Threaten them how? With an attack on their nuclear facilities? Now you're talking. I've been wondering what Israel has been waiting for. Maybe after the election?
If we are simply attacking key facilities from the air, our military capital is just fine, thanks. Our carriers and bombers and cruise missiles are just sitting around right now, with the pilots playing cards. Or maybe you think we should occupy all of Iran with ground troops? Did you think this through?
Well, we shouldn't drop bombs Iran with tens of thousands of troops sitting in Iraq in non-defensive positions who are already over-exposed dealing with the so-called 'insurgency', and no realistic reserve of troops to draw from to defend our postions there. I'm sure we'd mop the floor with the Iranian army, but were talking MASSIVE casualties to our side. Did you think this through?
why would it be wrong to do the same thing without "international approval" (translated from current meaning of the term: approval of France and Germany)? The liberal mob mentality again? Or is it that we would just be so much more powerful with the army of France behind us?
There you go with the ad-hominem again- the 'liberal mob mentality'... Why should I bother with you?
NATO has an excellent infrastructure for support rolls: In fact thats was their primary contribution to several of the last major conflicts they participated in. The risk-adverse countries tending to offer more logistical support than direct combat material.
Ask around, anyone literate on this can tell you: NATO is a massive force multiplier for the US army. Since we have basically castrated NATO and insulted most of the major partners- they won't stand with us against Iran, nor are the inclined to accept us in a leadership role after we called them, basically, idiots with their heads in the sand over ther non-acceptance of a threat that (guess what:) never really existed.
So yeah, are army is MUCH more powerful with the logisitcal support of France, Germany and the rest of NATO behind it- and YES, they have significant combat abilities. Their standing with us would be a very clear and imminent threat to Iran. Their political and economic suppoort would be a very real and credible threat to Iran. In a world where we had not gone on the GreatIraqiSnipeHunt, we would have a real chance of threatening Iran into compliance with our wishes that they notr pursue nuclear weapons
Current Events » in reply to Is that a trick question? Sorry. Couldn't resist. ;)
re: Is that a trick question? Sorry. Couldn't resist. ;)
The whole thread (49 posts)
- U.S. Asks Allies to Condemn Iran on Nuclear Issue . . .
- OK. Well here goes. Iran, in the name of the Father (GHWB), the Son (GWB), the Holy Ghost (Dick Cheney) I rebuke thee and all thy stand for!!
- You know, a normal person might think atomic weapons in the hands of the Ayatollahs is a bad idea.
- You know, a normal person might think atomic weapons in the hands of an Israeli war criminal is a bad idea. (n/t)
- yeah, too bad
- One Addition. . .
- BTW...
- re: BTW...
- What do you think I am, an idiot?
- You established that long ago. (n/t)
- Is that a trick question? Sorry. Couldn't resist. ;)
- re: too bad
- Excellent. You did forget The Ultimate Weapon.
- Short quiz. Betcha won't answer, as the truth would hurt too much.
- See my response to Davin.
- Told you so. Told you so, told you so told you so. (n/t)
- Isn't it funny how he throws the term 'buttmonkey' around while he's this predictable in his responses and positions?
- Told you so. Told you so, told you so told you so. (n/t)
- See my response to Davin.
- You know, a normal person might think atomic weapons in the hands of the Ayatollahs is a bad idea.
- OK. Well here goes. Iran, in the name of the Father (GHWB), the Son (GWB), the Holy Ghost (Dick Cheney) I rebuke thee and all thy stand for!!
