countries army. Wars are waged in order to induce a political change that could not be reached via negotiations. Granted we set up a government post the tactical win BUT THE REASON we did all of this, once again for emphasis, is NOT because we wanted to test our military superiority over Iraq--rather it was to implement a "democracy" and stop a "WMD" program that was hypothetically being developed. Now that I've given you a bit of a frame of reference here.....did we win? Is the mission accomplished?

Oh, its rather amusing you mention the difference between combat operations and occupation...please fill me in on how both of these are not in the least bit related.

Well the homicide rate may be high but there has been 3 elections and I can say now there are no WMD's for sure. Sooo.. lol

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

But wait, I thought Al Gore was full of shit in your opinion?  So, is he only speaking truth when he mentions Saddam in a threatening context?

Personally, I think Gore is much better suited for addressing environmental issues, because we've already proven this statement by him to be untrue.

Clinton also made the mistake of assuming Saddam was a valid threat in the late 90s, as did much of the industrialized world.

Maybe when we stop being so paranoid about the Middle East, we won't end up getting stuck in unnecessary and expensive wars.

Besides, Afghanistan and Pakistan are where our attention should be, not Iraq.

Agreed, but rather than being stuck in the past we should be focused on an exit that will not leave a disaster upon our withdrawal. I think it is incredibly morally irresponsible just to leave.

I thought it was morally irresponsible to enter Iraq, but then again, I think we're past morality at this point.

This is about money and the lives of our soldiers, Iraqis be damned.  I know this is going to come off as nationalistic and maybe even racist, but I care a lot more about American lives than the lives of these people.

Fuck the Iraqis.  They're a waste of our money and time, and even if it is morally irresponsible, leaving is still the best option in my mind, because you can't help people that can't even keep from killing each other.

One last thing...  Do you think the Iraqis or any other culture would do the same for us?  I don't think so.  If we were on the other end of this situation and the Iraqis were the occupying force in America, they'd either leave or just beat us down until we submitted unconditionally.  We've played this game with the kid gloves on, and because of this, we're losing.

If we plan on staying and actually going somewhere with this, then we're going to need to be as brutal as Saddam was.  That's not in the cards though, so we should just leave instead.

Ahh but you see you don't have to agree with one to agree with the other. It seems to me you are assuming I endorsed an invasion when I have stated time and time again it was a mistake. Since there was no imminent threat congress and the President should not have authorized force per the Constitution of the United States. I fear the day we are truly past being moral. Contrary to popular belief American voters do still hold their elected leaders accountable for the atrocities they create. (New congress anyone).

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-20 18:04:13)

Kmarion wrote:

Ahh but you see you don't have to agree with one to agree with the other. It seems to me you are assuming I endorsed an invasion when I have stated time and time again it was a mistake. Since there was no imminent threat congress and the President should not have authorized force per the Constitution of the United States. I fear the day we are truly past being moral. Contrary to popular belief American voters do still hold their elected leaders accountable for the atrocities they create. (New congress anyone).

Government never has been moral.  Hell, war isn't exactly moral either.

In love and war, anything goes.  We have to be realistic with Iraq, and that sometimes requires being Machiavellian.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-20 18:08:57)

Fen321 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

I can only speak for myself, but no. All of the above are career politicians, most with a demonstrable track record of lying, pandering or flip-flopping in order to get votes. Not like that's new in Washington, but some folks have managed to convince themselves that only one side of the aisle does it, or that it's only okay when their side does it.

Very good post...  Clinton was better than Bush, but he still did a lot of things I disagreed with.

What we need is to remove the neoliberals and neoconservatives from both parties.  These bastards just suck up our money with warfare, corporate welfare, and the big scam known as social security.

We need to remove factions from the US political system -- unfortunately Liberty --> Factions.

The same system that keeps us in check impedes us in every other manner.

Fen321 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

I can only speak for myself, but no. All of the above are career politicians, most with a demonstrable track record of lying, pandering or flip-flopping in order to get votes. Not like that's new in Washington, but some folks have managed to convince themselves that only one side of the aisle does it, or that it's only okay when their side does it.

Very good post...  Clinton was better than Bush, but he still did a lot of things I disagreed with.

What we need is to remove the neoliberals and neoconservatives from both parties.  These bastards just suck up our money with warfare, corporate welfare, and the big scam known as social security.

We need to remove factions from the US political system -- unfortunately Liberty --> Factions.

The factions don't bother me as much as the lobbyists.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Very good post...  Clinton was better than Bush, but he still did a lot of things I disagreed with.

What we need is to remove the neoliberals and neoconservatives from both parties.  These bastards just suck up our money with warfare, corporate welfare, and the big scam known as social security.

I'm a little odd in that I went from being a Reaganite conservative directly into despising our entire political structure, bypassing the Democrat stage entirely. Clinton was mainly responsible for that, after watching him pay lip-service to various progressive causes right before screwing them over or tossing them some worthless scraps. Both sides are responsible for this mess; granted, I put a bit more responsibility on the warhawks but the Democrats are just as bad for allowing it to continue by letting their desire to remain in office override their responsibility to their constituents.

I started Democrat, skipped the Republicans, and for a while, I was Libertarian.  I'm right there with you on the political structure though, but I think I'm basically a variation of a Lou Dobbs-style populist these days.

I'm just sick of the corporations and special interest groups that get us stuck in these overseas quagmires.  If people in another country want a democracy, they can fight for it their own damn selves.

Turquoise wrote:

But wait, I thought Al Gore was full of shit in your opinion?  So, is he only speaking truth when he mentions Saddam in a threatening context?

Personally, I think Gore is much better suited for addressing environmental issues, because we've already proven this statement by him to be untrue.

Clinton also made the mistake of assuming Saddam was a valid threat in the late 90s, as did much of the industrialized world.

Maybe when we stop being so paranoid about the Middle East, we won't end up getting stuck in unnecessary and expensive wars.

Besides, Afghanistan and Pakistan are where our attention should be, not Iraq.

What makes you more qualified to assume if someone is or is not a threat to international relations?
Do you have a security clearance?
Are you briefed daily on international matters but a highly specialized and trained staff with support staffs ranging into the hundreds if not thousands?
Do you possess knowledge that will somehow focus the world's attention immediately where it needs to be every single time it needs to be some place?
Do you even know what a viable threat to international relations is?
Do you know everything that has happened "behind the scenes" that 98% of civilians will never know?


Didn't think so.

Ridir wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

But wait, I thought Al Gore was full of shit in your opinion?  So, is he only speaking truth when he mentions Saddam in a threatening context?

Personally, I think Gore is much better suited for addressing environmental issues, because we've already proven this statement by him to be untrue.

Clinton also made the mistake of assuming Saddam was a valid threat in the late 90s, as did much of the industrialized world.

Maybe when we stop being so paranoid about the Middle East, we won't end up getting stuck in unnecessary and expensive wars.

Besides, Afghanistan and Pakistan are where our attention should be, not Iraq.

What makes you more qualified to assume if someone is or is not a threat to international relations?
Do you have a security clearance?
Are you briefed daily on international matters but a highly specialized and trained staff with support staffs ranging into the hundreds if not thousands?
Do you possess knowledge that will somehow focus the world's attention immediately where it needs to be every single time it needs to be some place?
Do you even know what a viable threat to international relations is?
Do you know everything that has happened "behind the scenes" that 98% of civilians will never know?


Didn't think so.

QFT QFE

DBBrinson1 wrote:

UON wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm

So, is it possible to be not planning to attack, but also planning to attack at the same time?

What do you think the guys in the pentagon do all day?  They are constantly updating attack/defense plans, per different scenarios.

Here in the UK we only have a Ministry of Defense.

UON wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

UON wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm

So, is it possible to be not planning to attack, but also planning to attack at the same time?

What do you think the guys in the pentagon do all day?  They are constantly updating attack/defense plans, per different scenarios.

Here in the UK we only have a Ministry of Defense.

I guess that works for ya'll, but here I think that plans are upgraded constantly.  I know that I wouldn't like to be a General and told that I must have a battle plan and be ready to move within 6 months without having proper plans all ready set to roll in place.

Superglueman wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

I'm pretty sure we have plans drawn up for just about every powerful nation in the world, just in case... in fact, I'd bet money on it.

We have plans for EVERY nation on Earth, for almost every possibility.

You truely are the most paranoid race that ever existed...

the end of the world obviously will be brought about by america (they will claim" ..well,  if we dont do it, someone else will" )...america's indifference towards seemingly everything surpasses  ww2 germany's or ancient rome's and all other tyrannical societies...

..and it doesnt suprise anyone that under your breath, you see even allies as enemies...

Good God.