> Commanding lead? No, son, on Nov 5 the news outlets will says it's all > even.
> you have the naivety of a 10th grader just discovering politics
> ;-)
Oh please, politics is my major. Mitt won't even get 200 electoral votes.
Right after the election he'll do the same thing Mondale, Dukakis and
Dole did, vanish off the face of the earth out of ...humiliation.
Remember, even Mondale got within 5% of Reagan just before the
election, and that translated into a landslide. The earth under Mitt's
shoes are starting to crumble.
>>Commanding lead? No, son, on Nov 5 the news outlets will says it's all >>even.
>>you have the naivety of a 10th grader just discovering politics
>>;-)
> Oh please, politics is my major. Mitt won't even get 200 electoral votes.
> Right after the election he'll do the same thing Mondale, Dukakis and
> Dole did, vanish off the face of the earth out of ...humiliation.
> Remember, even Mondale got within 5% of Reagan just before the
> election, and that translated into a landslide. The earth under Mitt's
> shoes are starting to crumble.
Aren't you the same [fill in the blank] who predicted years ago the
imminent invasion of Iran?
> s
What is the s? Looks like s[pam]...whatever it is, nobody cares...shitcan it.
;-)
>>>Commanding lead? No, son, on Nov 5 the news outlets will says it's all >>>even.
>>>you have the naivety of a 10th grader just discovering politics
>>>;-)
>> Oh please, politics is my major. Mitt won't even get 200 electoral votes.
>> Right after the election he'll do the same thing Mondale, Dukakis and
>> Dole did, vanish off the face of the earth out of ...humiliation.
>> Remember, even Mondale got within 5% of Reagan just before the
>> election, and that translated into a landslide. The earth under Mitt's
>> shoes are starting to crumble.
> Aren't you the same [fill in the blank] who predicted years ago the
> imminent invasion of Iran?
Half our navy is prowling their shores as we speak. Taking down
the Iranian regime is the primary US foriegn policy goal and
military focus at this time, and probably for the next couple
of years.
You were saying?
>> s
> What is the s? Looks like s[pam]...whatever it is, nobody cares...shitcan > it.
> ;-)
>>>>Commanding lead? No, son, on Nov 5 the news outlets will says it's all >>>>even.
>>>>you have the naivety of a 10th grader just discovering politics
>>>>;-)
>>>Oh please, politics is my major. Mitt won't even get 200 electoral votes.
>>>Right after the election he'll do the same thing Mondale, Dukakis and
>>>Dole did, vanish off the face of the earth out of ...humiliation.
>>>Remember, even Mondale got within 5% of Reagan just before the
>>>election, and that translated into a landslide. The earth under Mitt's
>>>shoes are starting to crumble.
>>Aren't you the same [fill in the blank] who predicted years ago the
>>imminent invasion of Iran?
> Half our navy is prowling their shores as we speak. Taking down
> the Iranian regime is the primary US foriegn policy goal and
> military focus at this time, and probably for the next couple
> of years.
>> > Half our navy is prowling their shores as we speak.
>> Well at least you're on topic, although wrong and badly informed...
>> No change there then...
> Bill, I've told Jonathan a million times not to exaggerate!
Is figurative statements a mystery to anyone?
When I say 'half', or wildly exaggerate, it's the same as saying
'a whole bunch' of ships ....sheez! I mean this guy is flaming me
for predicting some time ago that Iran would be next, after Iraq.
All the while the daily papers are reading things like this on a
regular basis.....
US Sends Ships, Fighter Jets to Brace for Iran Threat
By Jim Meyers
"The United States has quietly moved significant new military
forces into the Persian Gulf to discourage an Iranian response
to new sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic.
The American moves are designed to deter Iran from any
attempt to shut the Strait of Hormuz and to increase the
United States' ability to strike into Iran if necessary, The
New York Times reports in a front-page story on Tuesday.
On Friday, September 28, 2012 5:54:08 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:46:02 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> > Half our navy is prowling their shores as we speak.
> >>> Well at least you're on topic, although wrong and badly informed...
> >>> No change there then...
> >> Bill, I've told Jonathan a million times not to exaggerate!
> >Is figurative statements a mystery to anyone?
> >When I say 'half', or wildly exaggerate, it's the same as saying
> >'a whole bunch' of ships ....sheez!
> Read the group name again...
> >Sounds like Iran is...next to me, it should to anyone with
> >any sense.
> Iran is trying quite hard to make Iran next...
Yes Iran does seem to be going out of their way to get pounded. This is slightly reminiscent of Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein could have avoided that war by let UN inspectors in and showing he had no nuclear weapons program. But no, he had to try to bluff his way, didn't he? Now, this idiot from Iran comes into the UN and declares he will burn Israel off the map. That old saying about "history repeating itself" seems true.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Dean Markley
<damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Sounds like Iran is...next to me, it should to anyone with
>> >any sense.
>> Iran is trying quite hard to make Iran next...
>Yes Iran does seem to be going out of their way to get pounded. This is slightly reminiscent of Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein could have avoided that war by let UN inspectors in and showing he had no nuclear weapons program. But no, he had to try to bluff his way, didn't he? Now, this idiot from Iran comes into the UN and declares he will burn Israel off the map. That old saying about "history repeating itself" seems true.
It seems to be a feature of the tyrannical mind-set.
Mind you, they daren't seem weak because if they do their own
downtrodden masses will probably slit their throats as soon as they
realise that the 'big man' has feet of clay.
Even if their downtrodden masses are utterly downtrodden there's
always an ambitious colonel somewhere who really really needs to be '
'Father of his country and Generalissimo for life', never quite
realising that 'life' in this case may not include the long drawn-out
bit in bed at the end
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Dean Markley
> <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sounds like Iran is...next to me, it should to anyone with
>>>> any sense.
>>> Iran is trying quite hard to make Iran next...
>> Yes Iran does seem to be going out of their way to get pounded. This is slightly reminiscent of Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein could have avoided that war by let UN inspectors in and showing he had no nuclear weapons program. But no, he had to try to bluff his way, didn't he? Now, this idiot from Iran comes into the UN and declares he will burn Israel off the map. That old saying about "history repeating itself" seems true.
> It seems to be a feature of the tyrannical mind-set.
> Mind you, they daren't seem weak because if they do their own
> downtrodden masses will probably slit their throats as soon as they
> realise that the 'big man' has feet of clay.
> Even if their downtrodden masses are utterly downtrodden there's
> always an ambitious colonel somewhere who really really needs to be '
> 'Father of his country and Generalissimo for life', never quite
> realising that 'life' in this case may not include the long drawn-out
> bit in bed at the end
Before we invade Iran, is there any country that is an immediate danger to the USA or Britain?
> Before we invade Iran, is there any country that is an immediate danger
> to the USA or Britain?
aside the "usual suspect" NK, there's Argentina and Venezuela, and one must not undertimate the impact of the inevitable shifting of Naval assets from Somalia to Hormuz and beyond....
Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 28/09/2012 20:11, Bill wrote:
> Before we invade Iran, is there any country that is an immediate
> danger to the USA or Britain?
> Andrew Swallow
Invading Iran would be a seriously bad idea.
Its a big country, the size France, Germany , Britain and
Spain combined with a population of over 70 million
and the opponents of the current regime would fight
just as hard against any invader as the most fanatical supporter
.
They have a land border through which they can get supplies
and the capability to produce their own weapons from
rifles through to IRBM's
<am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 28/09/2012 20:11, Bill wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Dean Markley
>> <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sounds like Iran is...next to me, it should to anyone with
>>>>> any sense.
>>>> Iran is trying quite hard to make Iran next...
>>> Yes Iran does seem to be going out of their way to get pounded. This is slightly reminiscent of Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein could have avoided that war by let UN inspectors in and showing he had no nuclear weapons program. But no, he had to try to bluff his way, didn't he? Now, this idiot from Iran comes into the UN and declares he will burn Israel off the map. That old saying about "history repeating itself" seems true.
>> It seems to be a feature of the tyrannical mind-set.
>> Mind you, they daren't seem weak because if they do their own
>> downtrodden masses will probably slit their throats as soon as they
>> realise that the 'big man' has feet of clay.
>> Even if their downtrodden masses are utterly downtrodden there's
>> always an ambitious colonel somewhere who really really needs to be '
>> 'Father of his country and Generalissimo for life', never quite
>> realising that 'life' in this case may not include the long drawn-out
>> bit in bed at the end
>Before we invade Iran, is there any country that is an immediate danger >to the USA or Britain?
<keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 28/09/2012 20:11, Bill wrote:
>> Before we invade Iran, is there any country that is an immediate
>> danger to the USA or Britain?
>> Andrew Swallow
>Invading Iran would be a seriously bad idea.
>Its a big country, the size France, Germany , Britain and
>Spain combined with a population of over 70 million
>and the opponents of the current regime would fight
>just as hard against any invader as the most fanatical supporter
>.
>They have a land border through which they can get supplies
>and the capability to produce their own weapons from
>rifles through to IRBM's
They don't need invading.
Just destroy the current government and their nuclear infrastructure
and withdraw leaving then inevitable upheaval to produce a more
amenable government..
Bill wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:19:39 +0100, "Keith W"
> <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2012 20:11, Bill wrote:
>>> Before we invade Iran, is there any country that is an immediate
>>> danger to the USA or Britain?
>>> Andrew Swallow
>> Invading Iran would be a seriously bad idea.
>> Its a big country, the size France, Germany , Britain and
>> Spain combined with a population of over 70 million
>> and the opponents of the current regime would fight
>> just as hard against any invader as the most fanatical supporter
>> .
>> They have a land border through which they can get supplies
>> and the capability to produce their own weapons from
>> rifles through to IRBM's
> They don't need invading.
> Just destroy the current government and their nuclear infrastructure
> and withdraw leaving then inevitable upheaval to produce a more
> amenable government..
I am not saying that no military action is possible, just
that physical invasion would be a catastrophic mistake.
The danger of simply destroying the existing government
is that there is no real credible alternative right now,
> I am not saying that no military action is possible, just
> that physical invasion would be a catastrophic mistake.
> The danger of simply destroying the existing government
> is that there is no real credible alternative right now.
The last successful theocracy-removal war was in 1870, and much leverage in the limited bloodshed was in the very nature of Abramitic clergy & prelates together with a show of technological superiority (the breach of Porta Pia done with rifled artillery & shells) so IS feasible a quick, limited-bloodshed, successful war. the key is in targeting: we need an highly symbolical purely military target, whose destruction will lead to a quick reunion of Grand Marjas whose take the decision of put down arms.
and, don't forget that there's around the best-ever post-war Instituitional figure with the prestige and leverage for an orderly transition: the Shah.
>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2012 20:11, Bill wrote:
>>>> Before we invade Iran, is there any country that is an immediate
>>>> danger to the USA or Britain?
>>>> Andrew Swallow
>>> Invading Iran would be a seriously bad idea.
>>> Its a big country, the size France, Germany , Britain and
>>> Spain combined with a population of over 70 million
>>> and the opponents of the current regime would fight
>>> just as hard against any invader as the most fanatical supporter
>>> .
>>> They have a land border through which they can get supplies
>>> and the capability to produce their own weapons from
>>> rifles through to IRBM's
>> They don't need invading.
>> Just destroy the current government and their nuclear infrastructure
>> and withdraw leaving then inevitable upheaval to produce a more
>> amenable government..
>I am not saying that no military action is possible, just
>that physical invasion would be a catastrophic mistake.
>The danger of simply destroying the existing government
>is that there is no real credible alternative right now,
I can live with Iran being another Somalia for a decade or two.
But I doubt that'll happen.
Too many rich exiles are interested in going home.
On Sep 28, 5:43 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They don't need invading.
> Just destroy the current government and their nuclear infrastructure
> and withdraw leaving then inevitable upheaval to produce a more
> amenable government-
So, destroy large pieces of their infrastructure, leave them headless,
causing upheavals and long term human misery to the citizens of the
country and then except good things to come out of it?
>On Sep 28, 5:43 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> They don't need invading.
>> Just destroy the current government and their nuclear infrastructure
>> and withdraw leaving then inevitable upheaval to produce a more
>> amenable government-
>So, destroy large pieces of their infrastructure, leave them headless,
>causing upheavals and long term human misery to the citizens of the
>country and then except good things to come out of it?
>Pull the other one why don't you?
I expect nothing from them at all.
I just wish they'd go away.
As for the 'sum of human misery', them having an atom bomb would add
to that in a way I don't even wish to imagine...
Those Iranians I do know all hate the current government and have fled
the place in search of a life elsewhere.
All love their country.
All would be delighted to be able to go back without the threat of
instant death hanging over their heads for something their father did
or for getting the wrong education or even, in one case, for his
uncle having the wrong friend.
>> I am not saying that no military action is possible, just
>> that physical invasion would be a catastrophic mistake.
>> The danger of simply destroying the existing government
>> is that there is no real credible alternative right now.
> The last successful theocracy-removal war was in 1870, and much leverage
> in the limited bloodshed was in the very nature of Abramitic clergy &
> prelates together with a show of technological superiority (the breach of
> Porta Pia done with rifled artillery & shells) so IS feasible a quick,
> limited-bloodshed, successful war. the key is in targeting: we need an
> highly symbolical purely military target, whose destruction will lead to a
> quick reunion of Grand Marjas whose take the decision of put down arms.
> and, don't forget that there's around the best-ever post-war
> Instituitional figure with the prestige and leverage for an orderly
> transition: the Shah.
Times have changed since the Internet.
People in Iran or Iraq and most places around
the world can now tell the difference between
just another dictator, and a more modern form
of democracy and freedom.
The future of religion and democracy for that region
can best be seen by the highest ranking Shia leader
Grand Ayatollah Sistani.
http://www.sistani.org/
Sistani believes in democracy, and his followers
form the majority in the ..entire region. No matter
who succeeds him, even if an Iranian, the source
of Shia beliefs and morality will remain in Najaf.
And their belief system and attitudes towards democracy
isn't a threat to the west, quite the contrary.
It's in our interest the people of the region are freed
to express their demands. If a dictatorship collapses
we should have faith the people of that nation will
find a way to build a democracy, one way or another.
No matter how many setbacks such change may have
democracy and freedom are the most probable final
states of any sufficiently complex system. The math is
clear on this point.
The enemy of that shining future is the opposite of complexity
....dictatorships. Dictatorships of any kind, religious, military
or even a corrupt capitalist system.We should worry only
about how to take those dictators down, then worry
about the aftermath once it's happened, since in the
Internet Age ...nature is now on our side. So we should
simply have faith in doing the right thing.
Now that the interests of the west and the people
of the region are aligned...we can't lose.
> Just destroy the current government and their nuclear infrastructure
> and withdraw leaving then inevitable upheaval to produce a more
> amenable government-
So, destroy large pieces of their infrastructure, leave them headless,
causing upheavals and long term human misery to the citizens of the
country and then except good things to come out of it?
Pull the other one why don't you?
.................................
The only way for democracy to succeed is if the people involved
make it happen. We can't do it for them, we can only give them
the opportunity and resources.
In a dictatorship, there's no way to know what the people want
or their opinions. So I think the west should wait until the people
involved have made their opinions clear in some way, by rebelling
and such as in Egypt, Libya and Syria. Then the world should
step forward and help make it happen.
All these Arab uprisings have been creating a template I believe
for the future. Hopefully the world will build a consensus on when
and how to pool their resources to help the hot-spot of the day.
If the people around the world start to believe that if they
rise up against their dictator, the free world will then come
to the rescue, then democracy could start spreading like
wildfire.
