Pentagon âthree-day blitzâ plan for Iran
- Thread starter JayS
- Start date
All that said, which could be taken as oh my gosh he is a nut job war monger potential crazy, thats not the case. I'm very much a pacifist and think EVERY SINGLE MEANS SHOULD BE EXHAUSTED before we go into war, because, once that line is crossed you will either lose or have to commit to terrible things that none of us want to think about.
'EVERY SINGLE MEANS SHOULD BE EXHAUSTED'
I think they already have been and Iran has been intensifying the insurgency in Iraq all along. US will not use nukes, but deep bunker penetrating deals should do the job. Iran should then open its nuke labs for international inspection or face economic and other crippling sanctions. Economic, cultural, academic, spiritual power and advancement is any time welcome over nuclear and military, especially when these Third World fanatical regimes have designs of expanding their 'ways of primitive life'.
I think they already have been and Iran has been intensifying the insurgency in Iraq all along. US will not use nukes, but deep bunker penetrating deals should do the job. Iran should then open its nuke labs for international inspection or face economic and other crippling sanctions. Economic, cultural, academic, spiritual power and advancement is any time welcome over nuclear and military, especially when these Third World fanatical regimes have designs of expanding their 'ways of primitive life'.
I believe we should let Israel do it. Objectively they have more directly at stake than we do. Sure a nuclear Iran is a real threat to the US, but that freak of a president they have directly threatend Israel. I will be truly surprised if we bomb Iran and not Israel.
Correct me if I am wrong, but they already did it about 20 years ago, when Iran first tried to go nuclear. I believe if that occurs we will give Israel anything they need, short of nukes, to get the job done. If this does happen I really hope we don't get another completely unstable country in the Middle East.
Correct me if I am wrong, but they already did it about 20 years ago, when Iran first tried to go nuclear. I believe if that occurs we will give Israel anything they need, short of nukes, to get the job done. If this does happen I really hope we don't get another completely unstable country in the Middle East.
You do know that Wall street Bankers financed Hitlers war machine? and no one has been able to refute the claim that there was ample evidence of Pearl harbor months before it happened.
Iran is a chess piece in the Oil Game. This is all it is. A big game with a lot of money at stake. Without even looking at the Iran attack strategy I can tell you that 80% of the targets will be oil infrastructure related.
The name of this game is "reduction of global oil production". High oil prices is a key solution to exporting US inflation to other parts of the globe. The US was very successful in exporting the sub-prime risk to other markets. This is more of the same type of risk management. Only in this case, millions die to keep US inflation manageable.
I am well aware of US history and its actions around the world. However, your interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. You state that the bombing of Dresden was done to end the war earlier. There were no military targets of any significance in the city. It was done in the last stage of the war (middle of February 1945), war ended about 12 weeks after. It was senseless, and most historians agree it was not necessary and did not help to end the war. So the US killed over 250,000 civilians and achieved what?
Now, using your logic, are you also going to be so forgiving to the NAzis for killing 6 million Jews? Were the Germans only following orders and in order to win the war and therefore it was OK to kill all those innocent Jewish men, women and little children? I men would not that end the NAZIS struggle to win the war? Please enlighten me as to what your thoughts are on the above matters?
"You guys burnt the place down, turned it into a single column of flame. More people died there in the firestorm, in that one big flame, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined." --Kurt Vonnegut
Now, using your logic, are you also going to be so forgiving to the NAzis for killing 6 million Jews? Were the Germans only following orders and in order to win the war and therefore it was OK to kill all those innocent Jewish men, women and little children? I men would not that end the NAZIS struggle to win the war? Please enlighten me as to what your thoughts are on the above matters?
"You guys burnt the place down, turned it into a single column of flame. More people died there in the firestorm, in that one big flame, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined." --Kurt Vonnegut
Some added historical perspective on the need for brutality of your going to win a war for the uninformed.
Viewed in today's terms Shermans march through the south could not be viewed as anything but a campaign of terror against the woman and children of the south. It was brutal and terrible, it also saved the Union. Why do I say this? Because Lincons entire Presidancy, much like George Bush's, was defined by war, and people had gotten sick of it. The majority of the electorate was tired of war, tired of losing sons (casualty rates in the Union Army ran as high as 1/3) and he was running against a fellow (who's name I don't recall, and I'm lazy and don't feel like grabbing the book right now) who was advocating peace by any means with the south. Lincon was going to lose the election, but he would not bend, he would not waiver because he though history would judge him as having been right. In the end Shermans campaign turned the war around IN THE MINDS OF THE ELECTORATE (the North was "winning" milatarily by this point, the people had simply grown sick of war) and so the course was maintained, this because of a General who is a true American hero, but by today's standards would probably end up in a cell in the Hague.
Brandon
Viewed in today's terms Shermans march through the south could not be viewed as anything but a campaign of terror against the woman and children of the south. It was brutal and terrible, it also saved the Union. Why do I say this? Because Lincons entire Presidancy, much like George Bush's, was defined by war, and people had gotten sick of it. The majority of the electorate was tired of war, tired of losing sons (casualty rates in the Union Army ran as high as 1/3) and he was running against a fellow (who's name I don't recall, and I'm lazy and don't feel like grabbing the book right now) who was advocating peace by any means with the south. Lincon was going to lose the election, but he would not bend, he would not waiver because he though history would judge him as having been right. In the end Shermans campaign turned the war around IN THE MINDS OF THE ELECTORATE (the North was "winning" milatarily by this point, the people had simply grown sick of war) and so the course was maintained, this because of a General who is a true American hero, but by today's standards would probably end up in a cell in the Hague.
Brandon
Quote from dandxg:
I believe we should let Israel do it. Objectively they have more directly at stake than we do. Sure a nuclear Iran is a real threat to the US, but that freak of a president they have directly threatend Israel. I will be truly surprised if we bomb Iran and not Israel.
Correct me if I am wrong, but they already did it about 20 years ago, when Iran first tried to go nuclear. I believe if that occurs we will give Israel anything they need, short of nukes, to get the job done. If this does happen I really hope we don't get another completely unstable country in the Middle East.
it was Iraq that Israel bombed not Iran.