Damen Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 We can't win the wars we have now, and we are going to start another war? who will pay for that one? Unfortunately we all will. Along with our children and most likely their children. That is, unless we pull a Wesley Snipes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 If USA does go to war with Iran they will lose most of the 5th fleet currently in that region. That's crazy talk. The U.S. Navy is not going to lose most of a fleet to anybody except maybe the Chinese or the Russians. If the Iranians attack our fleet then they are finished with a quickness. An American fleet under attack does not just sit there. It unleashes hell on Earth. I seem to recall reading Iran has a serious anti ship missile in it's arsenal, dropping even 1 carrier could seriously fuck up the gulf shipping wise, especially it it were in the straits, and then what? And are you honestly saying we are "holding back" in Iraq? Dude, we got our hands full now, and are quagmired down on 2 fronts and you really want to go start in Iran? AND you think it could be easy? I say hold off and think this through, make sure it isn't yet another war based on lies. BTW, have you ever fought in a war yourself? And why not go sign up to fight in this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 I seem to recall reading Iran has a serious anti ship missile in it's arsenal, dropping even 1 carrier could seriously fuck up the gulf shipping wise, especially it it were in the straits, and then what? You are probably referring to the "sunburn missile" which is a term that refers to a couple of different Russian-made anti-ship missiles. There is a lot of hype on leftie and conspiracy type sites regarding this capability and it is difficult to find good analysis of the subject. I don't believe the Iranians have the capability to sink a United States aircraft carrier, though if they did that would be a truly historical (and tragic) event. However, the United States has thirteen carrier groups. Any celebrations in Tehran would be short-lived and quickly forgotten. And are you honestly saying we are "holding back" in Iraq? Yes. We have loads of capability we are not employing there because it is not appropriate to that mission. If there was a decision to bomb some number of targets in Iran, our Navy and Air Force can do this readily. But that is not what I was talking about in my previous post to you on this thread. We were talking about Israel and whether their neighbors might attack them. That's a different matter altogether because the things we are doing in Iraq (trying to help the Iraqis put a decent country together) would never be attempted by the Israelis. They are strictly a kick-ass-and-take-names kinda bunch. BTW, have you ever fought in a war yourself? And why not go sign up to fight in this one? Dude. I live in Frisco. I know better that to take advice from hippies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Yup. They're called Sunburn missiles. The Iranians bought them from China. The Phalanx system *cannot* defend against them and the CIWS is untested in actual combat. But they *think* it will work -- you wanna be the guinea pig? Reality is, there have been no naval clashes involving missiles since the Falklands where the Argies sank two British ships (HMS Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor) and damaged at least one more (HMS Invincible) with just five Exocet missiles (very primitive technologically). I certainly would not want to be sitting on a bird farm or any ship in the shooting gallery puddle that is the Persian Gulf should the fit hit the shan between us & Iran. Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 I seem to recall that great "leftie" Bill O'Reilly commenting that Iran did indeed have the capabilities to take out carriers with these missiles. True or not, we should not be fiddle dicking around with bullshit shows of force that could also easily be seen as provocations by Iran and maybe the rest of the world. I also seem to recall Argentina got lucky and took out a British Ship during the Falklands war. All the experts were saying this current war would be wrapped up in a few weeks, Iraqis would be so happy, the country would go democratic etc...oh, and Gas would be under $2 a gallon at the pump...they were wrong on that one, so I won't give them much credibility on this one. I see no logic as to why we would be holding back in Iraq, makes no sense at all. Care to elaborate on why you think it does? * Old Hippie Said: BTW, have you ever fought in a war yourself? And why not go sign up to fight in this one? Dude. I live in Frisco. I know better that to take advice from hippies. So I will take that as a no on your part. Which is typical of the Neo cons, all big military guys as long as they don't have to go...yes yes, I know Clinton didn't go either, but he wasn't a neocon war hawk. Oh, and yes, I am from Frisco, but "Hippie" is just a handle. BTW, I served in the U.S. Army in El Salvador. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robaus Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 All this talk of yet another conflagration. The cancer causing all the trouble in the Middle East is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Why doesn't USA and EU exert pressure on Israel to try this simple compromise solution. If it works out, they'd be waving American and EU flags in the Middle East rather than burning them. If it doesn't work out, Israel with its powerful armed forces could easily reverse the whole process over a long weekend. A compromise: A bit of give and take. Israel swaps border land equivalent "in area" to West Bank land occupied in 1967, so that it can keep its large settlements i.e. 100% equivalent - not 97% causing pretexts to derail peace as in the Clinton/Barak Camp David deal. Yes, there will be some on both sides who still want either the total destruction of Israel or the total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from "Judaea and Samaria". But they are on the fringes. The majority simply want to live peacefully. Allow some geriatric Palestinian refugees who were actually born in Israel to return. Other refugees to be hugely compensated from an international fund. ($$ for rebuilding lives, jobs and peace much better than spent on bullets and bombs) A face saving deal over Jerusalem, respecting both religions and peoples. A completely demilitarised Palestine with only lightly armed police as in Costa Rica. Israel's in the box seat at the moment. Maybe they'll demilitarise later, when they find the peace is permanent. The carrot: after 5 years of peace and prosperity, Israel and Palestine are invited to join the EU just like Cyprus 130 miles away. They could then live, work and worship in each others countries anyway. A proviso that retains the Jewish right of return to Israel. So that descendants of Jews who fled pogroms and the Holocaust have a stepping stone to reclaim their European heritage. With peace perhaps more of world Jewry would at least register their citizenship in Israel to offset any demographic imbalance that Israel is worried about. Israelis and Palestinians could be sitting on the most valuable piece of real estate in the world. $$ billions of EU and other investment funds would pour in. Tourists would flock there in their millions to enjoy the climate and all the historical, cultural and religious treasures. Young Israelis and Palestinians could lead normal teenage lives, rather than being brutalized in the army and suicide bomber schools. The wind would be taken out of the sails of terrorist and rogue nations worldwide who use the Arab/Israeli conflict as a casus belli. Can you just imagine the dynamic of Israel and Palestine working together - the know how, the investment drive, the pent-up energy now wasted in war and unemployment, and the world's good will. It would unleash an economic renaissance akin to the Chindia phenomenon. And what a beacon of enlightenment it would be to the rest of the Middle East and the world. Israel will never have peace until they make their enemies their friends. Shalom. Inshallah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Great. :thumbup: Now all you have to do is convince the fanatics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 All the experts were saying this current war would be wrapped up in a few weeks... Nonsense. Nobody said that. E.g. see the review of the Feith book, above. I see no logic as to why we would be holding back in Iraq, makes no sense at all. Care to elaborate on why you think it does? Ask a somewhat intelligent question and you might get an answer. Ask a bullshit question and get no answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Hmmm. Rummy said, in Feb 2003: "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Coming from the SECDEF, that's official position. Sad that you neocons have such a short memory. But no worries, we progressives will help you remember...all the way to your grave. Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Why doesn't USA and EU exert pressure on Israel to try this simple compromise solution. The first clue that your plan is unrealistic at best is that is presumes that the one thing missing is "pressure on Israel". A compromise: A bit of give and take. Israel swaps border land equivalent "in area" to West Bank land occupied in 1967, so that it can keep its large settlements i.e. 100% equivalent - not 97% causing pretexts to derail peace as in the Clinton/Barak Camp David deal. Yes, there will be some on both sides who still want either the total destruction of Israel or the total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from "Judaea and Samaria". But they are on the fringes. The majority simply want to live peacefully. This sort of rhetoric is often bandied about but I think it can be readily seen to be inapt. You posit a symmetry between Israelis who desire the "total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Judea and Samaria" and Palestinians who want the total destruction of Israel. There is no such symmetry. In Israel the central government has declared a willingness to compromise and maintains a near-monopoly on the use of force by Israelis. Neither is true for the Palis. In Israel there are peace groups and free speech. They have a democratic system that includes Arabs and Muslims. The Israeli government promotes compromise and squelches fanaticism (not perfectly, but somewhat). The Palis have and do none of this. Their television broadcasts the most vile, racist, absolutist propaganda imaginable and those who speak out for compromise are lynched. I could go on and on, but why? If you can't perform this analysis for yourself then something besides a lack of information is preventing you from understanding reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.