Senior Israeli official: If nuclear talks fail, Bush will order Iran attack by orbital 123 - Page 4 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page Senior Israeli official: If nuclear talks fail, Bush will order Iran attack
Page 4 of 7
Thread Tools
Stimpson
VeteranXV
Old
61 - 07-21-2008, 05:01
Reply With Quote
The United States is incapable of attacking a country that can actually defend itself, so any invasion will occur after several months of high altitude bombing, and even then it will end up a quagmire that makes Iraq look like a day excursion. I think it highly unlikely that there will be any overt attack for many years.
 
Stimpson is offline
 
Sponsored Links
cyclozine
VeteranXX
Old
62 - 07-21-2008, 05:01
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuicideTaxi View Post
You aren't worth explaining anything to because anyone who labels what I say as "retarded conspiracy theories" is pretty much a lost cause right out of the gate.

But good luck with your misplaced superiority complex and all.
the u.s. wants to attack iran because they won't have enough oil as a result of the iranians switching their oil business away from the dollar

i'm not sure i'd be interested in hearing any "explanations" for your retarded conspiracy theories

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuicideTaxi View Post
It isn't "higher level" at all.

This planet moves on oil. Period. Every single ****ing facet of it is mined, created, distilled, manufactured, transported, fueled, and dependent on oil.

The United States is currently using 5 times as much energy per capita as anyone other country.

The United States currently spends more than the rest of the ****ing world combined on its military.

The United States currently has hundreds of strategically-placed military bases around the world that oversees the extraction, transport, and sale of oil.

It's about oil. It's always about oil. It's always been about oil. And until it runs out or a new form of cheap energy is discovered, it will always be about oil.

Everything else - politics, religion, military threats, ideology - everything else is window dressing.
 
cyclozine is offline
 
ZOD
VeteranX
Old
63 - 07-21-2008, 05:04
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav Scout View Post
I don't see how we could benefit in any way from bombing Iran.
Well the general idea is to secure ourselves (and Europe as well) energy long term. So a regime change in Iran would be beneficial to that. If that is not feasible, then bullying them into playing the oil game by our rules would suffice. That and they are ****ing around with the strength of our currency, which pisses us off as well. Afghanistan is just a strategic piece of this scenario (mainly pipeline routing). We've already secured Iraq as a supplier, Saudi Arabia has been playing ball (since we keep the Monarchy alive) so no problem there. What's that leave us? Iran.
 
ZOD is offline
 
SuicideTaxi
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
64 - 07-21-2008, 05:54
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclozine View Post
the u.s. wants to attack iran because they won't have enough oil as a result of the iranians switching their oil business away from the dollar

i'm not sure i'd be interested in hearing any "explanations" for your retarded conspiracy theories
You should probably look up and understand the word "conspiracy" first before you start using it.

Cuz throwing it around where it completely doesn't apply pretty much makes you look like a complete jackass.

Just f.y.i.
 
SuicideTaxi is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
65 - 07-21-2008, 06:05
Reply With Quote
that's sort of what negotiating and diplomacy is all about.

diplomacy is called diplomacy because you're basically negotiating instead of waging war. If diplomacy fails, what then? You either puss out or you don't.

Look at north korea - diplomacy instead of war. In that case, it worked. In iraq's case, it didn't.

negotiations between sovereign countries have no force behind them if there is not the threat of action, either. Especially when dealing with nukes. This is world ending ****, you better believe the west would use military means in dealing with it.
 
triple is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
66 - 07-21-2008, 06:09
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuicideTaxi View Post
Don't you morons get it yet... it isn't about nukes, or WMDs, or religion, or terrorism, it's about controlling the ****ing energy resources.
And this is why ive always supported nuclear power. The hippies and three mile put an end to that pipe dream.

Iran? They don't need nuclear power. As you've so eloquently put it, they're sitting on mounds of ****ing oil.

The only reason they'd be interested in nuclear energy is for defense.
 
triple is offline
 
claudius
VeteranX
Old
67 - 07-21-2008, 06:10
Reply With Quote
Tell us more about the failed negotiations with Iraq that led to war, triple.
 
claudius is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
68 - 07-21-2008, 06:11
Reply With Quote
wasn't really a negotiation as it was a threat delivered by the unsc. iran is much more "diplomatic", id say.
 
triple is offline
 
claudius
VeteranX
Old
69 - 07-21-2008, 06:13
Reply With Quote
That's not really an answer, but okay.
 
claudius is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
70 - 07-21-2008, 06:15
Reply With Quote
Well they have reason to be! Imagine if I "negotiated" with your next door neighbor, and he didn't want to negotiate, so I hanged him and leaked out the video on the internet.

And then I come to your house to negotiate. Being cooperative today?
 
triple is offline
 
james
VeteranX
Old
71 - 07-21-2008, 06:22
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpson View Post
The United States is incapable of attacking a country that can actually defend itself, so any invasion will occur after several months of high altitude bombing, and even then it will end up a quagmire that makes Iraq look like a day excursion. I think it highly unlikely that there will be any overt attack for many years.
In 1991 the US defeated one of the largest armed forces in the entire world in less than 100 hours.
 
james is offline
 
claudius
VeteranX
Old
72 - 07-21-2008, 06:23
Reply With Quote
That's some quality nonsense you're spewing.
 
claudius is offline
 
james
VeteranX
Old
73 - 07-21-2008, 06:38
Reply With Quote
900,000 total troops
5000+ tanks

Iraq's primarily problems were two fold:

1 - Outdated doctrine based on Soviet tactics and lessons learned from the Iran-Iraq War, which did not fair well against US more maneuverable and adept forces.

2 - Turkey put 100,000 troops on the Turkey-Iraq border, forcing the Iraqis to spread their forces thin.
 
james is offline
 
SuicideTaxi
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
74 - 07-21-2008, 06:39
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by triple View Post
And this is why ive always supported nuclear power. The hippies and three mile put an end to that pipe dream.

Iran? They don't need nuclear power. As you've so eloquently put it, they're sitting on mounds of ****ing oil.

The only reason they'd be interested in nuclear energy is for defense.
I can understand why you would think that nuclear power is a better alternative to power plants running on fossil fuels, but the plain facts are that nuclear power, when all is said and done, (designing, building, uranium production, cooling, waste storage, etc), nuclear power really doesn't offer an alternative to cheaper fossil fuels.

If the objective is to lessen the demand on fossil fuels, then the energy invested on energy returned (EROEI) for nuclear plants doesn't make them a real alternative. Yes, you aren't burning coal or oil, but at the same time, you are still using technologies based on petroleum to make it happen. (Peripherally.)

All in all though, it does make you right in that Iran's nuclear research goals are most certainly for defense, because they can simply afford to run their power plants on oil, considering they have so much of it.

And a nuclear-equipped, defendable Iran just won't do. It doesn't fit into the West's plan of dominating the world's energy resources. (Which they currently do, just not enough.)
 
SuicideTaxi is offline
 
SuicideTaxi
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
75 - 07-21-2008, 06:40
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by james View Post
900,000 total troops
5000+ tanks

Iraq's primarily problems were two fold:

1 - Outdated doctrine based on Soviet tactics and lessons learned from the Iran-Iraq War, which did not fair well against US more maneuverable and adept forces.

2 - Turkey put 100,000 troops on the Turkey-Iraq border, forcing the Iraqis to spread their forces thin.
If you're trying to back up Stimpson and imply that the United States would have any difficulty whatsoever completely and utterly destroying the Iranian army, you really don't know much about military affairs and should probably stop typing now.
 
SuicideTaxi is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
76 - 07-21-2008, 06:41
Reply With Quote
In iraq the us military was held back by humanitarian reasons, we actually thought the population was glad to see us, and the whole "shock and awe" thing doesn't work when there are no military targets to bomb.

If the us military waged all out conventional warfare, they'd be unstoppable. In iraq we got bogged down as sitting ducks. The reason the surge worked as well as it did was because we were going on offense again. We're like the LA Lakers of military superpowers.

Quote:
It doesn't fit into the West's plan of dominating the world's energy resources. (Which they currently do, just not enough.)
That doesn't mean we need to be hostile towards iran. See dubai lately? Being cooperative with the west has some fringe benefits. There are much better reasons to be overtly hostile to iran, like its rhetoric towards destroying israel and financial support for terrorist groups.
 
triple is offline
 
Last edited by triple; 07-21-2008 at 06:45..
Yankee
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
77 - 07-21-2008, 07:09
Reply With Quote
how exactly is Bush going to order anything in November to January?
 
Yankee is offline
 
triple
VeteranXV
Old
78 - 07-21-2008, 07:20
Reply With Quote
president-elect doesn't mean ****, hes still the prez

id be more worried if obama started handling foreign policy 2 months before hes inaugurated

anyways, what do you guys think about obama's gaffe, he was talking about working with foreign governments, I think, and he said "ill be working with these people for the next 8-10 years"

so not only does he assume he's going to win the next two elections, he just might have the last term be 6 years
 
triple is offline
 
consultant
VeteranXX
Old
79 - 07-21-2008, 07:40
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by orbital 123 View Post
Bush is enamoured of the Israelies, and the Jewish Lobby is very strong in America. They know Obama wouldn't support an attack on Iran like the neocons would.

Besides, Bush would be leaving the mess he creates to the next president.
Orbby you already told us that the powers that be are these secret "family's" that control everything so what does it matter who the President is??? If "they" say war then war it is...
 
consultant is offline
 
james
VeteranX
Old
80 - 07-21-2008, 07:43
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuicideTaxi View Post
If you're trying to back up Stimpson and imply that the United States would have any difficulty whatsoever completely and utterly destroying the Iranian army, you really don't know much about military affairs and should probably stop typing now.
I'm actually opposing Stimpson?!!??!!
 
james is offline
 
Page 4 of 7
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page Senior Israeli official: If nuclear talks fail, Bush will order Iran attack

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
beren = master splinter , cyclotard , dudeofdeath <3 absent , heil hitler , jewish brainwashing , matthew dewald is fat , phd in political science , sky is falling , suicidedouchebag


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


AGENT: CCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/) / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49.