Bonneville America Forums Forums Off Topic Discussion Forums Lounge Iranian Sabre Rattling

I am sure everyone is by now aware of the latest round of extremist sabre rattling by one "exalted" camel jockey by the name mamood ahmanidiot out of another seething dung pit in the middle east.

Ok , now that I have installed my own anti-extremist rhetoric on with the real deal.

Mr. mammood ahmanidiot's most recent proclamation ..stating that Israel faces "annihilation" and in fact predictiong as such just days after announcing from Tehran that his country has successfully enriched uranium ...(thats ok heck its only for electrical power) seems to be clearly ratcheting up the old islamic curved blade in anticipation of bleeding a little Israeli nation from the face of the earth.

At this point it seems almost inevitible that some sort of "exercise" in modern military technology is in order to "cut short" the blade of Iranian extremism and its desire to cleanse the world of the Jews.

Mr. mammood ahmanadiot's statements that question whether or not the holocaust ever happened are futher indication of his elite status as a living, breathing, all abiding first class camel jockey paper hanger.

We know what has to happen to hardcore paper hangers. The sooner they get nipped in the bud the better it is for everyone.

I have to believe at this point that plans are well underway between the US , Israel , and Great Britain to do exactly that. Clearly the emphasis of historical precedent cannot be denied in regard to the hitleristic rhetoric spouting from the mouth of this mamood idiot.

I think perhaps that Iran is grossly underestimating the power of Israel alone and its will to continue to exist. I also think that the preparedness of Iran to prosecute an able defense is mostly talk.

Looks like Iran will ...sooner or later get another one uppance.....

How many of you feel that some military intervention either by us or the ably equipped and trained Israelis is just about undeniable?

Thats a really tough call. The Iranians are Pursian not Arabs. They are not the little nation of Iraq whose abiltiy to wage war was seriously depleted in 91.

They can be bombed into oblivion but I have my doubts about occupation of that country. If we do, we better all be prepared to take a lot of body bags for our boys.

There is no good answer to this one. Isreal can do it themselves on the bombing part. Unless the whole world is willing to go including Isreal, France, Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt on a 1 for 1 ratio ect. I prefer not to give them my son. Without the U.S. and Great Britain europe and the middle east are the most at jeopardy. Between them they can put 500,000 troops inside Iran. (If they have the stomach to do it.)

In short, I am questioning why the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia are always the ones in harms way in larger numbers than the rest of the world.

Not long before the first gulf war, I was in the Navy and we spend a few months in the gulf. it was when we had to keep our eyes out for terrorists from both Iran and Iraq. we should have made a parking lot out of both places when we had the chance. Most of the ships then (and I presume now) had the capabilty to do so. we did get to blow up one of Iran's oil towers though.

Soren

I am aware the iranians are persians and not arabs...(spit) ......but they do ride camels in iran...ats all that matters to a redneck mother like me...:)

I am not for occupying them....just a little judicious use of modern "superior firepower" delivered in a dose adequate to the task. Strong enought to get their attention and in the right place to make them think twice about their behavior and place in a civilized world.

A good ****** whuppin always serves to adjust the thought process of any bully including potential bullies in training.

I got IT!

NEW RULE!

Any country that can't produce a decent car or motorcycle(sorry India..."Royal Enfield" doesn't count...YOU didn't design those old things) CAN NOT possess "The Bomb"!!!

BUT...Germany and Japan will STILL be the EXCEPTIONS to this rule!!!

Okay..."seriously"...What say we all put the sabers back in the sheath for now and see how that master of diplomacy in the White House pulls this thing off?!!!

Cheers,
Dwight

I have a dog in this race. I have family in Israel. Why is everyone putting the responsibility on Israel to take care of this situation? Iran is no push over. They might have lost millions during the war with Iraq, but the army is much more dedicated to their fundamentalism.

There are many parallels between Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- they are both religious fundamentalists. I don't want anyone to think this is a Christian bashing vent. However, Bush beleives in Armageden and Ahamdinejad is firm believer in the 12th Iman (rembember the mosque that was blown up a few weeks ago -- that was his mosque). Both believe in some sort of Armageden.

Is Ahamdinejad a wacko -- you bet. Should Israel be concerned? -- You bet.

This is world problem and to put the onus on Israel to take care of this is reckless and arogant.

Hey Bruce....what say we leave RELIGION outta of this here discussion, OKAY?!!

I mean...you KNOW how a REASONABLE difference of opinion can get sidetracked by such talk!

I don't think THAT has anything to do with with these obviously "REASON"able men in power.

Cheers,
Dwight
(I just LOVE sarcasm...as I'm SURE you can tell)

"There are many parallels between Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- they are both religious fundamentalists"

Ah comon Britfe. There are no religious fundemetalist in Isreal I assume.

I have (1)son, send yours or you can't have mine is what I say to Isreal.

If 10 countries did it then we would be in good shape with the exact proportion soldiers per country. You are right, its a world issue so the U.S. should donate as one country exactly proportionate.

You live in Mexifornia so I am sure you know what deficit means. War cost a lot of money and a lot of life. Lets do it equally if it has to be done.

On another age induced rambling thought. I have 0 faith in any of our intel. It was so right on target for Iraq. Wouldn't that be a hoot to do Iran, have thousands of our sons die and find they were 20 years away from a bomb.

It will be very interesting to see how this all pans out. Something tells me honestly that mamood the cockroach aint plannin on backin down for anybody so the die is cast.

Honestly though to compare GW Bush to mamood the itinerant persian porch rat fundamentalist pig abuser is pure hogwash.

Just not even close.

Sorry to disagree with ya Kevin....but anybody who "thinks" with his heart, prepares action using his "Beliefs" as basis for those actions, and then PRAYS he's doing the "right thing" after his actions are set in motion....IS a Fundamentalist in MY book!

Dubya's just d*mn lucky he has a famous father, and that being a "Christian" in America is popular.

But yeah, YOU'RE RIGHT! He AIN'T near as bad as that idiot over there in Tehran!

Dwight

The start of the end!

Dwight, you can call my state Mexas then we will be even. We don't have any illegals in Texas. GW took care of that when he was our Governor. roflmao

And he had the every child left behind program too!

Actually I was referring to devicit but for some reason couldn't resist the typo. You surprised me, I thought you would be on that in about 12 seconds.

Well, Iran's uranium enrichment is reported to be at 4%, that's about good enough to power a light bulb. The concensus is that it will take them approx. 10 years to get their process capable of the 90% enrichment needed for weapons grade Uranium. Seems there's at least a few weeks before any type of radical actions will be needed. Let's see what diplomacy can achieve before we fly too far off the handle on this issue.
Lets face it, Iran IS one of those places in the world that are completely run by their religious fanatics. Religious fanaticism is dangerous policy for a 'world' leader to subscribe to. There is NO reasoning with a fanatic, period. They are unreasonably entrenched in their skewed version of reality, and in this case, it's a reality that is set in concrete by religious leaders with a freakin chip on their shoulders.
Nuclear power for electricity is a good thing (imo) and used wisely it can be a huge benedit for the populace. Ultimate destructive power in the hands of fanatics, however, is bad for EVERYONE. Heck, a slingshot in the hands of blind fanaticism is bad for everyone.
Let's wait and see if Iran keeps digging their own grave before we start WWIII on this site. You never know who might be taking our lead......

Much as I don't like the guy - and I say that knowing that I have never met him so I only know what I read and hear - doesn't it seem not unreasonable (and I use the word in its correct definition) for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranians to be getting nervous?

Think about it: Imagine you're Ahmed Mahoummed from Tehran. Not 5 years ago a foreign power invaded/liberated a country on your eastern border - they're still there; 3 years later the same power liberates the country on your western border - they're still there. And to your south is the Navy of the power engaged in permanent manoeuvres - still there.

The power on your eastern border has some 300,000 highly trained and well-equipped troops, spy satellites, bunker busters, and nuclear weapons. They are also saying that they have the nuclear wapons only for peaceful purposes, yet they are also the only nation that has ever used them.

So it is not a paranoid response to want to appear tough by rattling sabres. When the USSR decided to put nuclear weapons in Cuba, does anyone think that the US reaction was "paranoid?" Wasn't rattling the sabre a totally reasonable response? And look at the flap the US is in at the moment because of the immigrants from our borders? If we feel like we're threatened by invasion from Mexican laborers - who I don't believe have nuclear weapons, a skilled fighting force, and deep pockets - isn't it rather easy to see how the Iranians must feel?

I appreciate that it is very difficult to imagine the point of view of others, but just calling the Iranians "crazy," "zealots," "fanatics," and so on using the rhetoric of belligerence, doesn't help. The ability for humans to use language to make other humans seem less-than-human is spectacularly demonstrated on a day-to-day basis. It wouldn't take a PhD in Media Studies and Semiotics to see how even all our postings contain insidious (and no so insidious) uses of language to frame arguments in our favor - how many times has "if your not with us, you with them" appeared in these hallowed virtual halls? And clanrickarde's "A good ****** whuppin always serves to adjust the thought process of any bully including potential bullies in training" pretty well outlines one perspective - though it raises the question of "who's the bully" considering that as I far as I am aware, the only "good whuppins" going on at the moment are in Afghanistan and Iraq, by folks from the most technologically advanced nation using superior firepower, against third-world peasants with conscript armies, most of whom never wanted to fight in the first place.

And the "potential bullies" is a linguistic blank check to carry out pre-emptive actions against anyone who can be considered a "bully." So WHO decides who is a bully and who isn't? Who has the call? Me? Dwight? Bob down the street? The POTUS?

And while I'm rolling; in what sense is Iran a "bully?" I mean, apart from the fight with the Iraquis some 20 years ago, and the internal squabble of their revolution in the late 70's, how many other countries has Iran bullied?

Contrast, too, the current attitude toward Iran with that of North Korea - yes, he of the bad haircut and the nuclear weapons. Why, for the love of Pete, are folks all in a snit about Iran when Kim Jong Il is actually saying "hey dudes, I have nukes" and no-one seems to want to listen? Now there's a scarier regime than Iran.

One last thought experiment: If foreign troops were in Canada and Mexico, if foreign gunships were off the east coast, and if foreing troops were setting up camps inside our borders, just how differently from Iranians would we behave? Do you think we'd be invoking our 2nd amendment right to form "militia" and meet them full on? Would we have counter-insurgency plans in effect? Would we be sinking their boats full of tea in Boston harbour?

You bet!

Siggy

Siggy. Ya been drinkin to much. You need to turn in your "American Man Card" and move to Iran.

You can be maood the camel abuser's step and fetchit.

Jeez ..no help for you lefties at all.

Go to Kalifornia and do a few bongs with Dwight.

Well, I think that military intervention is all but inevitable. Interesting that someone compared Iran to "little Iraq." Did he know that Iraq had the worlds second largest army at the time we invaded? I do wonder why the Palestinians should suffer the backlash from the holocaust instead of Europe, who let is happened. So its all very depressing and confusing to me-I am a life-long American Republican, who has fully supported nearly all the decisions made in the war on terror. However, as a retired career army officer who has regular contact with many fellow soldiers serving in Iraq, I agree with the six Generals that the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Abrams management of the matter has been abysmal, and that Rumsfeld should be fired immediately. So there is my political rant for the day. McCain for President 2008.

Siggy, thanks for not taking the bait.

We only have three choices. 1). Do nothing (a continuation of negotiations is the same thing) and let Iran go nuclear thus putting them in the same position as North Korea and greatly reducing our options. Iran is much more dangerous because it is run by terrorist who believes his cult (remember Islam has no separation of church and government) is destined to rule the world and subject the west to either Shira(sp?) Law or a status below our new masters. Those who think diplomacy has a chance are wrong because these savages believe it is their duty to lie and deceive infidels, all diplomacy does is buy the terrorist nation enough time to build their bomb. Kind of like what worked with Korea.

Our second choice is to "kick the can down the road" a few years by attempting the elmination of their weapons development through air strikes. This will not stop them but it should slow them down. This is not a great option as their leader is still the same terrorist savage who will then retaliate in a manner I can not forsee.

The third choice is regime change which means boots on the ground and hopefully a plan to "win the peace" this time. I believe this is the only real option that can work and assure us we will not be hit by terrorist armed with WMD, for that is Iran's goal, kill as many of us as possible and eliminate Israel.

And just where do we get these troops? Two front war is bad enough. Three front, well read history go as little back as ww2. There is a point that we are too streached out that point might already be now.
I do not put my head in the ground but we are thin enough over there and the rest of the world is not willing to go in so ...... so in my opionion let the UN mess it up a bit more then maybe we and are allies will not be the only one holding the ball

And the UN will mess it up and Iran develops nuclear weapons, unless we want to accept that option we have to elminate the UN as a possible arbitrator for resolution of this problem.

FYI

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/152057/

The third choice is regime change which means boots on the ground and hopefully a plan to "win the peace" this time.

It's a delicious irony, apparently lost on the participants, to see those who denounce terrorism on a grand scale, advocate it's use when the roles are reversed, and to justify it in the name of peace and freedom.

Quote:

---

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

Source: US Code, Title 18 Section 2331

---

Cheers,
Brad

Allowing Iran to develop WMD is ok with you then? You have a fourth choice?

MAKE NO MISTAKE, I DO NOT ADVOCATE IN THE NAME OF PEACE AND FREEDOM. I PREFER TO STRIKE THOSE WHO HAVE STATED PUBLICLY THEIR INTENTIONS BEFORE THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CARRY OUT WHAT THEY HAVE TOLD THE WORLD THEY INTEND.

Your choice is to wait untill he keeps promises? Their are no good choices here.

Equating dealing with an admitted threat, to terrorism is playing the "moral equilvalence" game and does not apply.

If not today then maybe the next or the next but make no mistake, Iran will get the bomb. They simply will. They are surrounded by their enemies and have been called part of the axis of evil on thousands of occassions.

If for 6 years the guy that called me part of an axis of evil invaded two nations in my region, I would be looking for a bomb.

Dont misunderstand, it scares me for them to have a bomb. I believe unless we invade them and domesticate them which I think is impossible, they are going to get the bomb.

The end result of all this is we keep making more terrorists. If you have a bee hive in the yard and can't seem to find a way to remove it, please stop hitting it with a stick!

Dwight! Fire up the bong, I am on my way.

Liberals always tend to equate our rightious war on terror as simply "making more terrorists" This is the agenda of defeatism and is in line with the current "cut and run like a yellow dog" mentality that is fronted so strongly by the faint of heart goody two shoes leftist.

There will always be terrorists yes .....until the backward, savage 7th century cultural phenom known falsely by some as "the religion of peace" grows up and becomes a modern Islam.

Western religion whether one is a believer or not has changed dramitically since the time of the last crusade.

We dont stone people to death anymore, We dont burn witches at the stake or burn heretics at the stake.

The key differnce between Islam and Western Christianity and or Judaism is that Judaism and Chritianity grew up.

Islam is still... in those parts of the world where terror finds its roots enabled strongly by 7th century dogma and indoctrination.

Islam needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era. It needs to grow up and stop persecuting its women and children and become a part of the modern world. Only in this way will the roots of terror slowly die away.


Nobody wants a war with Iran ....heck even the most agressive hawks in these US did not really want one with Iraq. But we got one and we freed a people from a tyrant and now those people are engaged in their own struggle to find themselves .....sadly made all the more difficult due to the 7th century islamic dogma and power struggles that continue from then until today.

Yes, we are the only one to have ever used the nuke. We have judiciouly used it as a cold war defense ever since.

Our leaders are not rooted in 7th century Chistianity and all of that baggage. Sure GW Bush is an unabashed christian.....yet he does not base all of his decision making rationale on his christian beliefs...despite what the main stream media would tell us.

In other words folks we have always had "sane" leadership at the helm of our nuclear trigger.

Now imagine if we had a seasoned personal terrorist who is an unabashed racist , anti-semite to the the extent that he avows to "erase" Israel from the face of the earth. This same man whom you would assume to have some knowledge of history shooses to deny that the holocaust even occurred.

Now if this mamood is not a fascist then what is he?

Therein lies the big differnce....something the left tends to ignore. Choosing instead to paint the big yellow streak down the middle of their spineless backs and fasten the proverbial collar on the holwling pooch and run as fast as they can to the nearest hole to stick their heads in. Bunchs Neville Chamberlains if ever.

I tried to look at Tehran with Google Earth but we're
to late!!
They have the technology to blur the satalite images!!
Look at Bagdad and you can dang near see bombs goin' off!
Wonder what the deal is here? Surely there are MASSIVE
amounts of sat images of Iran.

They seem to enjoy living in the stone age, I say help them along. Turn the region into a parking lot and get it over with. Iran with a nuke...now there's a scary thought. Even Dwight and some of our other liberal brothers should be able to agree with that.

Boots on the ground is the only way, huh? Sorry, but I don’t believe Bush will be able to muster the support needed for that operation, since he has already spent his political capital on Iraq. What makes you think the public here (or anywhere) is going to buy ANY case for war from Bush after being presented the “irrefutable proof of WMD’s and an IMMINENT threat in Iraq” only to see NOTHING of signifigance found? The United States is currently fully involved and struggling with a war in 2 countries, so just where are we going to find these troops to go into Iran? Thinking maybe some of you guys are suffering the same delusions of Hitler in 1945, mustering up divisions which didn’t exist, or you have such an overinflated opinion of our superiority that I pray you are never in charge! You can demean those on this board who disagree with you, by spouting the same old overly simplistic “nuke ‘em all” BS that you always spout, or you can choose for just one brief second to engage a few brain cells and THINK about our options. Do I know what the solution is, no. We have been haggling with North Korea for how long now over nukes, which they HAVE, and would only too willingly sell to terrorists for the currency they need for their crumbling economy, and yet we aren’t advocating boots on the ground there, are we. And lets just say we do put boots on the ground in Iran from these ghost divisions… Oh wait, first, we will need to enact a draft to bolster the troop levels enough for just such an operation, not to mention the transport/logistics elements needed, since these logistics will now be needed to simultaneously supply Iraq, Afghanistan, AND Iran, or should we cut our losses in Iraq and pull those troops out to go into Iran, allowing Iraq to spiral into a civil war. Or say for instance, we stay the course there, and hit Iran, what makes you think the same thing won’t happen in Iran as is happening in Iraq, i.e., an insurgency spills over from Iraq, or a homegrown one springs up (don’t forget, there are many people in their 40’s there now who remember our support for the Shah, and still hate us for all he did to his people with our support)? And lets say we do this, we take out the Iranian government, and take on the insurgency in Iran (and Iraq, and Afghanistan), then what will we do when the next totalitarian dictator springs up and says, “Hey, I want a nuke too!” ? For instance, Libya could backslide and decide to go after nukes as well, since they will now see the US fully mired down in 3 countries, and pretty much impotent to do anything. Or any number of former Soviet Republics who are now Islamic Republics? SO, are we going to sit here and bounce from country to country chasing down nukes, or focus on making our own borders safe (something the current administration has failed miserably to do as evidenced by the FLOOD coming across our southern border), so that even if terrorists do get a nuke, they have no way of delivering it on our soil short of an ICBM? Sorry, I don’t feel that the US has the right to be the worlds Police Force, nor do I WANT us to be the worlds Police Force. There are just too many crackpots out there for us to get them all, and we will bankrupt our country trying to do so. We are not equipped to do so, nor prepared to do so, and don’t kid yourself with some patriotic rhetoric that we are, and that anyone who thinks we are not is a yellow spined coward. Some of us just choose to pull our heads out of our arses and THINK about things before we jump in with both feet. And to sit there and call people cowards or unpatriotic just because they disagree with you about how we should handle a situation is just fine for a jacka#s, and I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t say that to someones face, but have no problem doing so from 1000 miles away on a keyboard, so how about arguing something on its merits and with some civility and save the name calling and rhetoric for some other loser website. As for my patriotism, I’ve done my part, and continue to do so by caring and getting involved in thinking about and acting on what I feel is best for our country (beyond spouting off some garbage the Republican or Democratic Party tell me to spout off), so if you feel the need to question it, go right ahead. There’s a place under my desk for those kinds of opinions.

Well, Sigmund. I figure some of us have "All American" hair around our nether regions and others amongst us are simply less well endowed.

Thats what I really think.

Some amongst us are positive and all in favor of defending and protecting these US from all enemies foreign and domestic and then we have the "Screw the Pooch Crowd"

We cant , We shouldn't , I'll pee my pants. Ya know the "I just screwed the POOCH bunch. When viewed from an historical outlook they all look remarkably like Neville Chamberlain. Appeasers of paper hangers basically.

If this offends you in any way I do apologize. The truth hurts ..I know...

Any yes Bayern....I would intitute a draft in a heartbeat. It would do most youngsters a world of good to spend some time in service to their country. Since so many feel it is always someones elses job to do the protecting. Now that idea must really shake up all the whack jobs on the left.

Kevin and Greg, this is getting nowhere and is spiraling down to the nasty level.

I am so friggin sick of these political & religious threads people are starting. All they do is stir up an already stirred pot and the EXACT same rhetoric and venomous posts are bandied about over and over.

If you think I am being heavy handed by locking this thread, so be it. You can send me a PM or an email and complain. I will listen to you there....