SoldiersMum wrote:I'm really not so sure Israel will do anything prior to their taking an Iranian nuke.  The left has infiltrated them over the past years and they are not the Israel of yesteryear.  Just look at their recent trade of 5 terrorist prisoners for the two dead soldiers.  It should have been two for two with bullets in the heads of the prisoners.  (Yes, I'm that bloodthirsty, hatemongering conservative.)  Benjamin Netenyahu made a tour through the U.S. trying to rally U.S. support for Israel.  If he were to get back into power, then perhaps they would do a first strike.  

Should Iran nuke Israel, when you consider they are a very tiny nation, how much of Israel would be left?  Would they have their Government remain and their nuclear capability still available to return fire?  

You gotta think that an immediate precursor to any bombing Iran does will be the barracade of the Strait of Hormuz to get ready for the US to reciprocate.  This is another reason we should be drilling our own product.  

If Bush were still President if this occurred, I believe we would strike Iran.  If Obama were President, he would ask Gyorgy Soros what he should do and Gyorgy would say make a statement of condemnation of Iran and let it go.  There's no way Obama would do anything other than "words, just words, just speeches."

In reality, what needs to be done is for a hit squad to covertly go into Iran and take out sweet Mahmoud and his mullahs.  Overall, the people of Iran are not in support of his end of the world and would probably welcome his demise no matter who did it.

[SIZE=9pt]Do you have an exact (or even approximate) count of the number of people we should kill? Do you know who they are and where they are? Are you sure the Iranian people want that...will appreciate that? At what point will your appetite for blood be sated?
[SIZE=9pt]
[SIZE=9pt]You certainly seem well schooled in military strategy...no sense in having all those gifts only to let them go to waste. God might be angry with you for wasting your talents and delaying or preventing Armageddon.

Igmond50 wrote:
[size=9]Do you have an exact (or even approximate) count of the number of people we should kill? Do you know who they are and where they are? Are you sure the Iranian people want that...will appreciate that? At what point will your appetite for blood be sated?
[size=9]
[size=9]You certainly seem well schooled in military strategy...no sense in having all those gifts only to let them go to waste. God might be angry with you for wasting your talents and delaying or preventing Armageddon.

So how do you propose we deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?  How do we deal with a man who gives almost daily speeches about how he's going to destroy Israel and the U.S.?  Who is growing closer to being able to build nukes while the rest of the world sits and debates?  You seem very adept at talk and criticism, but how do you propose to keep Tel Aviv from glowing in the dark?

Igmond50 wrote:Do you have an exact (or even approximate) count of the number of people we should kill? Do you know who they are and where they are? Are you sure the Iranian people want that...will appreciate that? At what point will your appetite for blood be sated?

You certainly seem well schooled in military strategy...no sense in having all those gifts only to let them go to waste. God might be angry with you for wasting your talents and delaying or preventing Armageddon.

You have missed the point again and put words someone else’s mouth.  And it appears you do so intentionally.  

This nation does not go to war with "how many should we kill" as part of the equation.  In fact, we are the only nation that asks "how can we minimize the number of deaths."  The Mullahs can answer your question and their answer would be "as many as we can."  That is their goal.  They believe in the 12th Imam and Armageddon.  They are working to bring it about.  Just listen to Ahmadinejad's speeches.  He is quite open about it.  

I don't know what all the people of Iran want but we do know that a large number of them would prefer not to be ruled by the present theo/thug-ocracy.  But, that is not the primary concern for our government.  The primary job of the United States government is protecting this nation.  Sometimes, that requires the use of force.  And that often leads to casualties.  

I believe Mum would be quite glad if we could topple the Mullahs of Iran and destroy their nuclear weapons program with no loss of life.  That is not likely.  

But, again, the point of this thread is about what might happen if America or Israel decide to act militarily.  Have we considered all the likely consequences of doing so?  Have we got a plan to win?  Have we got a plan to deal with victory?  Do we know what China and Russia and Europe are likely to do?  What will the other Middle Eastern states do?  How much can we influence the actions of friends and adversaries?  Are we likely to able to accomplish the goals we have set?  Or are we likely to stumble into a bigger mess than we have now?  Are we likely to be in that bigger mess 3 or 5 years from now if we don’t act now?  

These are not the questions of “bloodlust.”  These are the questions of people who are concerned about their nation and the world around us.  Calling people “bloodthirsty” is insulting and does not contribute to the discussion.

Igmond50 wrote:The Israelis should be directly involved in preventing such an attack. This means they should prepare to defend themselves and offer to talk as well. An offer to talk (and the act itself) would serve to take the wind out of the sails of Iran's president who uses the rhetoric so often quoted internationally for domestic consumption. If Israel is willing to talk then they cannot be as effectively demonized  and support for war could be mitigated on both sides. In the absence of discussions ignorance grows and the options for problem solving diminish. This is not new and it has been a hallmark of much of the peace we have brought to the world in the past. I might add that the likelihood of discussions would greatly enhance our ability to regain our moral authority. The people of the world yearn for such leadership. It will require courage that goes well beyond what it takes to kill. We have that capacity - don’t let your fears (and your government) control you so.

How the heck do you talk to someone who publicly, repeatedly, calls for your extinction?  Besides Patriot missiles, how is Israel supposed to protect themselves from a nuclear missile strike?  Not to mention the fact that any anti-missile defense system IS NOT 100% effective.  I hate to break the news to you, but talks and appeasement is what got us WW2.

[SIZE=9pt]Appeasement may have contributed to WW2 but not talks. No one here is suggesting appeasement. You begin talks by calling for them on the world stage...you insist that Iran account for their war rhetoric and in so doing you diminish its value to your opponent and reduce its occurrence in kind.

Of course no will call it appeasement out in the open.  What do you call it when the world insists Iran stop it's quest for nuclear weapons all the while Iran continues on?  They even throw it in our face that our "talks" do nothing to discourage them from their goal.  I totally disagree with you and am not a "bloodthirsty evil conservative".  I believe if someone would've assassinated Hitler after he wrote Mein Kampf (which detailed exactly what he planned to do if he got into power) that WW2 would not have happened.  I can only hope Mahmoud "disappears" before hundreds of thousands of Israeli's do.

jokeness wrote:Of course no will call it appeasement out in the open.  What do you call it when the world insists Iran stop it's quest for nuclear weapons all the while Iran continues on?  They even throw it in our face that our "talks" do nothing to discourage them from their goal.  I totally disagree with you and am not a "bloodthirsty evil conservative".  I believe if someone would've assassinated Hitler after he wrote Mein Kampf (which detailed exactly what he planned to do if he got into power) that WW2 would not have happened.  I can only hope Mahmoud "disappears" before hundreds of thousands of Israeli's do.

I think your concerns are understandable and I certainly have no reason to believe (or infer) you are a bloodthirsty evil conservative. I am not convinced that Mahmoud is as powerful in his country as many may think. I do believe that it is critical to remember that fear is a powerful tool to use to manipulate people. I am not saying we have nothing to fear...I am saying we have the capacity to deal with and defeat many of the things that make us afraid without killing.

Igmond50 wrote:I think your concerns are understandable and I certainly have no reason to believe (or infer) you are a bloodthirsty evil conservative.

Of course, this completely ignores the two previous posts where he says people on this topic are filled with "bloodlust" and asks "At what point will your appetite for blood be sated?"  

So, technically, Igmond50 didn't infer anything.  He explicitly stated it.  Then he denies he "inferred" it a post later.

Igmond50 wrote:

SoldiersMum wrote:I'm really not so sure Israel will do anything prior to their taking an Iranian nuke.  The left has infiltrated them over the past years and they are not the Israel of yesteryear.  Just look at their recent trade of 5 terrorist prisoners for the two dead soldiers.  It should have been two for two with bullets in the heads of the prisoners.  (Yes, I'm that bloodthirsty, hatemongering conservative.)  Benjamin Netenyahu made a tour through the U.S. trying to rally U.S. support for Israel.  If he were to get back into power, then perhaps they would do a first strike.  

Should Iran nuke Israel, when you consider they are a very tiny nation, how much of Israel would be left?  Would they have their Government remain and their nuclear capability still available to return fire?  

You gotta think that an immediate precursor to any bombing Iran does will be the barracade of the Strait of Hormuz to get ready for the US to reciprocate.  This is another reason we should be drilling our own product.  

If Bush were still President if this occurred, I believe we would strike Iran.  If Obama were President, he would ask Gyorgy Soros what he should do and Gyorgy would say make a statement of condemnation of Iran and let it go.  There's no way Obama would do anything other than "words, just words, just speeches."

In reality, what needs to be done is for a hit squad to covertly go into Iran and take out sweet Mahmoud and his mullahs.  Overall, the people of Iran are not in support of his end of the world and would probably welcome his demise no matter who did it.

[size=9]Do you have an exact (or even approximate) count of the number of people we should kill? Do you know who they are and where they are? Are you sure the Iranian people want that...will appreciate that? At what point will your appetite for blood be sated?
[size=9]
[size=9]You certainly seem well schooled in military strategy...no sense in having all those gifts only to let them go to waste. God might be angry with you for wasting your talents and delaying or preventing Armageddon.

Igmond 50, you are too much.  Are you in Obama's Kumbaya camp?  There are so many issues involved in this that to single me out as the hatemongering Armagedon preventor versus discussing those issues is pretty funny.  Let's stick with the issues versus making me into a warmongering monster.  It's Amadinejad and his mullahs who are the warmongering monsters.  If I were the warmonger, I'd be calling for a full scale bombing of Iran and invasion by our marines and army to take over the country and their oil fields, but I'm not calling for that and I don't want that.  My son has been to Iraq twice.  I'm not desirous of any of our military except perhaps the Air Force  to go into Iran.  Bombing Iran would only be acceptable to me if reliable intelligence reports they are within hours of blasting Israel into kingdom come or they have already nuked them.     

War is war, Igmond 50.  One thing about war is that people die...innocent people die, and the one thing that can't be changed is that people die and innocent people die.  The left wants to sing them some Kumbaya and dance in the sand with them to the tune of "Give Peace a Chance."  The only thing these people get and understand really well is not peace, peace, peace.  It is strength thru might.