Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Mott The Hoople:
here we come


Mott The Hoople,

I think you and I can get VERY wealthy if we jump into the nuclear bomb shelter business NOW. Iran is allied with Russia and China. Russia is their major arms supplier. China has a trade agreement with them for Oil. They don't need nuclear weapons, the Russians have a well developed, mature, intercontinental nuclear arsenal. The Russians have been delivering state of the art ground to air missile systems to Iran. Iran has a small, very modern submarine fleet. Iran, Russia and China share weapons systems. Twice in the past year Chinese Submarines have surfaced near US Carrier Groups. On on occasion, INSIDE the group, within firing range of the flagship carrier, and, until it surfaced, undetected. That incident occured in the South China Sea during exercises.
I am serious, bomb shelters should be a big business at this time.
quote:
Originally posted by Mott The Hoople:
Alright then 60/40?

this reminds me of mt childhood days ...Cuba

80/20 if you do the contracting, sales, construction and I gut the first on gratis. Cuba was in your younger days, Cuba was the last year of my service in the US Army. I spent a stressful week waiting for insertion into Cuba. Those Freighters turning around and heading for the black sea was quite a relief.
quote:
Originally posted by PBA54:
quote:
Originally posted by Mott The Hoople:
here we come


If you had taking the time to have read my post,you would have known this a week ago!

PBA,
Don't be offended, I appreciate a seperate thread for this topic. Keeps things better organized, and makes the moderator work harder than a one armed paper hanger in a burning cat shelter.
quote:
Originally posted by smurph:
kinda makes ya wonder IF something wasn't planned to happen BEFORE the speech was even made




let Bush and his cronies dig their own holes. Too bad they are also digging graves for even more of our brave troops, but in reality with the Senate being so evenly matched Democrats do not have enough power to control Bush.

We do not want to be known as the party which would not support our troops. We want the Republicans to be known as the party which started an unprovoked war and wasted the lives of thousands of Americans for a pointless war that destabilized an entire region of the world.

No animals or trees were killed or injured in the sending of this message.
However, a great number of electrons were inconvenienced.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Mott The Hoople:
here we come


Mott The Hoople,

I think you and I can get VERY wealthy if we jump into the nuclear bomb shelter business NOW. Iran is allied with Russia and China. Russia is their major arms supplier. China has a trade agreement with them for Oil. They don't need nuclear weapons, the Russians have a well developed, mature, intercontinental nuclear arsenal. The Russians have been delivering state of the art ground to air missile systems to Iran. Iran has a small, very modern submarine fleet. Iran, Russia and China share weapons systems. Twice in the past year Chinese Submarines have surfaced near US Carrier Groups. On on occasion, INSIDE the group, within firing range of the flagship carrier, and, until it surfaced, undetected. That incident occured in the South China Sea during exercises.
I am serious, bomb shelters should be a big business at this time.

Mott DON'T READ LONG POSTS.
quote:
Originally posted by smurph:
kinda makes ya wonder IF something wasn't planned to happen BEFORE the speech was even made

There is nothing to wonder about, about a thousand of the surge troops were in Baghdad by the morning the speech was presented.
I suspect that by the time the rumors surfaced the call ups had been sent, and it's likely that practically all the troops set to deploy knew they were going before anyone outside the Pentagon or White House heard even a word. Routine Deployments to Iraq are common. A few that are not replacement rotations would not create much of a stir.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
PBA,
To answer this question, "Why do people have to wait and see it on corporate media before they can believe it?"
A lot of people don't see it till it gets oo the corporate media.

Speaking of Corporate Media, this link is to the BBC. That's not really corporate. IT DETAILS THE RAID ON THE IRANIAN CONSULATE IN NORTHERN IRAQ. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm
quote:
Originally posted by PBA54:

No animals or trees were killed or injured in the sending of this message.
However, a great number of electrons were inconvenienced.


PBA you have created a labor dispute at my house. I have to convince the gerbil who powers my computer that the exercise is GOOD FOR HIM. Do you have a link to any pictures of obese gerbils?
quote:
Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
The world is over populated. We must have a correction in or growing masses. A WWIII or a giant nuclear war is mans way of scaling back. If it must happen, I had rather it take place somewhere other than North America.


Me too. AND we might prevent it from happening here by not starting wars we don't need. Or, we can wait for Bird flu, or stop treating HIV, or just keep on accelerating global warming.
quote:
Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
I think that if we do not take care of Iran now that terrorism will hit the USA like a hell storm.

We need to secure or borders also. Bush should be impeached on failure to secure or borders alone.


What kind of hell storm do you have in mind? What kind of taking care of do you have in mind?

I think we need to protect Iraq from Iran. We need to Protect Iraq from Saudi, and Syria, and Turkey, and Israel. BUT WE DON'T NEED TO MESS WITH IRAN OTHERWISE.
I'm gonna get blasted for this, but oh well, here goes.

Reguarding Iran and Syria, if we don't invade Iran or Syria, but they are attacking us in Iraq, wouldn't that be a direct act of war? Whether or not we should be there is pointless, if they are crossing the border and firing at US servicemen, should that constitute a direct act of war?

The current govenment of Iran has very little hope if Iraq becomes a moderate state, which the majority do not want an Theocracy, but closer to what the Kuwaities have, secular government with an Islamic guided judiciary. Being surrounded by non-Theocratic US allies wouldn't be very comfortable. They (Iran) have a sizeable group of revolutionaries inside thier country. The Iran/Iraq border is one of the most poorly defended in the world. There are some cities in Iraq reported to have more illegal Iranians than Iraqi citizens.

The US, Iraqi, and Afghani Govenments have all complained about Iranian incursions into those countries and supplying weapons to insurgents.

Whether true or not, there have been confessions from "Syrian" Intelligence Officers, caught in Iraq, saying they had trained insurgents in Syria. If those are even partially true, then that would be an act of war. As to increased "saber-rattling" at Syria, even the vaunted French are involved with that. They are being asked to leave Lebanon alone. If they would refuse such worldwide objections, why would they not be involved in Iraq with little support for the US there?

Should directed attacks not be rebuffed? In a large way, open warfare would be preferable to the current insurgencies. Yes, even with four or more opponents. Do not be fooled into thinking that a US "withdrawl" will be that in any case. Even losing Iraq, we would still have a massive amount of troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the very thing that upsets our good friend Osama bin Ladin. As a matter of fact, there will be more US troops in those two countries as well as Turkey than pre-invasion, as the Iranians will most certainly have more control over Iraq than the Saudis would be comfortable with. You could also expect to see a huge buildup in Afghistan, which will get the Pakistanis panties in a really large bunch. The Iranians want to spread Islamic Fundamentalism to all of the Muslim world, recreating the Ottoman Empire after their fashion.

As it is now, its almost a must win situation, at best. Most probably though, it is a lose-lose situation.
quote:
Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
Current U.S. troop levels and committments in Iraq and Afghanistan don't favor a protracted ground war in Iran. Look for tactical nukes to be used...if not directly by us, by Israel.


I second that remark....I think most likely the Isreali's will do it, have done it before (Osirak, Iraq, 1981). Since the sites are deep underground, I feel tactical nukes with a 100 kiloton yield or less will be used. This will keep fallout to a minimum, and no conventional bombs of that size are practical for delivery, at least to my unclassified knowledge.

Next, Israel, and this is only speculation, knows the U.S. has Iran covered on both flanks. All they need to do is fly over to Iraqi airspace, await U.S. KC-10 or KC-135 Stratotanker support for aerial refueling, swoop into Iran, do the deed, and fly back. They also know the U.S. can't stay in Iraq and Afghanistan officially forever, and with Iran's wacko, kidnapping/hostage taking president in power (see U.S. Embassy 1979-1981-444 days...) saying "Israel will be wiped off the map..etc.", they need to act now.

And I HOPE they do. Time to shovel out the Farsi-brand of Shi'ite into the terd pile where it belongs.
quote:
Originally posted by smurph:
US Embassy in Greece got bombed today.No injuries,no deaths

the US might should consider it being time to forget operating a war based on what is polically correct.

An Iranian Consular office in Iraq was raided by coalition forces too. US officials say 6 diplomats were detained, and records and computers confiscated. British repors say only 5 Iranian Consular officials were detained.
quote:
Originally posted by Shiroshi:
I'm gonna get blasted for this, but oh well, here goes.

Reguarding Iran and Syria, if we don't invade Iran or Syria, but they are attacking us in Iraq, wouldn't that be a direct act of war? Whether or not we should be there is pointless, if they are crossing the border and firing at US servicemen, should that constitute a direct act of war?

The current govenment of Iran has very little hope if Iraq becomes a moderate state, which the majority do not want an Theocracy, but closer to what the Kuwaities have, secular government with an Islamic guided judiciary. Being surrounded by non-Theocratic US allies wouldn't be very comfortable. They (Iran) have a sizeable group of revolutionaries inside thier country. The Iran/Iraq border is one of the most poorly defended in the world. There are some cities in Iraq reported to have more illegal Iranians than Iraqi citizens.

The US, Iraqi, and Afghani Govenments have all complained about Iranian incursions into those countries and supplying weapons to insurgents.

Whether true or not, there have been confessions from "Syrian" Intelligence Officers, caught in Iraq, saying they had trained insurgents in Syria. If those are even partially true, then that would be an act of war. As to increased "saber-rattling" at Syria, even the vaunted French are involved with that. They are being asked to leave Lebanon alone. If they would refuse such worldwide objections, why would they not be involved in Iraq with little support for the US there?

Should directed attacks not be rebuffed? In a large way, open warfare would be preferable to the current insurgencies. Yes, even with four or more opponents. Do not be fooled into thinking that a US "withdrawl" will be that in any case. Even losing Iraq, we would still have a massive amount of troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the very thing that upsets our good friend Osama bin Ladin. As a matter of fact, there will be more US troops in those two countries as well as Turkey than pre-invasion, as the Iranians will most certainly have more control over Iraq than the Saudis would be comfortable with. You could also expect to see a huge buildup in Afghistan, which will get the Pakistanis panties in a really large bunch. The Iranians want to spread Islamic Fundamentalism to all of the Muslim world, recreating the Ottoman Empire after their fashion.

As it is now, its almost a must win situation, at best. Most probably though, it is a lose-lose situation.

Shirosi,
Iraq's constitution is sectarian. Iran is Shia, Iraq is majority Shia.
The United States has prohibited its corporations and citizens from doint business in Iran since Carter was president and the embassy was taken.
There is little hope that Iraq will become a "moderate" state if you mean by that, not opposed to a US presence in Iraq. If they do develop a stable democracy, it is not likely that politicians who SUPPORT relations with the USA will be elected. Not after what we have done to Iraq.
If it is true that Iran is providing material support to the factions in Iraq that are attempting to drive the US out of the country, Iran is making some serious alliances there.
quote:
Originally posted by Mott The Hoople:
here we come

No reason to get excited, we have arrived. I have never heard of this particular blog, or web site, but the story was e mailed to me.
Evidently the raid on the Iranian consular offices in Iraq was not just a knock on the door and come out please. NOT BY A LONGSHOT.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content...ew&id=995&Itemid=135
Here's hoping the author is correct, and Iran will use diplomacy rather than armed force.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×