Zappo Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 You're going to tell me that bush and cheney are liberal republicans? Yes, that is exactly what he will say. We actually already established this in another thread.Remember, everything is relative. Starfish is so conservative, Bush is a liberal to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfish Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Starfish should go hunting with Dicky Chaney! I would rather take my chances hunting with Cheney, than to ride in a car driven by Ted Kennedy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappo Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 I would rather take my chances hunting with Cheney, than to ride in a car driven by Ted Kennedy! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan_B Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 that was funny B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC850T Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) Back to the topic, I'm willing to bet that when Iran becomes a serious problem, Israel will spank the living stuff out of them. By looking at recent middle eastern history you can see that it is in fact Israel, not the United States, who has defined pre-emption. On a side note, I'm pretty sure we (I mean the US whenever I say that by the way) have already been poking with Iran. Several months ago there were reports of several random explosions around sites where Iran had been working on reactors and nuclear science. I am quite certain that these explosions were far from random... :->When it does come time for Israel to make a move, I wouldn't be suprised to see some coordination between US and Israeli forces in an attack, such as tanker support or even F-22s as air cover for an Israeli strike package. Edited February 21, 2006 by USMC850T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenchunks Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Back to the topic, I'm willing to bet that when Iran becomes a serious problem, Israel will spank the living stuff out of them. By looking at recent middle eastern history you can see that it is in fact Israel, not the United States, who has defined pre-emption. On a side note, I'm pretty sure we (I mean the US whenever I say that by the way) have already been poking with Iran. Several months ago there were reports of several random explosions around sites where Iran had been working on reactors and nuclear science. I am quite certain that these explosions were far from random... :->When it does come time for Israel to make a move, I wouldn't be suprised to see some coordination between US and Israeli forces in an attack, such as tanker support or even F-22s as air cover for an Israeli strike package.Very likely, this is exctly what Israel did to Iraq in the 80's when they were building ther nuclear reactor.....Man Israeli Special forces are bad a.ss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC850T Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 As we all know, history tends to repeat itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George @ ViVA Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 US should have gone into iran first, but now that all of the resources are tied up in iraq (I still dont understand why the phuck we are in iraq) Iran aint happening.IMO, we will eventually go into Iran.IMO, we went into Iraq to establish a strong presence in Iran's backyard. We now have 150,000+ soldiers and lots of hardware within striking power. The Pentagon didn't have that "luxury" before OIF started.Don't forget who's interests are paramount in that region, and who controls US foreign policies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAzOR Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 (edited) Wow, this is kin ... The idea of invading another country in order to stop terrorism is a poor strategy ... writing, and I know people are tired of reading if they still are. Maybe I'll get inspired tomorrow and come back with another installment and more commentary on International Relations. An excellent analysis and I thank you for your compliment. Your scale rating (for myself anyway) is perfect. Interestingly, for my entire life, I have been moving slowly to the lower numbers (which runs counter to the trend). I would like reply by simply saying I think that the decision to invade Iraq was not directly to fight terrorism but indirectly. The risk of Saddam passing a WMD to a terrorist organization was simply too great. There is a lot of evidence that he had them and now new evidence in a new book from one of his generals, Georges Sada (which is coming up next for my reads!). The situation in Iraq even today is still murky and volatile. And a loss would be very invigorating to the enemy. We ALL, like it or not, need to stick this one out and give it our best shot as unified American citizens of all religeons (yes, Atheism is a religeon, just as the number zero has a definite value!). Edited February 27, 2006 by RAzOR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts