Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Tecate View Post
    I was thinking more along the lines of military industrial complex defense contract weapons sales minions, but whatever floats your boat.
    The Sixties called. They want their rhetoric back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tecate View Post
    I've been accused of many things, but an anti-semite I am not. If I had something against Jewish people I would openly say so. It does serve as an excellent deflection though, and it's used by many.
    I didn't say that you were. The cartoon, however, is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tecate View Post
    For starters, I don't buy the BS article in the OP. For argument's sake, let's assume for a moment that the article is true. Doesn't this make the Bush administration, the 9/11 commisision, and all military action subsequent to 9/11 extremely questionable, or perhaps even worse? After all of Bush's rhetoric about smoking them out of their caves and tracking down all funding and support of the terrorists could this just come out now? You'll have to excuse my skeptism, but the timing of this is very suspicious.
    Why? Do you really think that uber-dove Obama, who is hell-bent on gutting the military, wants to start a war with Iran? Or that the media does?

    As for the rest, Iranian support for al Qaeda demonstrates that we failed to go far enough in our efforts. Certainly you agree that Afghanistan was harboring al Qaeda and served as their base of operations when they planned and executed 9/11? And that going after them was a necessity? And while you may not think that Iraq was a threat, its conduct in support of terror operations, including the first WTC bombing, made them a clear and present danger to the US, and despite the media's best efforts to obscure it, Saddam did possess WMD capabilities, including a nuclear program. The NY Times even reported the recovery of hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Saddam's nine working nuclear facilities. As for Iran, again, they have declared war on us and acted on it repeatedly. This is just another fact that supports that, in addition to the fact that they have provided weapons and personnel to the Iraqi insurgents and Taliban whose sole purpose was to kill Americans. They even developed a new type of IED, the Explosive Force Penetrating mine, which is designed to destroy armored vehicles, and supplied them to the Iraqi insurgents. We have a causus belli there. However, I'm not advocating that we go to war with Iran, only that we recognize that they are at war with us and act accordingly. We certainly should have supported the opposition movement there and done everything within our power to assist them in overthrowing the mullahs. Obama missed a huge opportunity when Ahmedinejad stole the last election and the Iranian people took to the streets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tecate View Post
    Israel is more than capable of defending themselves, even to the point of turning Tehran into a smoking hole in the ground. A threat to Israel is not an adequate reason for me to cheer on WWIII.
    I think you missed the point deliberately, but whatever.
    No, I got the point. I just throught that it was a stupid point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tecate View Post
    So we have to "GET THEM" before they "GET US".

    Or would it be more along the lines of starting WWIII in order to prevent WWIII?
    No, we're already in a cold war with Iran, although it's a lot hotter than the previous cold war, because the Soviets were much more rational in their actions. The Iranian regime is motivated by religious doctrines that justify and glorify mutual destruction, whereas the Soviets wanted to rule a world that wasn't a smoldering radioactive pit. The mullahs also have another problem, which the Soviets didn't have, which is massive civil unrest. The Iranian people loathe their regime and want it gone, but the mullahs hang on because they have the means to impose terror on their subjects, so they have a certain urgency to their mission to set the stage for the Twelfth Imam, since they can't do it if they are deposed. Iran's strategic goals are therefore maintaining power domestically and suppressing dissent, destroying or overwhelming the bordering Sunni states and eventually destroying or subjugating the rest of the world, starting with the two biggest military threats, Israel and the US. Our strategic goal should therefore be destabilizing the regime, containing it and preventing it from becoming a more powerful threat. None of these goals require that we invade Iran or even bomb them, but we do have to step up our game. We need to hit their economic weaknesses by freezing their assets and getting the Saudis to step up oil production so as to bankrupt the regime. We need to provide the opposition with satphones, laptops and other tools to get their message out and organize against the state and we need to maintain pressure on their nuclear program through the kind of sabotage that either we or the Israelis have been executing to great effect.

    BTW, the people who really want us to take overt military action against the regime are the mullahs themselves. An altercation in the Straights of Hormuz or a raid on a reactor would inflame Iranian nationalism and provide them with an "emergency" that would justify a crackdown on the opposition without provoking international condemnation or sanctions.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Tecate View Post
    I am armed just as I know you are. So far I haven't seen any roving gangs of Muslims looking for people to subjugate marching down my street.

    Are we capable of kicking the entire world's ass all at the same time while leaving our Southern border wide open? We concern ourselves with threats on the other side of the globe, but ignore an open invasion in our own back yard. What's up with that?
    By the time the Muslims are marching down your street, you won't be in a position to do anything about it. Just ask the Swedes, French, Germans, Italians, British, Danes or Belgians what it's like.

    You keep ignoring the fact that we are already at war with Iran, and have been for quite a while. Here is the timeline of the Iran/US war of the last thirty years:

    http://wizbangblog.com/2011/10/12/ir...-thirty-years/
    • 1979 Nov 04 Iranian “student activists” [including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is the current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran] storm and seize the United States Embassy in Tehran. As all embassies are considered the sovereign territory of the Nation they represent, this is an act of war.
    • 1980 Apr 24 President James Earl “Dhimmy” Carter launches operation Eagle Claw from the White House Operations Center. The raid, intended to liberate and extract the 55 hostages being held by Iran, fails after a ground collision resulting in the loss of eight U. S. Service members and one Iranian and the destruction of two aircraft.
    • 1980 Sep 22 Iraq launches an invasion of Iran, subsequently receiving intelligence support (targeting information) from the United States
    • 1981 Jan 20 Minutes after Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States (and 444 days after being imprisoned), Iran releases the hostages to U. S. control per an agreement signed on 19 April.
    • 1983 Oct 23 Islamic Jihad (a client of Hezbulluh and thus Iran, via instructions relayed from Tehran to the Iranian Ambassador to Syria [also a client of Iran]) detonate a truck bomb at the compound of the U. S. Marines (1st of the 8th) in Beirut, Lebannon. 241 U. S. personnel are KIA.
    • 1987 Sep 21 U. S. Forces detect the motor vessel Iran Ajar (Iranian registry and crew) laying mines in international waters. The vessel is attacked by U. S. Army Helicopters operating from the USS Jarrett (FFG-33). The vessel is subsequently seized by Navy SEALS who document all the remaining mines.
    • 1987 Oct 19 MV Seal Isle City, then anchored in Kuwaiti waters (having been escorted by U. S. forces under Operation Ernest Will to Kuwaiti waters) was struck by a Silkworm missile fired from the Iranian occupied Al Faw peninsula. Later that day U. S. forces attack, and effectively destroy, two oil platforms in Iran’s Rostam (now Rashadat) oil fields which had been used to track neutral shipping and provide targeting information for small craft and SSM’s.
    • 1988 Feb 17 LtCol William R. “Rich” Higgins, USMC, while serving with UN Peacekeeping forces in Lebannon, is captured by hezbulluh, and subsequently tortured and eventually murdered.
    • 1988 Apr 14 USS Samuel B Roberts (FFG-58) strikes an Iranian Mine previously laid by the Iran Ajar in international waters.
    • 1988 Apr 18 In retaliation for the mining of USS Samuel B Roberts, U. S. Armed Forces launch Operation Praying Mantis. Two Iranian oil rigs (Sassan and Sirri) are effectively destroyed by U. S. Forces. Two Iranian warships (Joshan and Sahand) are sunk and a third (Sabalan) damaged such that it had to be towed back into port. Various Iranian small combatants (speed boats) and Aircraft were damaged or destroyed. U. S. losses were two Marine Aviators in a operational incident (crash).
    • 1988 Jul 03 While engaged against Iranian surface forces in the Strait of Hormuz, USS Vincennes (CG-49) engages and destroys Iranian Air flight 655 taking off from the dual use (Military and Civil) airfield at Bandar Abbas.
    • 1988 Aug 20 Iran/Iraq war ends in a cease fire.
    • 1996 Jun 25 Khobar Towers. Iranian supplied and trained terrorists (hezbolluh al hejaz) bomb Khobar Towers where U. S. Air Force personnel are quartered. 19 U. S. Servicemen KIA.
    • 2007 Iran provides arms and IED’s to anti-US forces in Iraq and anti-NATO forces in Afghanistan.
    • 2008 Oct 20 Iraqi forces capture 7 Iranian Quods agents operating in Iraq.
    • 2010 ??? ?? Western Intelligence agencies launch the stuxnet virus against Iranian nuclear program.
    • 2011 Oct 11 Indictments unsealed in NYC naming Iran as agent provocateur for planned embassy bombings (Saudi Arabia and Israel) and assasination (Saudi Ambassador) attempts in the United States.
    Iran as sponsor of Terrorists
    • IRGC (Pasdaran) The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps is the ONLY military formation in Iran that has been kept up to date in terms of equipment and training since the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
    • Quods A semi independent formation under the Pasdaran charged with supporting islamic revolutionary forces outside of Iran. Quods are the primary conduit for support to Syria, hezbulluh, and other Iranian clients.
    • hezbolluh (the party of allah) The Quods force proxy of Iran in Lebannon.
    And that doesn't include their support for Hamas and al Qaeda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    And it worked. See, you are here defending yourself against an anti-semitism charge instead of the issue being addressed. In this case, the drums of war being played in the Media (although I don't think the United States is ready to dance).

    It is standard stuff. Kinda like Godwin's Law. Called it Bok's Law; as a conversation on Israel grows longer, the probability of someone being accused of anti-semitism approaches 1.
    Especially when someone introduces crude propaganda like the cartoon in question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    If I thought one of my neighbors really disliked me, and was worried about them trying to hurt me, do I have the right to break into their home and kill them before they strike first?
    You have it exactly backwards. The question is, if one of your neighbors has bragged about how they plan to murder you, has gone out and purchased the means to do so, killed others in your family when they were visiting the neighbors, attempted to break into your home and kill a houseguest that he also hates, harrasssed your family whenever they pass his house, committed a series of escalating violent acts and bribed the local cops to turn a blind eye, would you be justified in getting a protection order and then, only then, shooting him when he comes at you on the street?
    Last edited by Odysseus; 12-29-2011 at 10:02 AM.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    The Sixties called. They want their rhetoric back.
    lol. Sorry Ody.....MIC was explored and coined by a very wise "conservative", President Eisenhower.....not a smelly hippy.

    An old battalion commander of mine is still in the Reserves and works full time for Raytheon. He makes no bones about it that there is a connection. Several of my former colleagues also work for Northrop Gruman and a weapons targeting system company that I cannot remember........none of them have denied a MIC in our conversations.....they just don't believe it's a conflict of interest.

    Stop pretending this is some left wing slander.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    lol. Sorry Ody.....MIC was explored and coined by a very wise "conservative", President Eisenhower.....not a smelly hippy.

    An old battalion commander of mine is still in the Reserves and works full time for Raytheon. He makes no bones about it that there is a connection. Several of my former colleagues also work for Northrop Gruman and a weapons targeting system company that I cannot remember........none of them have denied a MIC in our conversations.....they just don't believe it's a conflict of interest.

    Stop pretending this is some left wing slander.
    Oh, I know where it came from, and what Ike meant when he said it. Here is the section of the speech in which it appears:

    IV.

    A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

    Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

    Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
    Ike was concerned about a technocratic elite coming to power through the manipulation of what was then the single largest line item in the federal budget. Since then, defense has taken a back seat to all manner of entitlements, and the technocrats are running areas of our lives that Ike never imagined (tried to buy an incandescent lightbulb lately?) through their control of the tax code, the various social programs and now, the health care industries. Raytheon and other defense contractors are not interested in curtailing civil liberties, nor is the military. The average Soldier or officer is far less likely to want to impose his will on the general public than is the average Health and Human Services or Department of Education drone. The people who are constantly looking for an excuse to expand their influence are not those we think of as the MIC, but the more mundane parts of the government, the social planners and bureaucrats who want to regulate how we work, what we drive, what we eat, where we live and how much energy we use. It's not the military's boot on your neck that you need to worry about, but the Birkenstocks and Gucci loafers of the Washington elites.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Especially when someone introduces crude propaganda like the cartoon in question.
    Crude propaganda? It certainly has an editorial position; that the US and Israeli Hawks are working the Media in an effort to get their war with Iran on. I could even call it crude since it isn't subtle. I would rather they did something with the Walrus (Bolton) and the Corporal (Lieberman) riffing on the Lewis Carroll poem.

    Not sure how it is antisemitic, though.

    tried to buy an incandescent lightbulb lately?
    Yes. Got some at Home Depot just last week.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    Yes. Got some at Home Depot just last week.
    Have fun trying to buy them next week. 100 Watt bulbs are no longer legal for sale in the US as of 1 January.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I agree that Obama should have given them support.

    Do you think Bush would have?
    At least rhetorical, and perhaps direct covert. But Obama is an anti-Capitalist that wants our capitalist system to fall and be replaced. Iran's government knows that now is the time to defy the USA since it is unlikely that the occupant of our White House has the balls to do anything about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •