" Inside 911 " premiers tonight

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, Israel does not have a capability to hit Iran in the manner it hit Iraq. It's aircraft do not have that kind of range.

[Extra Stout]

Revolution is already in its infancy internally in Iran - there is a movement with momentum that wants to see that country normalize relations with the West. You let that movement take down Tehran from the inside out.

You know, I've been hearing about this "movement" and its "momentum" for like eight years now. Not much seems to happen. They're weaker now than they were in the late '90s when it appeared that the mullahs might actually lose control.

Now they've consolidated their grasp on the government and purged all the dissidents.

I think the headquarters of the "insurgency" in Iran is in Los Angeles these days, not Tehran.

[whottt]

Flash: we didn't invade any nations at the start of WWII. In fact, we were basically the last ones in, IIRC. I don't see what the isolationist policies of the Roosevelt Administration have to do with the "selectively preemptive" policies of the Bush Administration. They are polar opposites in political and military terms.

Are you saying there was never a point at which WWII started for us?

We most certainly did invade a country at that time...and it wasn't Japan or Germany.

Right. So what you're really talking about, then, from a preemption standpoint, is not a full-blown commitment to preemptively striking against nations we perceive to be potential supporters of terrorists, but an ad-hoc, willy-nilly, "we'll attack when its easiest on us" concept.

Right...we'll attack smartly not stupidly....I know libs have a problem with that but that just makes me happier that they don't have control of the country right now.

If that's true, you've answered the questions that Johnny and I posed. Thanks.

Ya....and when you have discovered the color of the sky...be sure to let me in on it, but shhhh let's keep it our little secret. :wink


Basically we'll conduct the mid-east revamp in an intelligent way and not a blind berzerkers rage...I know that bothers you...but again...that doesn't mean you are using much common sense.





Iran is surrounded on all sides...and all those Sunni countries aren't really crazy about Iran...and the PLO "victory" in Gaza is a lot more about Israel making sure it can defend it's flank in the event it has to use all those bunker buster, or should I call them underground nuclear facility busting, bombs purchased from us last year...



If you recall...at the beginning of the war on terror...the US said it would be a fluid war of changing coalitions and alliances...there will be countries that are allies at certain points and then turn around and be enemies at others...


But just remember...these guys hate each other almost as much as they hate us and Israel.

[whottt]

You know, I've been hearing about this "movement" and its "momentum" for like eight years now. Not much seems to happen. They're weaker now than they were in the late '90s when it appeared that the mullahs might actually lose control.

Now they've consolidated their grasp on the government and purged all the dissidents.

I think the headquarters of the "insurgency" in Iran is in Los Angeles these days, not Tehran.

You do realize that Iran has had to beef up it's military presence in certain areas of Iran due to political unrest?

Their move to a hardline government(via fraudulent elections by the way) shows the unrest is growing...

Iran has 40% unemployment and rampant poverty while sitting on a huge reserve of oil with billions upon billions of dollars doing nothing...

Exactly how happy do you think any country is with a government that sits on 40% unemployment?


And unlike the rest of the middle east....they've been at war with the great Satan for 30 years now...I am sure that(blame America) excuse is wearing a little thin...

[whottt]

BTW, Israel does not have a capability to hit Iran in the manner it hit Iraq. It's aircraft do not have that kind of range.

LOL you are kidding right?


Why do you think they purchased all those bunker busters? To use in Gaza?

[whottt]

Whottt you are just as STUPID as anyone else on this board.
You are too freackin' ignorant and stupid to see right before your own eyes. Dubya has pulled the wool over your eyes and all the way down to your stupid face, err...ass!

You are one of the best spin doctors on this board.

How? Why?

I am pro choice...

I am not a religious fanatic.

I am environmentally concerned...genuinely...


It's just none of that stuff is as important right now as our foreign policy...

You guys have one example for your view of being against this war as the correct one....and it's a weak one at best....Vietnam.

I can show you thousands of other times it's been the wrong view.

No matter evidence is thrown at you, you still think Dubya walks on water but you'd better open your eyes because he is sinking faster than you can post you BS posts.

I don't think W walks on water...

I just think he loves America and still thinks it's a great country and leader of the Free World. Perhaps he is just too dumb to be cynical or above patriotism...but it is sincere, his love of this country...and that's more than I can say for any of the Democrats these days.


I'll take a dumb patriot over a smart anti-american terrorist appeaser any day of the week.

[FromWayDowntown]

Are you saying there was never a point at which WWII started for us?

We most certainly did invade a country at that time...and it wasn't Japan or Germany.

Within the partisan drivel, a morsel!!

I'm suddenly fascinated. Are you suggesting that our involvement in WWII began with the invasion of a foreign nation other than Japan or Germany? I'm really interested to hear the answer to that.

The history I know is that our involvement in WWII began defensively, after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. In that way, our introduction to WWII is analogous to our involvement in Afghanistan (which I have repeatedly said is a justifiable engagement, IMO) because each was started only after an attack by another force. Iraq, you'll note, had not attacked us, thus making our participation in a war in that country the result of our own hostilities toward that sovereign nation.

Again, from both a political and a military standpoint, WWII is not an apt precedent for justifying what we've done in Iraq or what we should or should not do elsewhere as a preemptive measure.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL you are kidding right?


Why do you think they purchased all those bunker busters? To use in Gaza?

They don't have an aircraft capable of reaching Iran. Can you understand that? Actually, I take it back, they do have aircraft capable of reaching there but it would be a one way mission. There would be no return flight.

[SWC Bonfire]

They don't have an aircraft capable of reaching Iran. Can you understand that? Actually, I take it back, they do have aircraft capable of reaching there but it would be a one way mission. There would be no return flight.

Doolittle's raid on Tokyo comes to mind. There is precedent, not to mention them getting their hands on a long-range aircraft.

[whottt]

Within the partisan drivel, a morsel!!

I'm suddenly fascinated. Are you suggesting that our involvement in WWII began with the invasion of a foreign nation other than Japan or Germany? I'm really interested to hear the answer to that.

The history I know is that our involvement in WWII began defensively, after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. In that way, our introduction to WWII is analogous to our involvement in Afghanistan (which I have repeatedly said is a justifiable engagement, IMO) because each was started only after an attack by another force. Iraq, you'll note, had not attacked us, thus making our participation in a war in that country the result of our own hostilities toward that sovereign nation.

Again, from both a political and a military standpoint, WWII is not an apt precedent for justifying what we've done in Iraq or what we should or should not do elsewhere as a preemptive measure.

Our first conventional military ATTACK was against the Vichy French in North Africa...


Are you saying going after the French military is going after the strongest element?

Please take a history class.

A muslim kindergarten would have been a stronger element.

[whottt]

They don't have an aircraft capable of reaching Iran. Can you understand that? Actually, I take it back, they do have aircraft capable of reaching there but it would be a one way mission. There would be no return flight.

Do you understand how advanced the US bomb technology is?


Why do you think the Israelis bought those bombs?

All they have to do is take out the reactors.

And that's the only use for those bombs that Israel could have.

[MannyIsGod]

Whottt, are you ing dense? Are the bombs going to fly themselves there? You can strap a ing laser cannon to an F16 but if it can't there wtf good is it going to do?

[Clandestino]

in flight re-fueling.

[Clandestino]

In 1985, Israeli F-15s refueled in flight and bombed the headquarters of the PLO near Tunis, Tunisia, at a distance of more than 2,000 kilometers from their bases.

[Clandestino]

The distance between Jerusalem, Israel and Teheran, Iran is 968.0 miles(1558.0 km)

[MannyIsGod]

Well, if they indeed have the ability to refuel and F15 without American assistance (I wasn't aware they had tankers) then it would be possible. But they still won't do it. It won't be nearly as easy to as in Iraq.

[MannyIsGod]

Did they use American tankers for the inflight refueling?

[SWC Bonfire]

Did they use American tankers for the inflight refueling?

I am sure that the United States had nothing to do with the operation. *cough* *cough*

[MannyIsGod]

We probably didn't, actually. Tanker support is really front line support in an attack.

[whottt]

Uh Manny...try and keep up with current events if you are going to be a regular on the political forum:

http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/p...nkerbuster.htm

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...16i/F-16I.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/war-tech.htm

[whottt]

Oh and since the Anti-Bush's are behind on the news....

The leading evidence US had that Iran was attempting to produce weapons grade uranium has been proven to be faulty...and therefore so is our justification for going into Iran....which means we won't be doing it...but Israel might.

Link:No evidence of Iran Nuke Program

[1369]

Well, if they indeed have the ability to refuel and F15 without American assistance (I wasn't aware they had tankers) then it would be possible. But they still won't do it. It won't be nearly as easy to as in Iraq.

I would think that since we effectively own the skies above Iraq, that they would get overflight permission (unlike the warm receptioin the frogs gave us during the Libya raid).

[FromWayDowntown]

Oh and since the Anti-Bush's are behind on the news....

The leading evidence US had that Iran was attempting to produce weapons grade uranium has been proven to be faulty...and therefore so is our justification for going into Iran....which means we won't be doing it...but Israel might.

Link:No evidence of Iran Nuke Program

Since when has faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction stopped the Administration from declaring war on sovereign nations?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Bush Doctrine aside, the issue for the Administration is a lack of credibility about the reasons for the war in Iraq. I think, though, that it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. I mean had the Administration set forth preemption as the essential argument for invading Iraq (with no specific mentions of WMD) I wonder if it would have obtained Congressional support to begin hostilities.

I guess I didn't make myself clear on this. I don't think the preemption argument would have flown with Congress here at home, and I know it wouldn't have flown at the UN at all, and probably would have resulted on sanction on us.

But, to me, that speaks more to the selective implementation of the Bush Doctrine, and suggests that the Bush Doctrine doesn't truly have application beyond Iraq. Hence, the criticism. It's not much of a doctrine if it only applies to one place at one time for one purpose.

Here's where I disagree. History will show that preemption was the right course to deal with threats like what we are facing. The problem is the world has never dealt with a problem like this in a preemptive fashion before. Look at Hitler - people knew Naziism was a problem, but no one dealt with Hitler until he started taking over all of Europe. Countries historically have been averse to dealing with problems until they reach criticial mass.

It's just after WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc., the world was highly negative towards preemption. Look at 41's war. We had support because Saddam was an invading force.

I think you could apply the same logic to Iraq. The US would have been greeted much differently as invaders by the people of Iraq than it was going in as liberators.

All that said, I think you're seeing Bush Doctrine starting to take root and be more of a solution, whether folks realize it or not.

What do I mean by that?

The French and Brits have started expelling radical clerics from their own countries, for starters. That's a slippery slope due to freedom of religion in this country, but one that we will have to slide down sooner or later.

There are also operations going on throughout the world that you and I don't hear about WRT radical terrorists. We've been operating in the Phillipines against AQ-allied groups for a good two years now.

The Australians, British, Polish, and others have also been a part of similar ops elsewhere in the world that we're not privvy to.

One you rarely hear anything about is the Chinese. Despite all this Cold War hate between the two countries, they are also dealing with Muslim separatists in their southern provinces.

We just don't hear about it because they have a lock down on the press over there, and do as they please.

Ironically despite all our present day rhetoric, when this whole militant Islam problem comes to a head, I expect to see a joint effort between Russia, China, France, Germany and the U.S. (along with our normal allies in Britain and Poland).

Yep, you read that right - USA, red China, and Russia working together.

[whottt]

Since when has faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction stopped the Administration from declaring war on sovereign nations?

Could you be more speciffic?

Are we talking about sovereign nations that at one time had WMD and were in violation of cease fire agreements, or ones that have never had WMD and weren't?