What's going to happen to Israel?

[fossten]

Reports from El Baradei say that Iran may have nukes in a few weeks or months. It's been reported that the Russians just sold them 10,000 missiles. The leader of Iran was quoted recently saying that Israel must be wiped off the map.

In 1981 Israel, frustrated by the United States' inaction, bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in a show of self-defense. My bet is that if we do nothing, Israel will go after Iran. I say, "Go get 'em, boys!"

 

[MonsterMark]

Unfortunately, Israel lacks the ability to perform operations at such a great distance. Couple that with the fact that Iran has spread out its nuclear program creating multiple targets and it is my belief that Israel will not be able to pull this off without our help.

 

[TheDude]

Since we're apparently staying in the Middle East indefinitely and going west into Syria, we might as well quadruple our troops and send them east into Iran, they're an Islamic country after all. Al Qaeda needs a bigger recruitment ground and fresh people to convert, they've outgrown Iraq.

Does anyone have Bush's numbers before March 2003 "Operation Iraqi Freedom." began? I recall his numbers on the estimated lives lost, soldiers needed, time we'd be in Iraq etc. where dismal compared to what we are in now. I'm just curious what they were.

 

[fossten]

Since we're apparently staying in the Middle East indefinitely and going west into Syria, we might as well quadruple our troops and send them east into Iran, they're an Islamic country after all. Al Qaeda needs a bigger recruitment ground and fresh people to convert, they've outgrown Iraq.

Your lack of knowledge of military objectives and strike operations clearly raises its knobby, sarcastic head with that statement. Anytime we've decided to take out an installation we've used Tomahawk missiles. There's no indication as yet that an invasion would be necessary. Furthermore, you assume that Al Qaeda isn't already in Iran, when it's likely that they are. You also imply that we invade countries because they are Islamic. Ironic when you consider that Iraq is less religious than most of its neighbors.

Does anyone have Bush's numbers before March 2003 "Operation Iraqi Freedom." began? I recall his numbers on the estimated lives lost, soldiers needed, time we'd be in Iraq etc. where dismal compared to what we are in now. I'm just curious what they were.

If you recall his numbers, then list them.

If 'what you recall' is accurate, then you make the case that we can't just cut and run yet, since more soldiers and time are needed.

Lives lost are not a barometer for success or failure in war.

 

[MonsterMark]

Lives lost are not a barometer for success or failure in war.

Over 3000 lives lost in 1 day vs 2100 lives lost in 3 years.

 

[TheDude]

Over 3000 lives lost in 1 day vs 2100 lives lost in 3 years.

Edit

 

[TheDude]

Your lack of knowledge of military objectives and strike operations clearly raises its knobby, sarcastic head with that statement. Anytime we've decided to take out an installation we've used Tomahawk missiles. There's no indication as yet that an invasion would be necessary. Furthermore, you assume that Al Qaeda isn't already in Iran, when it's likely that they are. You also imply that we invade countries because they are Islamic. Ironic when you consider that Iraq is less religious than most of its neighbors..

Im sorry, I forgot to put the 'Sarcastic' smily face..... I assume nothing, I'm sure Al Qaeda is in Iran already, what I fear is, if we attack Iran and overthrow their government, Al Qaeda will gain a strong foot hold in Iran, like it does now in Iraq. Ironic how Iraq is less religious then most Middle Eastern countries but you imply (have) that Al Qaeda which is strongly religious and motivated by religion were buddies with Saddam, who was not into extreme religion since it posed as a threat to his dictatorship.

If you recall his numbers, then list them.

If 'what you recall' is accurate, then you make the case that we can't just cut and run yet, since more soldiers and time are needed.

Lives lost are not a barometer for success or failure in war.

I don't recall them accuarately, but I do remember Bush selling the war as a short, low cost, low fatality war. I'll keep searching, Bush definately gave numbers before the war, that is a fact. I just want to compare, what he said vs. what came to be. Do you have a loved one in Iraq? Your comment "Lives lost are not a barometer for success or failure in war" makes me think you do not.

 

[TheDude]

Your lack of knowledge of military objectives and strike operations clearly raises its knobby, sarcastic head with that statement. Anytime we've decided to take out an installation we've used Tomahawk missiles. There's no indication as yet that an invasion would be necessary. Furthermore, you assume that Al Qaeda isn't already in Iran, when it's likely that they are. You also imply that we invade countries because they are Islamic. Ironic when you consider that Iraq is less religious than most of its neighbors.

I forgot to also add.. The indication would be your original statement that Iran may have nukes shortly, they purchased 10,000 missiles from Russia and that they threatened Israel, our ally. If we went into Iraq on the premise that Saddam was going to build a nuke and that he posed a great threat, then how can you so easily dismiss Iran's possible nukes and clearly voiced threat? You claim I lack military knowledge, so please educate me Patton.

 

[fossten]

Wow. Where to begin. First of all, your statement about Al Qaeda having a foothold in Iraq is flawed because it begs the question, "Does Al Qaeda really have a foothold in Iraq?" The answer is no. They are hiding, stuck in a quagmire, unable and unwilling to meet us head-on. Last I checked, the United States and Iraqi security forces occupied every town in Iraq.

Furthermore, I never said I dismissed any nuclear threat in Iran.

Finally, you imply that people who have relatives over in Iraq are too emotionally wrought to support the war. That is simply false. Many thousands of people have relatives over in Iraq and don't want to cut and run like your dem leaders.

 

[TheDude]

Wow. Where to begin. First of all, your statement about Al Qaeda having a foothold in Iraq is flawed because it begs the question, "Does Al Qaeda really have a foothold in Iraq?" The answer is no. They are hiding, stuck in a quagmire, unable and unwilling to meet us head-on. Last I checked, the United States and Iraqi security forces occupied every town in Iraq..

Wow. Where do I begin.......This isn't a conventional war where two enemies meet in the field of battle and duke it out. Al Qaeda uses guerilla warfare tactics, the ten marines killed in one attack last week should convince you of two things, 1) They aren't stuck in a quagmire scared to move and 2) They are willing and capable of fighting. Marines and Iraqi forces killed every single day by these people you claim are hiding and stuck say otherwise.

Furthermore, I never said I dismissed any nuclear threat in Iran...

Ok, you didn't say 'dismiss', but I don't see how you're gun ho over invading Iraq because Saddam had the potential to build a nuke and that he posed a threat. While Iran (per your thread) may have a nuke shortly, they purchased missiles and they made an open threat towards our ally Israel but you say 'No indication' on needing to invade.

Finally, you imply that people who have relatives over in Iraq are too emotionally wrought to support the war. That is simply false. Many thousands of people have relatives over in Iraq and don't want to cut and run like your dem leaders.

No, I did not imply that at all. I asked if you had a loved one(s) there. It is easier for someone to say "STAY THE FIGHT' when it's not their own children in harms way.

 

[fossten]

Wrong. Al Qaeda by its nature is guerilla, meaning that they aren't able or willing to meet us in open battle and have it out. They have to take cheap shots in order to make a point.

But thank you for acknowledging that we are in a war. Maybe now that you've accepted the truth you should stop demagoguing the war and the troops and start supporting Bush.

Maybe we will have to go in and get Iran. But there isn't any indication as yet. Unlike Saddam, they've never USED WMDs. Nevertheless, IMHO, we should wipe out their capabilities as well as Syria's. Get it over with, and then go after China. We're going to have to duke it out with those ChiComs eventually, guaranteed.

 

[TheDude]

Wrong. Al Qaeda by its nature is guerilla, meaning that they aren't able or willing to meet us in open battle and have it out. They have to take cheap shots in order to make a point..

Wrong? Huh? I said Al Qaeda uses guerilla tactics. That wasn't the debate, what was in debate was, is Al Qaeda hiding with no were to run or are they effectively waging warfare on our troops. Like I pointed out, Marines and Iraqi military killed each and every day proves that they are indeed strong in Iraq.

But thank you for acknowledging that we are in a war. Maybe now that you've accepted the truth you should stop demagoguing the war and the troops and start supporting Bush..

I never said we aren't in a war..... That doesn't mean I have to support how this admin is handling it. Lol, I like how you try and 'blame' people like me... Also, find one thread were I said our soldiers are evil-doers or the like, I have said the opposite, stop your spin and lies. Do you really think if no one protested this war Al Qaeda and any other extremist faction would put down their guns and surrender?

Maybe we will have to go in and get Iran. But there isn't any indication as yet. Unlike Saddam, they've never USED WMDs. Nevertheless, IMHO, we should wipe out their capabilities as well as Syria's. Get it over with, and then go after China. We're going to have to duke it out with those ChiComs eventually, guaranteed.

Lol, your distrust of people different than you is absurd. ChiCom's now? Last I heard we were in decent terms with China, we do large and extensive trading with them. Just because they have a communist society, doesn't mean they are evil.

 

[fossten]

I never said we aren't in a war..... That doesn't mean I have to support how this admin is handling it. Lol, I like how you try and 'blame' people like me... Also, find one thread were I said our soldiers are evil-doers or the like, I have said the opposite, stop your spin and lies. Do you really think if no one protested this war Al Qaeda and any other extremist faction would put down their guns and surrender?

You have said that Bush lied about Iraq, and you've been outspoken against interrogation of prisoners. My statement that you've come to your senses was a compliment. Relax.

Do you think that protesting the war will cause Al Qaeda to put down their guns and surrender? Or will it be encouraging to them?

Lol, your hatred of people different than you is absurd. ChiCom's now? Last I heard we were in decent terms with China, we do large and extensive trading with them. Just because they have a communist society, doesn't mean they are evil.

Interesting how you attribute hatred to me. I never said I hated anybody. You must be projecting your own feelings onto me.

Recognizing a threat before it attacks you and being prepared to deal with it ahead of time does not constitute hate. You really jumped the gun, pointing like an excited bird dog: "Hater! Hater!"

You are totally unaware of the likelihood that China will someday invade Taiwan. Would you advocate standing back and allowing them to aggressively conquer a sovereign nation, or should we protect Taiwan?

 

[TheDude]

You have said that Bush lied about Iraq, and you've been outspoken against interrogation of prisoners. My statement that you've come to your senses was a compliment. Relax.

Do you think that protesting the war will cause Al Qaeda to put down their guns and surrender? Or will it be encouraging to them?

I have and I also said I would stop saying Bush 'lied' because it would be extremly difficult to prove if he did, that was in a post a month or more ago.

Hey, you answered my question with an answer... Ok, fine....Al Qaeda will not put down their guns either way. I would rather have our troops home away from harm then haev then in an unending war. This is not the way to defeat terrorism, something else needs to be thought of and quick.

Interesting how you attribute hatred to me. I never said I hated anybody. You must be projecting your own feelings onto me.

Recognizing a threat before it attacks you and being prepared to deal with it ahead of time does not constitute hate. You really jumped the gun, pointing like an excited bird dog: "Hater! Hater!"

You are totally unaware of the likelihood that China will someday invade Taiwan. Would you advocate standing back and allowing them to aggressively conquer a sovereign nation, or should we protect Taiwan?

I went back and changed 'hate' to distrust, I realized it was a wrong accusation after the fact, but you were already replying to the original post.

You know for certain that China will attack Taiwan? With that mindset, we might as well invade Canada, you never know what they might do in 50 years.

 

[fossten]

Hey, you answered my question with an answer... Ok, fine....Al Qaeda will not put down their guns either way. I would rather have our troops home away from harm then haev then in an unending war. This is not the way to defeat terrorism, something else needs to be thought of and quick.

Come on, you can't be serious. You don't have ONE SINGLE idea on how to defeat terrorism, but you KNOW that fighting it DOESN'T work? Oh, I'm sorry, HOW MANY attacks have been on our soil since 9/11? What's that? I can't hear you! THAT'S RIGHT, ZERO! For you to say that shows you only listen to DemLib talking points and follow their lead, having NO REAL IDEAS of their own.

You sound EXACTLY like John Kerry, the traitor. Our troops are just pitiful little boy scouts that need to be protected because they're just innocent little kids! What a crock of bologna. Our troops are killers, and their JOB is to kill people and break things. And they are good at it. You just insult them by saying they need protection.

Why don't you just say what you really mean (and what traitors Howard Dean and the aforementioned Heinz-Kerry mean): You don't think we should ever use our troops. In fact, we should just let terrorism have its way and put up with it like some sort of nuisance. That's what Kerry said. Yeah, it worked out great for France and Spain didn't it!!!!

Then someday your own block might get wiped out along with your family. But it's okay, because AT LEAST WE PROTECTED OUR WITTLE TROOPS!

You guys make me sick.

You know for certain that China will attack Taiwan? With that mindset, we might as well invade Canada, you never know what they might do in 50 years.

Yeah, I (and the rest of the world) know it, apparently with the exception of YOU.

Incidentally, I never said INVADE China. Stop !@#$%&* misquoting me!!! I said GO AFTER China. Diplomacy first, don't forget, but now that the world sees that we are willing to strike if necessary (Re: Iraq), maybe China will listen more carefully.

Read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/03/13/china.npc.law/]

Oh, by the way, what LAW has Canada passed lately that indicates they want to UNIFY with another country?

 

[TheDude]

Come on, you can't be serious. You don't have ONE SINGLE idea on how to defeat terrorism, but you KNOW that fighting it DOESN'T work? Oh, I'm sorry, HOW MANY attacks have been on our soil since 9/11? What's that? I can't hear you! THAT'S RIGHT, ZERO! For you to say that shows you only listen to DemLib talking points and follow their lead, having NO REAL IDEAS of their own.

I know that fighting it like we are, doesn't work. It creates more individuals willing to listen to terrorist rhetoric and become followers. Do I have a definite answer how to stop it? No. Do you? No. We'll see, as this war continues and the fighting continues with no end in sight, you can keep on with the war mongering. Ya, you're right on the ZERO part, but what's your point? We have had countless years without an attack on American soil prior to Iraq.

ou sound EXACTLY like John Kerry, the traitor. Our troops are just pitiful little boy scouts that need to be protected because they're just innocent little kids! What a crock of bologna. Our troops are killers, and their JOB is to kill people and break things. And they are good at it. You just insult them by saying they need protection..

Lol, that was stupid. Actually, their job is to secure peace, if killing and breaking things can't be avoided, then so be it, but "to kill people and break things" isn't the mantra of the US Military.

Why don't you just say what you really mean (and what traitors Howard Dean and the aforementioned Heinz-Kerry mean): You don't think we should ever use our troops. In fact, we should just let terrorism have its way and put up with it like some sort of nuisance. That's what Kerry said. Yeah, it worked out great for France and Spain didn't it!!!!

Lol, that was just as stupid. Yes, we're all traitors and we want to see America burn, even though I depend on America to survive. Hmmm, that's a quandary for me isn't it. <---Sarcasm

Then someday your own block might get wiped out along with your family. But it's okay, because AT LEAST WE PROTECTED OUR WITTLE TROOPS!

And the stupidity continues.... Let me guess, you were against our troops being better supplied since it cost more to armor vehicles? Those are killers out there after all, they don’t need protection, protection is for pacifist.

You guys make me sick

That's your own sickness you have to deal with. Sorry, I can't help you with that.

Yeah, I (and the rest of the world) know it, apparently with the exception of YOU.

Damn, so I'm that ONE guy in the dark.

Incidentally, I never said INVADE China. Stop !@#$%&* misquoting me!!! I said GO AFTER China. Diplomacy first, don't forget, but now that the world sees that we are willing to strike if necessary (Re: Iraq), maybe China will listen more carefully.

Actually, You said 'duke it out', as in 'to fight' maybe you should of said 'diplomacy' to avoid confusion.

Oh, by the way, what LAW has Canada passed lately that indicates they want to UNIFY with another country?

None, but you never know what will happen in fifty years, better safe than sorry.......... <---Sarcasm

 

[fossten]

Wrong again. Ever heard of the Oklahoma City bombing, or the first attack on the World Trade Center by - um - Osama bin Laden? Forgot about those, huh?

I know what you and Kerry and Dean mean by protecting our soldiers. You mean bringing them home and never using them again. Pacifism. Don't try to dodge.

And I said GO AFTER. "Duke it out" was a reference to an inevitability. There you go twisting my words again. You have a real problem with that.

 

[TheDude]

Wrong again. Ever heard of the Oklahoma City bombing, or the first attack on the World Trade Center by - um - Osama bin Laden? Forgot about those, huh?

I know what you and Kerry and Dean mean by protecting our soldiers. You mean bringing them home and never using them again. Pacifism. Don't try to dodge.

And I said GO AFTER. "Duke it out" was a reference to an inevitability. There you go twisting my words again. You have a real problem with that.

The Oklahoma City was internal; McVeigh was an American, so not sure what that has to do with the Iraq war. Trade Center, do you think if we were at war with Iraq or any other country for that matter it wouldn't of happened? No, I have not forgotten about those.

Good, I'm glad that you think you know what I mean; I hope it works for you. In reality, it's doesn't matter. I’m curious what you're going to say when year 4, 5 and 6 roll on and we're still in the same predicament with no exit strategy and the troop deaths are up to 5k+? Let me guess, 'Stay the fight!' Why don't you join up with the Marines and fight the good fight? Practice what you preach. I have no idea what age you are, but the enlisting age has been bumped up considerably.

Ya, that's it, even though you said "and then go after China. We're going to have to duke it out with those ChiComs eventually, guaranteed." I am twisting your words. <---Sarcasm

 

[Calabrio]

Good, I'm glad that you think you know what I mean; I hope it works for you. In reality, it's doesn't matter. I’m curious what you're going to say when year 4, 5 and 6 roll on and we're still in the same predicament with no exit strategy and the troop deaths are up to 5k+?

In year 20, we'll probably have troops stationed in Iraq. That's perceived to be one of the plans, to establish a military base there, in the heart of the Middle East. But what leads you to believe we'll be actively involved in internal military activites inside Iraq long into the future?

You appear to be implying that no progress is being made, not that it's going more slowly than you'd like.

Let me guess, 'Stay the fight!' Why don't you join up with the Marines and fight the good fight? Practice what you preach. I have no idea what age you are, but the enlisting age has been bumped up considerably.

This is such a lame and uninspired argument.

First of all, you can't just "go join the Marines and fight in Iraq." There's a process involved, then the basic training, the advanced training, and eventually deployment.

More importantly, Simply because you support a policy, that doesn't mean you have the personal freedom or luxury to be able to drop everything in your life, abandon all commitments, in order to pursue something you might want to do.

This "point" you, and many intellectually bankrupt liberals, often try to make is just a last ditch desperate attempt to personalize the argument when all grasps at liberal logic have failed.

 

[TheDude]

In year 20, we'll probably have troops stationed in Iraq. That's perceived to be one of the plans, to establish a military base there, in the heart of the Middle East. But what leads you to believe we'll be actively involved in internal military activites inside Iraq long into the future?

You appear to be implying that no progress is being made, not that it's going more slowly than you'd like. .

What leads me to believe that? For one, as long as American troops are stationed in Iraq, they'll be targets and they'll be attacked. I may want them out of there, but I also want them to defend themselves if they're forced to be there, that will involve "internal military activities" as you say. What leads you to believe America won't be involved?

This is such a lame and uninspired argument.

First of all, you can't just "go join the Marines and fight in Iraq." There's a process involved, then the basic training, the advanced training, and eventually deployment.

More importantly, Simply because you support a policy, that doesn't mean you have the personal freedom or luxury to be able to drop everything in your life, abandon all commitments, in order to pursue something you might want to do.

This "point" you, and many intellectually bankrupt liberals, often try to make is just a last ditch desperate attempt to personalize the argument when all grasps at liberal logic have failed.

I wish I could magically make you (and the rest) serve a tour in Iraq, not because I want you dead, but to give you a taste of war and what our soldiers have been going through. I honestly think it would change you for the better.

Actually, the 'You must hate America!', 'You're a terrorist sympathizer' and the newest one 'You're a traitor!' that are commonly spewed by the right to shut people up is a 'last ditch desperate attempt'.

 

[Calabrio]

What leads me to believe that? For one, as long as American troops are stationed in Iraq, they'll be targets and they'll be attacked. I may want them out of there, but I also want them to defend themselves if they're forced to be there, that will involve "internal military activities" as you say. What leads you to believe America won't be involved?

Because, as I'm sure you know, the violence isn't spread throughout the entire country. It's basically limited to three cities. Any American base would be likely be located in the North of Iraq, in the friendly Kurdish territory.

The election is about a week away. Things are improving, rapidly, in Iraq.

I wish I could magically make you (and the rest) serve a tour in Iraq, not because I want you dead, but to give you a taste of war and what our soldiers have been going through. I honestly think it would change you for the better.

Funny, I was about to say the same thing to you.

Actually, the 'You must hate America!', 'You're a terrorist sympathizer' and the newest one 'You're a traitor!' that are commonly spewed by the right to shut people up is a 'last ditch desperate attempt'.

Yeah, you'd be correct.

And while we're making true, though irrelevant statements, I like Chinese food.

 

[TheDude]

Because, as I'm sure you know, the violence isn't spread throughout the entire country. It's basically limited to three cities. Any American base would be likely be located in the North of Iraq, in the friendly Kurdish territory.

The election is about a week away. Things are improving, rapidly, in Iraq.

Funny, I was about to say the same thing to you.

Yeah, you'd be correct.

And while we're making true, though irrelevant statements, I like Chinese food.

I truly hope you're right about Iraq....

Beat you to it I guess.

Funny how my true statements are irrelevant, but your true statements are not... Hmmm.

I like Chinese food too, if you never tried Indonesian, I recommend it.

 

[Calabrio]

I truly hope you're right about Iraq...

If it makes you feel better,
think of reasons why I'll be right.

How many successful elections have they already had? And each one has been more successful than the one before it.

While the media is focusing on the three areas where there still is violence, they ignore the other 95% of the terriroty.

Thomas Friedman, he's a liberal columnist for the New York Times often makes the statement, "No one has ever washed a rented car." Rather than me writing some long winded explanation of what that means, on your own, apply that to Iraq.

But we need a constitutionally elected government to hand the keys over to.

And that's the strategy in Iraq.

 

[fossten]

What leads me to believe that? For one, as long as American troops are stationed in Iraq, they'll be targets and they'll be attacked. I may want them out of there, but I also want them to defend themselves if they're forced to be there, that will involve "internal military activities" as you say. What leads you to believe America won't be involved?


I wish I could magically make you (and the rest) serve a tour in Iraq, not because I want you dead, but to give you a taste of war and what our soldiers have been going through. I honestly think it would change you for the better.

Actually, the 'You must hate America!', 'You're a terrorist sympathizer' and the newest one 'You're a traitor!' that are commonly spewed by the right to shut people up is a 'last ditch desperate attempt'.

OH, so we should pull our troops out so they won't be attacked? What a pacifistic statement! I refer you back to the 'pitiful boy scout' comment I made earlier.

America is already turning responsibility for security over to the Iraqis so they can defend themselves. They are holding elections. Eventually we won't be involved as their sole defenders. Remember Germany after WWII? We STILL have bases over there.

Nobody on this thread has said "You're a traitor!", so stop putting words in people's mouths, even though I know it's your favorite thing to do.

 

[TheDude]

OH, so we should pull our troops out so they won't be attacked? What a pacifistic statement! I refer you back to the 'pitiful boy scout' comment I made earlier.

Lol.

America is already turning responsibility for security over to the Iraqis so they can defend themselves. They are holding elections. Eventually we won't be involved as their sole defenders. Remember Germany after WWII? We STILL have bases over there.

When the death toll reaches 10,000 troops, I wonder what you'll say then?

Nobody on this thread has said "You're a traitor!", so stop putting words in people's mouths, even though I know it's your favorite thing to do.

Oh, ok, I only sound exactly like a traitor (see quote beow). That's a relief. Lol.

You sound EXACTLY like John Kerry, the traitor. Our troops are just pitiful little boy scouts that need to be protected because they're just innocent little kids! What a crock of bologna. Our troops are killers, and their JOB is to kill people and break things. And they are good at it. You just insult them by saying they need protection.