Iran Standoff= U.S sends planes to SW Asia

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
wxcrazytwo

#61 Postby wxcrazytwo » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:54 pm

gtalum wrote:
feederband wrote:I believe down the road we would have ended up going to war with both.. I wouldn't doubt syria and north korea will be dealing with in my life time as well...


I can only hope you're wrong, because the scenario you describe can only end in the death of the USA. We are militarily and economically overstretched already just with iraq. Multiply that by four, and we just can't handle it. This is why coalition-building makes sense.


That's the problem, there is not a whole lot of nations that will come to our side.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#62 Postby x-y-no » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:55 pm

feederband wrote:hmmm...fight them now or fight them later when they have nukes...I rather not wait...


We don't know yet that these are the only options.
0 likes   

wxcrazytwo

#63 Postby wxcrazytwo » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:57 pm

x-y-no wrote:
feederband wrote:hmmm...fight them now or fight them later when they have nukes...I rather not wait...


We don't know yet that these are the only options.


x-y-no, in a time of impatience, war seems to be the means to the end. Bushie will not hold for long, until he begins bombing..
0 likes   

User avatar
feederband
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Lakeland Fl

#64 Postby feederband » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:59 pm

x-y-no wrote:
feederband wrote:hmmm...fight them now or fight them later when they have nukes...I rather not wait...


We don't know yet that these are the only options.



They will deal with us just long enough for them to find away to kill us....Not all of Iran is bad but their leadership is out of controll...
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#65 Postby x-y-no » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:00 pm

wxcrazytwo wrote:
x-y-no wrote:
feederband wrote:hmmm...fight them now or fight them later when they have nukes...I rather not wait...


We don't know yet that these are the only options.


x-y-no, in a time of impatience, war seems to be the means to the end. Bushie will not hold for long, until he begins bombing..


Now, now ... no politics, remember? :-)
0 likes   

User avatar
alicia-w
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 6400
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 2:55 pm
Location: Tijeras, NM

#66 Postby alicia-w » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:00 pm

wars cost money and there's a deficit already. we cant pay for the actions we're already involved in!
0 likes   

User avatar
fwbbreeze
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 896
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:09 pm
Location: Fort Walton Beach, FL

#67 Postby fwbbreeze » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:02 pm

wxcrazytwo wrote:
gtalum wrote:
feederband wrote:I believe down the road we would have ended up going to war with both.. I wouldn't doubt syria and north korea will be dealing with in my life time as well...


I can only hope you're wrong, because the scenario you describe can only end in the death of the USA. We are militarily and economically overstretched already just with iraq. Multiply that by four, and we just can't handle it. This is why coalition-building makes sense.


That's the problem, there is not a whole lot of nations that will come to our side.


You are wrong crazy, in the instance of Iran we have quite a bit of support from nations that didnt support us in Iraq. Nations such as France and Germany have all said they support the idea of quelling Irans nuclear threat. Here are a few articles to support my thinking!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/worl ... -iran.html

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006- ... 030999.htm

http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/f ... 46370.html

fwbbreeze
0 likes   

wxcrazytwo

#68 Postby wxcrazytwo » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:07 pm

fwbbreeze wrote:
wxcrazytwo wrote:
gtalum wrote:
feederband wrote:I believe down the road we would have ended up going to war with both.. I wouldn't doubt syria and north korea will be dealing with in my life time as well...


I can only hope you're wrong, because the scenario you describe can only end in the death of the USA. We are militarily and economically overstretched already just with iraq. Multiply that by four, and we just can't handle it. This is why coalition-building makes sense.


That's the problem, there is not a whole lot of nations that will come to our side.


You are wrong crazy, in the instance of Iran we have quite a bit of support from nations that didnt support us in Iraq. Nations such as France and Germany have all said they support the idea of quelling Irans nuclear threat. Here are a few articles to support my thinking!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/worl ... -iran.html

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006- ... 030999.htm

http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/f ... 46370.html

fwbbreeze


Okay, you have named two (yoohoooo). Like I said there aren't many...
0 likes   

wxcrazytwo

#69 Postby wxcrazytwo » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:08 pm

x-y-no wrote:
wxcrazytwo wrote:
x-y-no wrote:
feederband wrote:hmmm...fight them now or fight them later when they have nukes...I rather not wait...


We don't know yet that these are the only options.


x-y-no, in a time of impatience, war seems to be the means to the end. Bushie will not hold for long, until he begins bombing..


Now, now ... no politics, remember? :-)


x-y, I hardly doubt saying Bushie is political. That is just a name I give him.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#70 Postby x-y-no » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:08 pm

feederband wrote:
x-y-no wrote:
feederband wrote:hmmm...fight them now or fight them later when they have nukes...I rather not wait...


We don't know yet that these are the only options.



They will deal with us just long enough for them to find away to kill us....Not all of Iran is bad but their leadership is out of controll...


I have no particualr illusions about the Iranian regime (or any other regime for that matter). But time isn't neccesarily our foe here - it depends on what can be accomplished in terms of delaying their nuclear weapons development. If this latest action on their part means that they are on the verge of getting the bomb, then we may very well be out of options. If, OTOH, they are a few years away, then there's still time for a diplomatic resolution.

I'm sure the folks in the Pentagon are having a nightmare gaming out the possible consequences of an attack on Iran. Our forces in Iraq are far more vulnerable to them than is acceptable. Again - any amount of time we can buy is valuable there, and obviuosly the best option is to avoid war in Iran entirely if that's possible.
0 likes   

User avatar
feederband
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Lakeland Fl

#71 Postby feederband » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:09 pm

wxcrazytwo wrote:
fwbbreeze wrote:
wxcrazytwo wrote:
gtalum wrote:
feederband wrote:I believe down the road we would have ended up going to war with both.. I wouldn't doubt syria and north korea will be dealing with in my life time as well...


I can only hope you're wrong, because the scenario you describe can only end in the death of the USA. We are militarily and economically overstretched already just with iraq. Multiply that by four, and we just can't handle it. This is why coalition-building makes sense.


That's the problem, there is not a whole lot of nations that will come to our side.




You are wrong crazy, in the instance of Iran we have quite a bit of support from nations that didnt support us in Iraq. Nations such as France and Germany have all said they support the idea of quelling Irans nuclear threat. Here are a few articles to support my thinking!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/worl ... -iran.html

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006- ... 030999.htm

http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/f ... 46370.html

fwbbreeze


Okay, you have named two (yoohoooo). Like I said there aren't many...


Not many country's have secret finacial deals with Iran like they did with Iraq...
Last edited by feederband on Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
fwbbreeze
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 896
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:09 pm
Location: Fort Walton Beach, FL

#72 Postby fwbbreeze » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:10 pm

In the scope of world politics France, Germany, and Britian have as much stroke as all the rest combined!!! If a coalition of the US, Britian, France, Germany, and perhaps Russie stepped up and demanded Iran stop production of their nuclear arsenal trust me if would have a strong impression throught the world.

fwbbreeze
0 likes   

User avatar
alicia-w
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 6400
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 2:55 pm
Location: Tijeras, NM

#73 Postby alicia-w » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:10 pm

Foreign ministers from the European Union's three biggest nations -- the so-called EU3 -- met Thursday following Iran's moves to restart its nuclear program.

"Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after meeting with British and French counterparts, Jack Straw and Philippe Douste-Blazy, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. (Watch what option remains after diplomacy and force -- 2:56)

Straw said the group decided to call for an emergency session with the board of the IAEA to vote on referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

The European ministers did not say exactly what action should be taken by the Security Council, which could impose sanctions, but officials in London and Moscow said envoys from the EU3 would meet counterparts from China, Russia and the U.S. next week to discuss the issue further.

As well as possible economic sanctions, there have been calls for cultural and sports boycotts, including the banning of Iran from soccer's 2006 World Cup in Germany.

The calls resurfaced Friday as Bayern Munich played a match in Iran against Persepolis Tehran, to criticism in Germany. (Full story)

France said Friday that it favored a step-by-step approach over Iran's contested nuclear program and that any sanctions request at this stage would be premature.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said France's priority for now is convening a special session of the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

The U.N. Security Council could decide to sanction Iran. But Mattei did not prejudge what action the council might take.

He said France, Britain and Germany regard any sanctions request as being "premature for the moment."

"We'll see what happens at the Security Council," he said in a telephone interview with Ths Associated Press. "One step at a time."

However, in an interview with BBC radio Friday, Britain's Straw said sanctions were possible. "Obviously, if Iran failed to comply, the Security Council would then consider sanctions," he said.

Russia meanwhile renewed its call for Iran to resume its moratorium on nuclear activities and cooperation with the IAEA. (Full story)

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Rice said Iran's action "demonstrates that it has chosen confrontation with the international community over cooperation and negotiation."

A statement outlining a phone call between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Rice said both sides shared "a deep disappointment over Tehran's decision."

The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal reported that during the call, Lavrov told Rice that Russia would abstain, rather than vote against, efforts to move the issue from the IAEA to the Security Council.

China, which imports significant amounts of Iranian oil, said it hoped Tehran would return to talks on the dispute and urged all parties to exercise restraint.

"We hope Iran can do more to promote mutual confidence between itself and the EU3, and return to negotiations," Reuters quoted a spokesman for China's foreign ministry, Kong Quan, as saying.



Britain, Germany and France, and obviously Israel.... Along with the US, that's a pretty strong coalition.
0 likes   

User avatar
gtalum
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4749
Age: 49
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Bradenton, FL
Contact:

#74 Postby gtalum » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:11 pm

wxcrazytwo wrote:That's the problem, there is not a whole lot of nations that will come to our side.


Gee, you don't think that has anything to do with the fact that we went off half-cocked into Iraq, do you? :)
0 likes   

User avatar
feederband
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Lakeland Fl

#75 Postby feederband » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:12 pm

gtalum wrote:
wxcrazytwo wrote:That's the problem, there is not a whole lot of nations that will come to our side.


Gee, you don't think that has anything to do with the fact that we went off half-cocked into Iraq, do you? :)



Well they were defeated rather quickly...
0 likes   

User avatar
gtalum
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4749
Age: 49
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Bradenton, FL
Contact:

#76 Postby gtalum » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:14 pm

feederband wrote:Well they were defeated rather quickly...


Depends on who "they" is. Someone seems to be doing an awfully good job of picking off our guys a few at a time.
0 likes   

User avatar
feederband
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Lakeland Fl

#77 Postby feederband » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:14 pm

gtalum wrote:
feederband wrote:Well they were defeated rather quickly...


Depends on who "they" is. Someone seems to be doing an awfully good job of picking off our guys a few at a time.



Yes it is hard to read the crystal ball in warfare...
0 likes   

User avatar
alicia-w
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 6400
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 2:55 pm
Location: Tijeras, NM

#78 Postby alicia-w » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:19 pm

gtalum wrote:
feederband wrote:Well they were defeated rather quickly...


Depends on who "they" is. Someone seems to be doing an awfully good job of picking off our guys a few at a time.


and we lost another helicopter and two more guys today.... :cry:
0 likes   

Stratosphere747
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3772
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Surfside Beach/Freeport Tx
Contact:

#79 Postby Stratosphere747 » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:20 pm

The only problem militarily is the fact that the Iraqi *whatever you want to call it* has taken much longer than planned. Chalk that up to Rummy and team. It does have us stretched, but with respect to Iran we have to be in position to be able to take action. Matter of time before Israel does, though they need our support.

We can banter about why the Iraqi war was never supported by the majority of the world. When it comes to Iran, the world knows there is a threat and one reason you will see a backing from the big players. Once China comes on board, things hopefully will end up diplomatically.
0 likes   

User avatar
gtalum
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4749
Age: 49
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Bradenton, FL
Contact:

#80 Postby gtalum » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:21 pm

Stratosphere747 wrote:The only problem militarily is the fact that the Iraqi *whatever you want to call it* has taken much longer than planned. Chalk that up to Rummy and team.


Indeed. They had an awesome and completely effective plan for ths initial invasion, but they apparently had no plan whatsoever for the occupation.
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests