Is IRAN Next For The US Military ???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another very interesting piece of the "Iran puzzle" ... Remember that, just a few days ago, Secretary Rumsfeld stated that Iran was sneaking weapons into Iraq!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16220430%5E2703,00.html

US accuses Iran of smuggling weapons into Iraq
A correspondent in Baghdad
11aug05

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accused Tehran of smuggling weapons into Iraq, after US intelligence reports claimed a cache of bombs found in the country's north had come from Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

"It is true that weapons clearly, unambiguously, from Iran have been found in Iraq," Mr Rumsfeld said.

"It's a problem for the Iraqi Government. It's a problem for the coalition forces. It's a problem for the international community. And ultimately, it's a problem for Iran."

The US military believes a hidden store of manufactured bombs seized in Iraq about two weeks ago was smuggled into the country by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. If the intelligence is correct, it would suggest the Revolutionary Guard is moving into a conflict that for the past year has been dominated by Sunnis rather than Shi'ites.

The claim came as The New York Times reported that armed men had entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm and deposed the city's mayor, installing in his place a member of Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite militia.

The deposed mayor, Alaa al-Tamimi, who was not in his offices at the time, called the move a municipal coup d'etat. He added that he had gone into hiding for fear of his life.

"This is the new Iraq," said Mr Tamimi, a secular engineer with no party affiliation. "They use force to achieve their goal."

The group that ousted him insisted that it had the authority to assume control of Iraq's capital city and that Mr Tamimi was in no danger. The man the group installed, Hussein al-Tahaan, is a member of the Badr Organisation, the armed militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

The militia has been credited with keeping the peace in predominantly areas in southern Iraq, but also accused of abuses such as forcing women to wear the veils demanded by conservative Shi'ite religious law.

US officials said the Iranian weapons haul was significant because it indicated manufactured bombs were being introduced in a conflict that had seen widespread use of "improvised explosive devices" by insurgents.

Last week, US soldiers discovered dozens of recently manufactured "shaped" charges smuggled into northeastern Iraq from Iran. The bombs focus the force of an explosion to blast through even the heavy armour on an M-1 tank. They were first reported to be in Iraq several months ago, amid an escalation in the size and deadliness of the bombs devised by insurgents.

Triple-stacked anti-tank mines were reported to have been used in an explosion last week that flipped over a US armoured amphibious assault vehicle, killing 14 marines and an interpreter in one of the biggest single losses of the war.

US military officials estimate that 70per cent of US casualties stem from improvised bombs.

Mr Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials have often attacked Syria for allowing Iraqi insurgents to move foreign fighters, money and arms across its borders.

They had been more reserved about Iran, whose Shi'ite regime has been viewed as more closely aligned to Iraq's Shi'ite majority than to an insurgency that has been drawn mainly from the country's Sunni minority.

"It's a big border and unhelpful for Iranians to be allowing weapons of those types to be crossing the border," Mr Rumsfeld said.

"The people in that region want this situation stabilised with exception of Iran and Syria."

US commanders have warned of a surge in insurgent violence in the coming weeks as Iraqis draft and vote on a constitution, and then hold elections for a new government in December.

******

:uhoh: :scrutiny: :uhoh:
 
So, do we wait until they shoot up a radio outpost before we attack? Or perhaps shooting up one of our ships in gulf will suffice, again.
Well I see that just about everyone but our two local Islamic supporters and terror apologist agree that Iran should not be allowed to possess Nukes.
Shaka, when the walls fell... :banghead:
Oh yea, for energy purposes? Don't they have a 130.8 billion bbl oil reserve and 26.7 trillion cubic meter natural gas reserve? Yea, this is all for the need of nuclear energy.
So, your sitting on lots of what the rest of the world wants, needs and will go to war for. Which paths makes sense to you.

1. Develop the tech to avoid burning that desired resource youself, but instead find other sources of energy and sell the high value product on the world market. Thereby devoloping the society and intrastucture that will enable your consituency to live as they chose.

OR

2. Burn the high value product ourself, and then when it runs out, you're back to being a nomadic & agrarian nation that no one pays any heed too. And your population is in revolt due the nose dive their standard of living has taken.
 
You do know that those reactors and things do have other uses right?
Israel can have nukes as a "defensive measure" but Iran can't?

Invading Iran would be very impractical since the Iraq war's costing a packet already. Sure you could attack their facilities and destroy all their stuff and generally wreck a democratic country but why bother?

Can anyone fill me on the difference between "strategic" and "tactical" use of nuclear weapons?

God that's a lot of questions.

That is flawed reasoning. There is no moral equivalence between Israel a westernized nation and Iran. Allowing Iran have the ability to create nuclear weapons on demand is suicide and only the most naive would believe Iran.
 
Iran can be brought to its knees without an American setting a boot on their soil. Any nuclear facilities can be obliterated by cruise missles from hundreds of miles away.

No and NO

Nuclear facilities are mostly shielded by tons of cement and dirt. I suspect that we don't know where all of them are hidden.

You don't bring radical Muslims to their knees. You kill them, or they eventually strike back.

Who cares if Iran has a right to anything. They give up their right when, for the last twenty years, they have exported terrorism. Survival comes first, honoring their supposed rights comes just before you give up your rights. They must earn their "right".

We must delay their nuclear weapons program and support the overthrow of the present government. It is the Iranian government and the radicals in Iran that threaten us and not the general public.

How do you attack the bad guys and not polarize the millions of pro-American Iranians?
 
"It is true that weapons clearly, unambiguously, from Iran have been found in Iraq," Mr Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration really are not a very reliable source when it comes to guessing about weapons in Iraq, though, are they?

That said, we can't let Iran develop nuclear weapons.
 
So, your sitting on lots of what the rest of the world wants, needs and will go to war for. Which paths makes sense to you.
The path of not exporting terror thus making yourself the reason the free world doesn't want you to have nukes. Yea, that would do it.
Boy, funny how this option escaped your mind. :rolleyes:

As I said before, terror apologist and sympathizer.
 
Marshall: I would point out to you house rule number four.

4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
About your claim that I'm a "terror apologist and sympathizer". Please be kind enough to provide quotes where I've expresses support for terrorists, or made apologies for them or for their actions.

Back on topic: As I said before, Iran as informed the IAEA that they are going to resume enriching uranium, and that the IAEA needs to take the steps to put monitors in place to observe the enrichment activities. All these actions are the steps that are supposed to happen under the NPT. Iran is playing by the rules they agreed to, and rules the U.S. stated it would respect and observe. If the U.S. feels it is no longer bound by the NPT, why should any OTHER nation feel bound by it?

As for Iran's supposed Nuclear Weapons program, where is it? What evidence is there of such, other than the assertions coming out of the Bush Administration?
 
They Don't Get To Play By The Rules Because They Break The Others, They're Terrorist, They Support Terrorist And If You Support Them, You Support Terrorist, At Least In My Books. That's Not Name Calling, It's Pointing Out What I Believe Your Position To Be By Defending A Terrorist State In The Dissuasion Of Them Having Nuclear Weapons.
 
We'll just watch your posts on the subject and others like it and see how far away I am from the truth. I hope I am wrong but, based on this diatribe and others I have read, I won't hold my breath.
 
"What evidence is there of such, other than the assertions coming out of the Bush Administration?"

There is evidence, circumstantial evidence, that they will make weapons. And I think it's a safe guess to say they will when they can.

But the fact is that this technology is OLD, and it was our best buddy Pakistan that exported all the centrifuge designs and whatnot. Hey, btw, why aren't we sending air-strikes against Pakistan's nuclear weapons? Anyone? We planned for first-strikes against the entier Soviet Bloc, you think we can't waste a couple dozen missiles? Pakistan is Muslim, they have a worse government than IRan (farcical constitution, farcical democracy, hotbed for terrorists) and they have a CLEAR track record of going to war for little or no reason! Why not attack Pakistan?!!??!

"HElloo..............hellooooo...hellllooooooooooo"

All the horrible aspects that are attributed to Iran, they are fake, but if you look at Pakistan they actually have them all! Iran only defended themselves against Iraqi agression, Pakistan fights whenever they get an inkling they might win!

And as for Iran having oil, and that influencing the equation, I'd like to input a new aspect to the equation. The Euro. What did Iraq trade oil for? Euros. What does Iran trade oil for? Euros. Not dollars. And if Iran does this it weakens the American dollar dramatically, and strengthens the Euro.

So guess what, Europe, where they print the Euro, might not like losing the second country that uses their money for oil trading. I think they might be slightly against a war with Iran, for that reason.
 
Pakistan?

"Hey, btw, why aren't we sending air-strikes against Pakistan's nuclear weapons?"
*********************************************************

For one thing, the government of Pakistan is co-operating (somewhat grudgingly, perhaps) with the U.S. at the moment.

For another, Pakistan is neatly and completely countermatched by India.
Any overt aggression against India (or weakness perceived by India) and Pakistan will be busier than a one-armed paperhanger. ;)


*********************************************************
"Pakistan fights whenever they get an inkling they might win!"
*********************************************************

But not, so far, against the U.S.
At least not the Pakistani government,
which is cooperating with the U.S. for various reasons.

Unlike Iran, where the government is composed of elements with systemic hatred for the U.S. and western democracy in general. Hatred which burns in the culture of the "revolutionary guard" and the clerics. The sort of hatred which prudence suggests must be denied possession of the means to manufacture nuclear weaponry.


*********************************************************
"So guess what, Europe, where they print the Euro, might not like losing the second country that uses their money for oil trading. I think they might be slightly against a war with Iran, for that reason."
*********************************************************

Europe would be even more against the terrorist detonation of nukes locally, provided by Iran, as a means of influencing their national politics. ;)

No doubt the Europeans will be happy to have the Iranian 'crisis' solved one way or another. They perhaps also long for the security of an oil supply controlled by the free market instead of Islamic fanatics.
 
According to the title

Is IRAN Next for the US Military???

If we still have some soldiers standing when we finally pull out of Iraq, of course we should then send our troops over to Iran ... kill off those remaining. And any soldier with at least one arm and one leg left gets to choose whether he can go on to fight in either N. Korea or Syria after Iran, because he will have earned that right. :rolleyes:

Why is it all nations look to the US to fight the world's battles?! Too many of our troops are dying and we're not getting enough UN support. These wars will kill us financially you know. Wars cost lots of money. I believe all these nations are wanting to bankrupt us.
 
""Pakistan fights whenever they get an inkling they might win!"
*********************************************************

But not, so far, against the U.S.
At least not the Pakistani government,
which is cooperating with the U.S. for various reasons."

I have to point out, that perhaps I seem very frustrated in this discussion, but it's because the topic is SO freaking deep. I'm not talking philosophical deep, I'm talking plot twists and turns and affected actors and effects deep.

For instance, all this talk about 'keeping the region secure'. Assuming that the argument that Iraq is now more secure, and the porous borders on every side of it are now more secure, we still have other Contradictory actions that make the region less secure.

Want one subtle reason why Pakistan doesn't hate us, yet? Because we just GAVE, I repeat - Gave - them almost a Billion dollar's worth of advanced military weaponry, fighter-bomber aircraft, tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles, all sorts of stuff to make them more likely to attack India again. Scratch that, GUARANTEED to attack India again. And If America says the tinyiest little negative thing about it then Pakistan will suddenly show it's true colors and you'll see them all burning US flags in the streets, and shoutins about infidels too, like we all really know they feel. We talk about a population that is on the breaking point of an uprising, that's Pakistan! The people DOn't like their government that makes them best buddies with America, they hate it, it takes a police-state to keep everyone in-line.


And again, if T's use a nuclear bomb it will be dirty, it's just so highly unlikely that they would put all their eggs in one basket with a fission device, when they could, for the same effort, produce a dozen or more contamination devices, and ship and assemble and place the contamination devices more easily. Besides, the only 'Al Qeuda' style dramatic and devastating use for a fission bomb would be the refinery capacity. Urban centers are by their nature resistant to damage from small nuclear explosions. The buildings act on the explosion like a muzzle suppressor does on a muzzle blast. The devastated area would not be that great, almost the same area could be devastated by a dirty bomb far more easily.
 
Deep and convoluted for sure, Joe....

"the topic is SO freaking deep. I'm not talking philosophical deep, I'm talking plot twists and turns and affected actors and effects deep."
*********************************************************

Anything happening in that part of the world has more plots and undercurrents than a court in 16th Century Italy! :)


*********************************************************
"Want one subtle reason why Pakistan doesn't hate us, yet? Because we just GAVE, I repeat - Gave - them almost a Billion dollar's worth of advanced military weaponry, fighter-bomber aircraft, tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles, all sorts of stuff to make them more likely to attack India again. Scratch that, GUARANTEED to attack India again."
*********************************************************


Yes, that is how the game is played. Pakistan wouldn't WIN against India, though. ;)


*********************************************************
"The people DOn't like their government that makes them best buddies with America, they hate it, it takes a police-state to keep everyone in-line."
*********************************************************


Absolutely. Pervez Musharraf is running a tight ship there at the moment. While he lasts.


*********************************************************
"Urban centers are by their nature resistant to damage from small nuclear explosions. The buildings act on the explosion like a muzzle suppressor does on a muzzle blast. The devastated area would not be that great, almost the same area could be devastated by a dirty bomb far more easily."
*********************************************************


Neither would a 'dirty bomb' actually cause much devastation. The 'terror factor' of T's with a fission device would make for some very compliant or at least some highly excited victim governments, I'd guess. :uhoh:


So, Joe, how would you "secure the area"?
 
Just a little comment

I met a world reknown Iranian guitarist somewhere right around the time we invaded Iraq. This gentleman has had years of contact with the intellectual elite in Iran. He is an outstanding individual. His words to me on the subject of a U.S. war with Iran were to the effect of, "Noone in Iran wants a war with the U.S.". That pretty much exact but it was a while ago.

I took him as being very sincere in his statement. I felt he was speaking for the PEOPLE of Iraq and not it's Government. I found those words reassuring. They're not ALL bad.

That has been playing on my mind since the start of this thread so I thought I'd include it.
 
What's interesting about americans these days, is that they KNOW that their government has secret agendas, lies pathologically to further those agendas, and has moved in the direction of tyranny and globalism since the 1933 federal bankruptcy and going into receivership to the international bankers.

YET, if one speaks the above things, a conditioned public has been well trained to call that person a "conspiracy theorist" and other such twaddle and avoidance tactics.

I say this because we all know that George Bush is a pathological liar just like Klinton, just like Daddy Bush, just like Carter, just like Ford, just like Nixon, just like L.B.J., and especially, just like F.D.R. People who support G.W. Bush do so in the name of "conservatism" which has lost all meaning, and they also do it in the name of "the Democrat is worse" which is NOT a principled position at all. I would rather have a dem president and a republican congress constantly at war with him. GRIDLOCK IS THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR now. What we have now with "patriot act" parts I, II, III, IV etc being passed with no opposition whatsoever, is the most dangerous position possible.

We all have known in the backs of our minds for some time that the powers behind the scenes, i.e. Bush's globalist handlers, desire to attack MORE nations and are scheming to do so. We're all waiting around just to find out who is next.

Based on the upshifting in the propaganda campaign (with predictable help from an always compliant leftist/globalist friendly, i.e. tacitly controlled, media), it DOES appear that the "whose next" question has been answered, and it's Iran.

The fact that the administration dares to use phrases like "all options are on the table" is a significant change from the bold faced lie that Bush spoke just a few months before the Iraq invasion. Yea, remember that? Remember when Bush actually said (it's burned into my mind because it was so obviously a lie, even at the time) "There are no war plans on my desk."

Based on principle, anyone who supports this administration in any way after such an obvious and egregious lie, is COMPLICIT in the war on truth and the constitution :fire: .

Sadly, basically the only americans who see this are the leftists, who are heavily concentrated in New York and California, and also, who oppose this evil administration FOR THE WRONG REASONS. They simply just want a leftist Democrat leading us into the globalists agenda instead of an anti privacy, [allegedly] anti abortion, socialist republican.

Here's just a tiny reminder of what the propaganda machine has put out recently to prepare compliant republicans for an invasion of Iran:

1. Remember the obious dis-information that was recently intentionally leaked to Joseph Farah's World Net Daily, where it was alleged that Iran was planning an "EMP strike which could incapacitate the entire nation?" The powers that be KNOW that it's the so called "conservatives" that they need to mentally prepare to accept what's coming, so they "leaked" that B.S. to world net daily to scare his 99% republican readership into almost begging Bush to attack Iran. By the way, in case you didn't already know, Iran would need gigantic technological additions to it's military to be able to get so much as ONE high altitude atomic burst to pull off an EMP attack, let alone the MULTIPLE ones needed to cause the catastrophic result that was EVERYWHERE on world net daily.com AND world net daily radio for weeks. It was grade A USDA prime dis-information meant to get the Bush loyalists ready to accept what's coming.

2. The all too convenient stories that suddenly appeared in the controlled mainstream media stretching the truth (to say the least) subtly implying that Iran was helping the insurgents. I have no doubt that Iranians by the thousands have entered Iraq to fight the U.S., but this has been known for years and it's HARDLY just Iranians who have come to Iraq to fight the U.S. The administration knows that too, so the sudden coordinated appearance of this in the media in this way is highly suspect.

3. The nuclear "crisis" has currently been shaped into a trigger event. If Iran removes those cameras in their nuclear facilities for example, it could be "game on" any day.

The proper question is "Is Iran Next For The [globalists who control] The US Military?"

If Klinton had said this, it would've been called (rightly so) a "slick willy whopper":
US President George Bush today warned that “all options are on the table” if Iran refuses to comply with international demands to halt its nuclear programme.

Let's play 'can you spot the lie.' That statement by Bush is a slickly crafted half truth. Those "international demands" that Bush is talking about refer to the building of a nuclear bomb [which Iran is not doing, unlike North Korea, which openly said 'screw you we're building one' and DID]. There are no "international demands" that Iran stop any use of nuclear materials. Iran is legally free in every way to operate and build nuclear reactors and reprocess uranium, and what's worse is the president KNOWS this. Clearly, his handlers want to plant in people's minds that Iran is somehow 'not allowed' to have a "nuclear programme." It looks like they want the public to ASSUME that Iran is somehow voilating complicated 'international law' by having nuclear materials or a plant that COULD be used to make plutonium. That of course, is B.S. Bush intentionally did not say "nuclcear BOMB program" he just said "nuclear programme" knowing full well what people would assume [Jeez, I'm still meeting people occationally who believe that Iraqis helped fly the planes into the world trade center :banghead: ].

This is the equivalent of BATFE saying to you "stop your machine gun program mr Jones or else" simply because you own some AK full auto fire control parts which are completely LEGAL. Bush knows that Iran has done nothing illegal but he's playing the "constructive possession" angle that the BATFE pulls when it wants to nail someone to pad it's conviction numbers. The only difference, is that Iran has NOT even made a technical violation like the BATFE's constructive possession B.S. So actually, Bush is doing the equivalent of the BATFE saying "Mr Smith, we know you have an AR, and we know you have a metal shop. Since you COULD make a drop in auto sear and some M-16 fire control parts, we're going to raid your house if you don't immediately drop your 'machine gun' program."

Unfortunately, juries today are uninformed and DANGEROUSLY compliant with evil like that, just like the current crop of republicans are. Very sad.
 
Bottom line, I don't want Iran to have Nukes, period. Makes no difference what Bush or anyone else says, I don't want them too. Kind of shoots that whole compliancy theory in the butt.
 
"So, Joe, how would you "secure the area"?"

Laissez-faire. It's been well-known what will happen to oil and prices for decades, the 2040 year is probably obsolete now, but it was understood that there would be no practical crude left by 2040. Now it is probably much sooner, as the industrialization of Asia is faster than imagined possible. We know, and knew, where we were going with oil, and instead of seeking to alter consumption patterns we left them to continue their accelerating increase. There is no reason to expect a delay in sky-rocketing oil prices will do us any good. All evidence shows that the more time we have the deeper the hole we will dig!!! All the time in the world and we didn't do anything. 1970's oil-crisis' and we went right back to our old ways. Delaying the inevitable is pointless, and our behavior shows that the greater the delay the greater the suffering we will have later.

Do I want to pay more for gasoline tomorrow? No, of course not. But it's going to happen, and I and every other idiot who refuses to learn the most simple of lessons simply must be hurt before we alter our behaviors. Pavlov's dogs learned faster than us.


"Neither would a 'dirty bomb' actually cause much devastation. The 'terror factor' of T's with a fission device would make for some very compliant or at least some highly excited victim governments, I'd guess."

Phyisical damage, the difference would be subtle. A dirty bomb you'd want to airburst, maybe from a hot-air balloon or light aircraft. This would spread the contaminants over the greatest area. A fission bomb airbursted would maximize the overpressure blast area, and the intense immediate radiation effects, but long-term property damage would be far less. Ground-level explosion of that same bomb, though, would have the limited blast and initial radiation effects (by buildings) but would stir up a bunch of now-irradiated dust and make fallout, which would have long-term consequences far greater than blasted building faces. So the only uses for ground-level explosions of nuclear bombs is to A)destroy really hardened targets B)create much more fallout. And AL-Q won't be attacking any bunkers, so they won't use a nuclear bomb at ground level when a dirty-bomb is so easy to make transport and use, and can actually have superior results in contaminating areas.

Of course the airburst over an area that refines oil, that would still be pretty harmful on a large scale, knocking out 10% of refining capacity would have exponential efffects. And it would be sort of symbolic, which AL-Q likes, but it's just too complicated, imo. The biggest payoff is many dirty bombs, which are simple and crude and easy and could 'devastate' not with overpressure, but through depopulation the urban centers of several major cities in one co-ordinated and timed attack. Components - 5 hot-air balloons, 5 100lb explosive charges, 5 ground-up fuel rods and some other good media, 5 people with wrist-watches, umm that's all folks. Detonate upwind from city center when the second-hand tells you to. And any of these things could be brought across the Mexican border with ease.
 
Well, now there's the solution to all those urban congestion problems!

"The biggest payoff is many dirty bombs, which are simple and crude and easy and could 'devastate' not with overpressure, but through depopulation the urban centers of several major cities in one co-ordinated and timed attack. Components - 5 hot-air balloons, 5 100lb explosive charges, 5 ground-up fuel rods and some other good media, 5 people with wrist-watches, umm that's all folks. Detonate upwind from city center when the second-hand tells you to. And any of these things could be brought across the Mexican border with ease."
*********************************************************

Ah, well. :(

One way or another, we ought to disrupt the terrorists whenever and wherever possible.


But MasterPiece:
*********************************************************
"Based on principle, anyone who supports this administration in any way after such an obvious and egregious lie, is COMPLICIT in the war on truth and the constitution ."
*********************************************************


As you note, the other political choices are even worse. :eek:
 
"One way or another, we ought to disrupt the terrorists whenever and wherever possible."

we should also secure the border so no (more) terrorist material crosses with complete ease. We should also re-instate civil defence preparedness lessons, revamped for the slightly different situation. (even simple advice like 'don't be downwind from any sort of attack')

Fact is we aren't doing anything to stop terrorists, fact is that if we sit back and believe that the FBI is catching them as we sleep we are deloded - for we now know full well how hopelessly incopetent they honestly are. How unlikely the system really is to stop an attack. And while we lie prostrate, instead of keeping a low profile we engender to infuriate as many fanatical muslim countries as possible?

In a normal world we'd be securing the country, simply and quickly re-instate proven structures for civil defence, light a fire under the alphabet agencies colelctive asses because asking them to just do their jobs is like herding cats, and while we are unsecure we would swallow our pride a little and try not to deliberately provoke attacks.

Right now we're hopelessly vulnerable, the gov't knows it, and secure with this knowledge they take action after action which can lead only to incurring more terrorist attacks. And it's not stupidity or negligence, terrorist attacks are actually good for the government, as in beneficial to them.

There's nothing wrong with a good offence, but it cannot replace the lack of a most rudimentary defence.

And then there's the track record which suggests that if we did attack Iran the terrorists would avoid capture and then dramatically increase in strength, while we topple the government.


And about the dirty bombs, I didn't really think it through. Hot air balloon might be a poor choice for a platform because of maneuverability.
 
Know what someone should do?

Stage a mock attack as described above, originating in Mexico and ending over LA with a large banner reading BOOM unfurled from a hot-air ballon. The whole thing videotaped beginning to end (or all the relevant parts anyway, including the border crossing). Then send it to all the news outlets you can think of. It'll play - and it'll make the point.

I'd do it myself if I could afford to take the time off from work and school.
 
Hey, I remember those.....

"We should also re-instate civil defence preparedness lessons..."
*********************************************************


In elementary school back in Indiana.

"Duck and Cover" :D

Under the desk, face away from the window.


*********************************************************
"There's nothing wrong with a good offence, but it cannot replace the lack of a most rudimentary defence."
*********************************************************


Problem is, a good defence seldom if ever WINS a confrontation. The assailant simply continues aggression elsewhere.

I think a balanced approach is the answer.

Take out Iran's nuke weapon capability while militarily isolating the hardline Iranian goverment. Let the Iranians fix their problem with a bit of help when needed. :)
 
Hey, I remember those.....

"We should also re-instate civil defence preparedness lessons..."
*********************************************************


In elementary school back in Indiana.

"Duck and Cover" :D

Under the desk, face away from the window.


*********************************************************
"There's nothing wrong with a good offence, but it cannot replace the lack of a most rudimentary defence."
*********************************************************


Problem is, defence seldom if ever resolves the issue.

The assailant simply continues aggression elsewhere.

I think a balanced approach is the answer.

Take out Iran's nuke weapon capability while militarily isolating the hardline Iranian goverment. Let the Iranians fix their problem with a bit of help when needed. :)


That's probably a good idea, Doc:
*********************************************************
"originating in Mexico and ending over LA with a large banner reading BOOM unfurled from a hot-air ballon"
*********************************************************


But anonymity would be wise! ;)
 
"Stage a mock attack as described above, originating in Mexico and ending over LA with a large banner reading BOOM unfurled from a hot-air ballon. The whole thing videotaped beginning to end (or all the relevant parts anyway, including the border crossing). Then send it to all the news outlets you can think of. It'll play - and it'll make the point."

It'll make the point that you're a deranged lunatic, man oh man you should imagine what the news footage of you would look like, helicopters circling you, police on megaphones shouting, you being roughly handled for the "perp walk" as you're taken away for violating airspace or disturbing the peace or whatever. Fk maybe they charge you with terrorism, you tried to alter American policy through promoting fear, right? I read the new definition of terrorism, and that's one of the descriptions.

Also, believe it or not, the 'duck and cover' stuff worked. The most noticeable problems after even 1 nuclear weapon is detonated would be those who are alive but wounded. There's a lot of people with cuts and broken bones, that sort of stuff. But that's easy to handle. The problem is that even a small explosion will cause something like 50,000 severe burn cases, and all the burn units in the entire USA put together can't handle 1/100th of that. So duck and cover or else you will become blister-boy. And I think that they were trying to make it instinctual, so people don't look at the flash and say 'hmm I should duck', but so that people would duck instantaneously.


"
Problem is, defence seldom if ever resolves the issue.
The assailant simply continues aggression elsewhere.
I think a balanced approach is the answer.
Take out Iran's nuke weapon capability while militarily isolating the hardline Iranian goverment. Let the Iranians fix their problem with a bit of help when needed."

I always figure that you need somewhere to launch your offensive from. Before you plan an offence you need a secure home-base.

As for Iran, I have this feeling that's counter-intuitive. See, Iraq never launched terrorist attacks, because those are 'the weapon of the weak'. Iraq had a big army, a proud army. Now they (the ones who lost the fight) are back to the weapons of the weak, again. Well, if Iran has it's conventional force taken away, they'll probably just end up doing what every other group has always done, resort to the weapons of the weak. IOW Iraq was safer - less of a threat when they were spending money on T72s and Mig-25s, and maybe this theory could be applied to Iran somehow. Not sure how, though, but perhaps bribery, offering them defensive technology, as nuclear weapons are the ultimate defence. (hey, want some new air-defence technology? Then dismantle your program and we'll hook you up with the ability to make Patriots...).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top