U.S. Studies Military Strike Options on Iran

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


What does that have to do with a conventional campaign?

?

I don't understand your question.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by GePap
What is the Pentagon?

Originally posted by Patrokolos
and for two of the three attacks they killed nothing but civilians and destroyed nothing but non military targets ON PURPOSE.

The two attacks that killed only civilians and destroyed only non-military targets were the ones on the Twin Towers. Guess what the third attack (which Patrokolos specifically differentiated from the other two) was, dumbass...

[Patroklos]

Odd, since the whole point of 911 was to KILL CIVILIANS, and for two of the three attacks they killed nothing but civilians and destroyed nothing but non military targets ON PURPOSE.

Wow, are you really that dense when it comes to reading comprehesion?

but QFT..

What is the Pentagon?

So, if I blow up a mosque, a hospital and a SAM site, the latter being nowhere near the first two, I made a legitimate military strike in the wash?

EDIT: Redundant I guess, but GePap often needs things repeated at nauseum.

[GePap]

I guess have have engrained ignoring what you say Pati, as it is 99% of the time crap.

Oh, and Drake, I prefer it being ignored by you. That way I can ignore you back, and the world is a better place.

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh, and Drake, I prefer it being ignored by you.

Go back to posting the merely stupid as opposed to the monstrously idiotic and you'll get your wish...

[SlowwHand]

Get used to it. Yada yada, ad nauseum.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by TCO


Saddam's brutal policies were effective in supressing dissent. Case in point.

but we removed him because of those brutal policies. at least thats the line we use now. its circular.

we need a strongman to contain the dissent created by removing a strongman.

[Patroklos]

I bet our intent would be a tad different, so not exactly the same thing

[TCO]

Originally posted by MRT144


but we removed him because of those brutal policies. at least thats the line we use now. its circular.

we need a strongman to contain the dissent created by removing a strongman.

You're getting your thinking muddled. One is why we do what we do. Another is why what happens happens. Are you a moron?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo


Should we or should we not be supporting the elected gov't of Iraq? Because if you don't mind being in an armed conflict with most of their ruling coalition (in addition to the Sunni Arab insurgency), you'll have to tell me exactly what our goals are, and what point there is in staying in Iraq.

Answer my question. I'm honing in on your comment about we better not anger Sadr, and you are wiggling like a drunk schoolgirl. You little tendentious puss.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by GePap


What is the Pentagon?

The building that they hit with an airliner full of civilians.

[Ramo]

Answer my question. I'm honing in on your comment about we better not anger Sadr, and you are wiggling like a drunk schoolgirl. You little tendentious puss.

First off, I said that we shouldn't put ourselves in a situation where we're in a military conflict with most of the ruling coalition in Iraq, not that we shouldn't ever anger Sadr. Among other reasons, putting ourselves in that situation would deny any definition to our role in Iraq.

But that's a dumb question. Obviously, we should anger him when we need to (say, over the provision in their Constitution that defines Islam as a source of law) and not anger him when we don't need to (as in the suppression of the Sadrist newspaper back in April of '04). Airstrikes on Iran would be a monumental cluster****, and that's considering Iraq alone.

Stop Dinodocing and have the balls to say something substantive.

[MKSheppard]

There is only one solution to the Iranian problem.

We make an ultimatum to Iran; they have 12 hours to give up their nuclear program now and forever or a rain of ruin will be unleashed upon them; and then cut to video shot of B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s taking off from all over the Continental United States.

The Iranians will have as long as it takes those bombers to sweep across the atlantic to think about what decision to make.

If they haven't complied with our ultimatum, the comprehensive nuclear destruction of Iran can begin, with the B-2s and B-1s penetrating the Iranian air defenses to destroy Iranian military bases with ALCMs opening up the way for B-52s armed with megaton-level nukes to erase every Iranian population center from the earth.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The way to fight nuclear proliferation is to use nukes!

Because that wouldn't make the US a pariah!

How soon before every Muslim country says to get your troops the Hell out of our country? How soon before Europe says the same?

Yeah, great ****ing idea

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MKSheppard
There is only one solution to the Iranian problem.

We make an ultimatum to Iran; they have 12 hours to give up their nuclear program now and forever or a rain of ruin will be unleashed upon them; and then cut to video shot of B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s taking off from all over the Continental United States.

The Iranians will have as long as it takes those bombers to sweep across the atlantic to think about what decision to make.

If they haven't complied with our ultimatum, the comprehensive nuclear destruction of Iran can begin, with the B-2s and B-1s penetrating the Iranian air defenses to destroy Iranian military bases with ALCMs opening up the way for B-52s armed with megaton-level nukes to erase every Iranian population center from the earth.