View Full Version : Ballsy question HERE?
stephanie
01-24-2007, 05:26 AM
I was just watching Weslie Clark on fox news saying how we NEED TO TALK WITH IRAN....
The little minded midget(Machaminablowjob) in Iran, is threatening to wipe out not only Israel, but US, THE UNITED STATES off the face of the map.......
THE QUESTION??
(now damnit.......this is a serious question..)
Does Weslie Clark, Jon Carry, Jackie Murtha.......
HAVE ANY BALLS???
Just wondering......: :uhoh:
I think I have bigger balls than they do....:eek:
:lmao:
retiredman
01-24-2007, 07:34 AM
So you are suggesting that diplomacy only involves talking to countries that LIKE us?
If that were the case, we could save a lot of money by just basically eliminating most of the State Department, couldn't we?
and I find it really quite laughable that a woman with ZERO combat experience could question the bravery of a decorated career marine like John Murtha who fought courageously in Korea AND Vietnam. And you've....done battle with.... a pesky sewing machine, maybe? a recalcitrant kindergarten teacher? wow.
5stringJeff
01-24-2007, 11:32 AM
So you are suggesting that diplomacy only involves talking to countries that LIKE us?
If that were the case, we could save a lot of money by just basically eliminating most of the State Department, couldn't we?
and I find it really quite laughable that a woman with ZERO combat experience could question the bravery of a decorated career marine like John Murtha who fought courageously in Korea AND Vietnam. And you've....done battle with.... a pesky sewing machine, maybe? a recalcitrant kindergarten teacher? wow.
It's a fallacy to say that only those who have served in combat may have an opinion on issues of foreign policy.
retiredman
01-24-2007, 11:41 AM
It's a fallacy to say that only those who have served in combat may have an opinion on issues of foreign policy.
kind sir... respectfully speaking...I am not suggesting that the gentle lady not be allowed to have an opinion on foreign policy, just that if she is going to be grossly disrespectful to atwo-war combat veteran and suggest that he is missing his testicles, I feel compelled to take some degree of umbrage on his behalf and on behalf of the rest of us veterans who disagree with this terribly counterproductive war we find ourselves in.... and do you also, kind sir, believe that diplomacy should only be undertaken with countries that like us? You see... I think that diplomacy must be undertaken with all parties in order to prevent holocaust.... and I just reached down and checked and both of my testicles are still sitting ensconces in my scrotum even as I type.
Mr. P
01-24-2007, 11:51 AM
kind sir... respectfully speaking...I am not suggesting that the gentle lady not be allowed to have an opinion on foreign policy, just that if she is going to be grossly disrespectful to atwo-war combat veteran and suggest that he is missing his testicles, I feel compelled to take some degree of umbrage on his behalf and on behalf of the rest of us veterans who disagree with this terribly counterproductive war we find ourselves in.... and do you also, kind sir, believe that diplomacy should only be undertaken with countries that like us? You see... I think that diplomacy must be undertaken with all parties in order to prevent holocaust.... and I just reached down and checked and both of my testicles are still sitting ensconces in my scrotum even as I type.
But you had to check? Telling ain't it? :)
darin
01-24-2007, 11:56 AM
kind sir... respectfully speaking...I am not suggesting that the gentle lady not be allowed to have an opinion on foreign policy, just that if she is going to be grossly disrespectful to atwo-war combat veteran and suggest that he is missing his testicles, I feel compelled to take some degree of umbrage on his behalf and on behalf of the rest of us veterans who disagree with this terribly counterproductive war we find ourselves in.... and do you also, kind sir, believe that diplomacy should only be undertaken with countries that like us? You see... I think that diplomacy must be undertaken with all parties in order to prevent holocaust.... and I just reached down and checked and both of my testicles are still sitting ensconces in my scrotum even as I type.
Being sent to war, then being very-much ANTI soldier/marine/airman/sailor is NOT noble. Those weak-spined hacks should KNOW better. The fact they served makes some of their recent words/actions THAT MUCH MORE disgusting...not so much Clark - but Murtha and Kerry and others for sure.
retiredman
01-24-2007, 11:58 AM
But you had to check? Telling ain't it? :)
no.... not telling at all....merely sarcastic.
retiredman
01-24-2007, 12:01 PM
Being sent to war, then being very-much ANTI soldier/marine/airman/sailor is NOT noble. Those weak-spined hacks should KNOW better. The fact they served makes some of their recent words/actions THAT MUCH MORE disgusting...not so much Clark - but Murtha and Kerry and others for sure.
There is a distinct difference between being anti-war - specifically anti-Iraq war - and being anti-soldier/sailor/airman/marine. I would respectfully suggest that you try to understand that difference.
And there is more to supporting troops than bumper magnets.
darin
01-24-2007, 12:14 PM
There is a distinct difference between being anti-war - specifically anti-Iraq war - and being anti-soldier/sailor/airman/marine. I would respectfully suggest that you try to understand that difference.
And there is more to supporting troops than bumper magnets.
That's not even the same topic. I'm saying, the things Murth and Kerry have said are NOT 'anti-war' - they are ANTI Troops. One can NOT speak evil of the job soldiers are doing, with one breath, and praise them with the next. That's a fallacy.
5stringJeff
01-24-2007, 12:19 PM
kind sir... respectfully speaking...I am not suggesting that the gentle lady not be allowed to have an opinion on foreign policy, just that if she is going to be grossly disrespectful to atwo-war combat veteran and suggest that he is missing his testicles, I feel compelled to take some degree of umbrage on his behalf and on behalf of the rest of us veterans who disagree with this terribly counterproductive war we find ourselves in.... and do you also, kind sir, believe that diplomacy should only be undertaken with countries that like us? You see... I think that diplomacy must be undertaken with all parties in order to prevent holocaust.... and I just reached down and checked and both of my testicles are still sitting ensconces in my scrotum even as I type.
First, you really don't have to take the overly-apologetic tone. Really.
Second, I certainly think diplomacy is the best way to deal with countries, allies or otherwise. However, I think the point Stephanie was trying to make, which I agree with, is that we have little, if any common ground with Iran, and so wanting to talk things over with Iran may portray American weakness, which would be to our detrement. (sp?)
Third, your testicles are your business. :)
Mr. P
01-24-2007, 12:20 PM
There is a distinct difference between being anti-war - specifically anti-Iraq war - and being anti-soldier/sailor/airman/marine. I would respectfully suggest that you try to understand that difference.
And there is more to supporting troops than bumper magnets.
As well as distnct difference between Iraq and Iran. Diplomacy with Iran is the issue.
Tell me how to talk with a Country that has stated their intent is to wipe your Country off the earth.
retiredman
01-24-2007, 12:27 PM
That's not even the same topic. I'm saying, the things Murth and Kerry have said are NOT 'anti-war' - they are ANTI Troops. One can NOT speak evil of the job soldiers are doing, with one breath, and praise them with the next. That's a fallacy.
I respectfully disagree kind sir.... the JOB that the military does is whatever the suits in DC tell us to do....sometimes we agree with it...sometimes we don't.... but we really never cared much either way... it was the job ... we did it... we got paid ...we got promoted...life goes on... the specific missions that the military is sent on can be vehemently disagreed with by any and all AMericans.... that is completely different than speaking evil of the men and women tasked with completing those missions.
retiredman
01-24-2007, 12:28 PM
As well as distnct difference between Iraq and Iran. Diplomacy with Iran is the issue.
Tell me how to talk with a Country that has stated their intent is to wipe your Country off the earth.
I would point you to a moment in history when a fellow named Nikita banged his shoe on the desk at the United Nations and proclaimed his intent to "bury us".
Tell me, then, how did we EVER talk to the soviet union from that day forth?
dirt mcgirt
01-24-2007, 12:32 PM
As well as distnct difference between Iraq and Iran. Diplomacy with Iran is the issue.
Tell me how to talk with a Country that has stated their intent is to wipe your Country off the earth.
I totally agree that nothing would come to talking with Iran. However, diplomacy isn't going to hurt anyone's standing. With Iran it's more of a formality to say, "yeah we tried it, nothing came to fruition, now we can go to war." It's a matter of telling our troops that we did everything we could in order to avoid going to war.
Mr. P
01-24-2007, 12:47 PM
I would point you to a moment in history when a fellow named Nikita banged his shoe on the desk at the United Nations and proclaimed his intent to "bury us".
Tell me, then, how did we EVER talk to the soviet union from that day forth?
We had more NUCS than they did. All the more reason to prevent them in Iran. I'd also point out that Nikita wasn't a religous extremist. This situation is much different than anything we have ever faced.
So, tell me again how to talk with a Country that has stated their intent is to wipe your Country off the earth and others. I missed your answer. You must have a plan to change their mind. Lets hear it.
darin
01-24-2007, 12:55 PM
I respectfully disagree kind sir.... the JOB that the military does is whatever the suits in DC tell us to do....sometimes we agree with it...sometimes we don't.... but we really never cared much either way... it was the job ... we did it... we got paid ...we got promoted...life goes on... the specific missions that the military is sent on can be vehemently disagreed with by any and all AMericans.... that is completely different than speaking evil of the men and women tasked with completing those missions.
You can disagree - but you're absolutely wrong. People like you say things like that to feel better, but it's just absolutely wrong. It's absolutely impossible to not support somebody's job, but REALLY support 'them'.
dirt mcgirt
01-24-2007, 01:01 PM
You can disagree - but you're absolutely wrong. People like you say things like that to feel better, but it's just absolutely wrong. It's absolutely impossible to not support somebody's job, but REALLY support 'them'.
There are muslims serving on active duty as well as gays. Can you say that you've been supportive of them as well?
darin
01-24-2007, 01:16 PM
There are muslims serving on active duty as well as gays. Can you say that you've been supportive of them as well?
Why wouldn't I be? Somebody choosing to loosely follow islam is no threat to Good order. Those following Islam strictly would kill us if given the chance, however.
dirt mcgirt
01-24-2007, 01:22 PM
Why wouldn't I be? Somebody choosing to loosely follow islam is no threat to Good order. Those following Islam strictly would kill us if given the chance, however.
I support the gay and muslim Soldiers serving in the military too. Glad we agree. :thumb:
Gaffer
01-24-2007, 01:23 PM
steph I agree with you. Wesley Clark's only claim to fame was that he was commander of NATO. It's never mentioned, but he was removed from that position by clinton. Reason...unknown. He wants to talk with the maniac of the middle east. Just as he wants to talk with lil kim. NK the extortion gang of the far east has a nuke and is a threat to the region. So clark wants to make deals with them. Iran wants to wipe out Israel and the US and clark wants to deal with them. The longer talks and deals go on the stronger they get. When they feel they are strong enough they will attack.
Clark is a fool who thinks we are dealing with a european style enemy. This war is nothing like dealing with the soviets who had just as much to lose as we did and. in the case of kuschev, was more bluster than bite.
I haven't heard clark say anything but, retreat and run away. And if we are nice to tha mad dog maybe it will bite someone else before getting around to us.
I think Murtha is a piece of shit. As is kerry.
kerry is an outrught liar and played and used his time in the service for his personal gain and used it to turn on his own country.
murtha is a disappointment. Anyone that would turn on fellow marines the way he did is a piece of shit in my eyes. And he continues to slam the military.
clark the fool, kerry the traitor, murtha the shit. Sums up this vets feeling about em.
darin
01-24-2007, 01:24 PM
I support the gay and muslim Soldiers serving in the military too. Glad we agree. :thumb:
Indeed - as long as neither are defined by their choice of behaviour, I'm okay. The Armed Forces are okay. But when EITHER allow themselves conduct which distracts from good order, they should be removed from uniform.
retiredman
01-24-2007, 01:29 PM
You can disagree - but you're absolutely wrong. People like you say things like that to feel better, but it's just absolutely wrong. It's absolutely impossible to not support somebody's job, but REALLY support 'them'.
it's funny...did YOU ever serve? I did...during the Vietnam years...and my father and mother were peace activists who protested the war in Vietnam. I NEVER once felt that they were disrespecting me in any way.
ANd you clearly do not understand the word "job" from a military perspective. Our JOB - our ONLY JOB - is to go whereever the suits in DC send us and do whatever they tell us to do to the utmost of our ability and continue to do IT until they tell us to come home. The mission is not the job...the mission is what you do as part of your job. Missions come and missions go...but the JOB is there. My folks hated the war in Vietnam - so did I... but that never stopped them from supporting ME in my JOB and it didn't stop ME from doing my JOB. Got it?
Now you can tell me that I am "absolutely wrong" kind sir, but you'll need to give me some reason as to why YOUR opinion on a subject that I am intimately familiar with has more credence than mine and gives you the right to judge MY opinion. For example.... if my cardiologist told me I needed to get my cholesterol down below 140 and you said he was "absolutely wrong" I'd need to see some credentials that allowed you to make that judgment.
retiredman
01-24-2007, 01:34 PM
We had more NUCS than they did. All the more reason to prevent them in Iran. I'd also point out that Nikita wasn't a religous extremist. This situation is much different than anything we have ever faced.
So, tell me again how to talk with a Country that has stated their intent is to wipe your Country off the earth and others. I missed your answer. You must have a plan to change their mind. Lets hear it.
your answer to my question was profoundly lame. We have more nukes than Iran..why can't we talk to them? and do you think that being "buried" by a communist government would be somehowless painful than being "buried" by a Islamic one?
YOu talk to them in hopes of convincing them to alter their stated intent, of course. The same reason we talked with the soviets for all those years.
Mr. P
01-24-2007, 01:45 PM
Indeed - as long as neither are defined by their choice of behaviour, I'm okay. The Armed Forces are okay. But when EITHER allow themselves conduct which distracts from good order, they should be removed from uniform.
Back in my day, black, white, Muslim, Catholic et al…when you put on the OD green you were all GI.
retiredman
01-24-2007, 02:02 PM
Indeed - as long as neither are defined by their choice of behaviour, I'm okay. The Armed Forces are okay. But when EITHER allow themselves conduct which distracts from good order, they should be removed from uniform.
and here we are in total agreement. Anyone who negatively impacts good order and discipline needs to be corrected or discharged....
darin
01-24-2007, 02:09 PM
Back in my day, black, white, Muslim, Catholic et al…when you put on the OD green you were all GI.
Right - used to be people dropped all those labels too, when they became AMERICANS. :)
darin
01-24-2007, 02:10 PM
your answer to my question was profoundly lame. We have more nukes than Iran..why can't we talk to them? and do you think that being "buried" by a communist government would be somehowless painful than being "buried" by a Islamic one?
YOu talk to them in hopes of convincing them to alter their stated intent, of course. The same reason we talked with the soviets for all those years.
MUST You start every rebuttal with an insult?
retiredman
01-24-2007, 02:21 PM
But you had to check? Telling ain't it? :)
but that statement, in reference to MY testicles, was NOT insulting?
Mr. P
01-24-2007, 02:27 PM
your answer to my question was profoundly lame. We have more nukes than Iran..why can't we talk to them? and do you think that being "buried" by a communist government would be somehowless painful than being "buried" by a Islamic one?
YOu talk to them in hopes of convincing them to alter their stated intent, of course. The same reason we talked with the soviets for all those years.
Lame? So was your shoe pounding statement..Alittle education for ya..
Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev famously used an expression generally translated into English as "We will bury you!" ("Мы вас похороним!", transliterated as My vas pokhoronim!) while addressing Western ambassadors at reception in Moscow in November, 1956. [1] The translation has been controversial because it was presented as being belligerent out of context. The phrase may well have been intended to mean the Soviet Union would outlast the West, as a more complete version of the quote reads: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you" - a meaning more akin to "we will attend your funeral" than "we shall cause your funeral".
Several online sources incorrectly claim that he made this statement at the United Nations General Assembly on October 11, 1960, when he is said to have pounded the table with his shoe, or with an extra shoe he had brought with him explicitly for that purpose. [2] (Occasionally these incorrect reports give the date October 12, the date this incident was reported in most newspapers.)
Speaking some years later in Yugoslavia, Khrushchev himself remarked, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you" [3], a nod to the popular Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism." Khrushchev later went on to explain that socialism would supplant capitalism in the same manner that capitalism itself supplanted feudalism.
retiredman
01-24-2007, 03:02 PM
Here we go.... Kind sir... let me merely point out that the Soviet Union was clearly an adversary whose entire military might was developed to be able to indeed bury us. I spent the better part of my life chasing their surface vessels and submarines around the world's oceans and every one of those missiles subs of theirs had hundreds of megatons of nuclear warheads sitting on top of ballistic missiles continually aimed at the United States.
Yet we talked with them... we even had a telephone line hooked up and continually manned so that we could talk to one another on a moment's notice.
There was never a doubt that the USSR was our ENEMY during the entire cold war.... and we were closer than you can even imagine on a number of occasions from turning the globe into a cinder....
yet we talked with them.
We had diametrically opposing views that put us at loggerheads about just about anything and everything...
yet we talked with them.
Your suggestion that Iran is somehow different because they are an Islamic country is without merit... being turned into a pile of ashes by the soviets would not be any better way to go than having the same thing done - and much less effectively, by the way - by Iran.
so we should talk.. because it beats the hell out of the alternative
Mr. P
01-24-2007, 03:28 PM
Here we go.... Kind sir... let me merely point out that the Soviet Union was clearly an adversary whose entire military might was developed to be able to indeed bury us. I spent the better part of my life chasing their surface vessels and submarines around the world's oceans and every one of those missiles subs of theirs had hundreds of megatons of nuclear warheads sitting on top of ballistic missiles continually aimed at the United States.
Yet we talked with them... we even had a telephone line hooked up and continually manned so that we could talk to one another on a moment's notice.
There was never a doubt that the USSR was our ENEMY during the entire cold war.... and we were closer than you can even imagine on a number of occasions from turning the globe into a cinder....
yet we talked with them.
We had diametrically opposing views that put us at loggerheads about just about anything and everything...
yet we talked with them.
Your suggestion that Iran is somehow different because they are an Islamic country is without merit... being turned into a pile of ashes by the soviets would not be any better way to go than having the same thing done - and much less effectively, by the way - by Iran.
so we should talk.. because it beats the hell out of the alternative
I know all that and much more than you think I know.
No we shouldn’t talk. We should prevent the same from happening again. It will be worse than the cold war, Iran is no USSR, Pal. They have stated their intention and thumbed their nose at the world.
The USSR, although being opposed to the west, they knew the obvious results of a nuclear war, IRAN COULD CARE LESS.
So agian, what's yer plan? Talk is cheap.
jillian
01-24-2007, 03:37 PM
I know all that and much more than you think I know.
No we shouldn’t talk. We should prevent the same from happening again. It will be worse than the cold war, Iran is no USSR, Pal. They have stated their intention and thumbed their nose at the world.
The USSR, although being opposed to the west, they knew the obvious results of a nuclear war, IRAN COULD CARE LESS.
So agian, what's yer plan? Talk is cheap.
Actually, Mr P, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, strongly. You seem to be separating diplomacy from the use of military threat. The two can, and should, work in tandem, as they did during the cold war. Golda Meir once said something to the effect of "who should we talk to if not our enemies?" Her thoughts were correct then and they're correct now. The way things stand, our destabilization of Iraq has removed Iran's only barrier to taking the leadership role in the mid-east. His standing in the region has grown and he's been empowered by our horrific mishandling of the war.
We have no choice but to talk to him, as well as to use military threat. But talk to him, I think we must. He's the power player in the region now.
retiredman
01-24-2007, 03:42 PM
I know all that and much more than you think I know.
No we shouldn’t talk. We should prevent the same from happening again. It will be worse than the cold war, Iran is no USSR, Pal. They have stated their intention and thumbed their nose at the world.
The USSR, although being opposed to the west, they knew the obvious results of a nuclear war, IRAN COULD CARE LESS.
So agian, what's yer plan? Talk is cheap.
So again...my plan is to talk with Iran and continue to use multilateral diplomacy as a means of bringing them more in line with the world community.
and your plan, I take it, is to bomb them into the stone age?
how enlightened. My guess is that you would have had a better time getting that dumbass plan put into action before your party got their asses waxed in the mid terms. Now, with Dubya's approval ratings approaching absolute zero, and the probability of a democrat in the white house with a democratic congress on the hill.... you should probably put that Dr. Stranglove-esque plan back on the shelf. talk is cheap, and foolhardy rattling of a nuclear sabre is frightening and moronic.
Mr. P
01-24-2007, 03:47 PM
Actually, Mr P, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, strongly. You seem to be separating diplomacy from the use of military threat. The two can, and should, work in tandem, as they did during the cold war. Golda Meir once said something to the effect of "who should we talk to if not our enemies?" Her thoughts were correct then and they're correct now. The way things stand, our destabilization of Iraq has removed Iran's only barrier to taking the leadership role in the mid-east. His standing in the region has grown and he's been empowered by our horrific mishandling of the war.
We have no choice but to talk to him, as well as to use military threat. But talk to him, I think we must. He's the power player in the region now.
Nope..He's not a power player UNTIL he has the power..it ain't there yet, as far as I know. And no one will talk him out of getting it and using it when he/they do..sooooooo, No talking. Besides the world has talked, he said FUCK YOU..what more can be said?
darin
01-24-2007, 03:50 PM
For the record - the vast majority of Navy - seals, corpsmen & pilots not included - have NO business talking about being 'hardcore' or 'ballsy'. For the VAST Majority of the Navy, your service is more like camp.
:)
jillian
01-24-2007, 03:51 PM
Nope..He's not a power player UNTIL he has the power..it ain't there yet, as far as I know. And no one will talk him out of getting it and using it when he/they do..sooooooo, No talking. Besides the world has talked, he said FUCK YOU..what more can be said?
Where has the world talked? Iran has Lebanon by way of Hezbollah, Iraq by way of the funding and "insurgents" they sent over the border; and an alliance with Syria. They're the big cheese in the region now. And have said "screw you", not to talking, but to unilateral threats that have nothing behind them since we're perceived as having failed in the region.
The U.S. would never tolerate another country or countries telling us what to do unilaterally. Why would we think that any other sovereign nation (particularly one with the power Iran now has) would do so? Sometimes you have to talk to the schoolyard bully. Helps to back it up with the threat of abject misery, but sometimes there's no choice.
MtnBiker
01-24-2007, 03:55 PM
Where has the world talked?
here
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm
jillian
01-24-2007, 03:59 PM
here
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm
Fair enough. Thanks. But still and all, threats of sanction have to have meaning. What are we gonna do, not buy mid-east oil?
Seriously, I certainly don't like the idea of Iran having nukes, particularly given it's desire to make Israel a sheet of glass. But I think Bush has been ham-handed in the way he's done everything. Diplomacy seems anathema to him and I think that's a terrible shortcoming.
5stringJeff
01-24-2007, 04:00 PM
Diplomacy seems anathema to him and I think that's a terrible shortcoming.
If you feel this way, how would you explain Bush's diplomacy-only approach to North Korea?
Gaffer
01-24-2007, 04:04 PM
The soviets had as much to lose as we did. The phone connection was established after the cuban crisis to prevent any mistakes that could cause a nuclear conflict. The soviets and the US fought a number of proxy wars thoughout the world. But the soviets never had any thought of starting a war that could escalate to a nulclear exchange. They could be talked to and dealt with as they were looking to gain advantage over the west and inspire communism throughout the world. For the purpose of what they percieved as a better place. All but run by the few that were incharge.
iran is a different matter. It is ruled by radical islamists. They have ties with all the other radicals in the world. Their stated goal is the destructuion of the west. And the return of the 12th imam. Which can only occur with a catacysmic war between islam and infidels. They will talk only as long as it serves their purposes as that is what is taught in the koran. Once they believe they have the upper hand they will strike. Talks and agreements mean nothing as they have been done with infidels. A major war that destroys most of the muslim world means nothing to the islamists if they can do the same to the west, and bring back the 12th imam they believe will come. ahmalittlehitler has said himself he would sacrifice most of iran to achieve this goal.
The mind sets of the soviets and the islamists are so opposite.
The longer we talk with iran the stronger they become and the closer they are to having nukes. At the moment they can't take out all the cities in the US as the soviets could. They would be lucky just to hit Israel. But for us to wait and talk allows them to build up. We should strike all their nuclear sites and then say will will sit down and talk.
Might as well try talking to a kamakazi pilot as he's making his run on a carrier in WW2.
Mr. P
01-24-2007, 04:05 PM
So again...my plan is to talk with Iran and continue to use multilateral diplomacy as a means of bringing them more in line with the world community.
and your plan, I take it, is to bomb them into the stone age?
how enlightened. My guess is that you would have had a better time getting that dumbass plan put into action before your party got their asses waxed in the mid terms. Now, with Dubya's approval ratings approaching absolute zero, and the probability of a democrat in the white house with a democratic congress on the hill.... you should probably put that Dr. Stranglove-esque plan back on the shelf. talk is cheap, and foolhardy rattling of a nuclear sabre is frightening and moronic.
What a plan, how many years did we do that with Iraq? How many UN sanctions? Did it work? So much for talking. These folks only understand action. Same as Hitler.
As far as the Stone Age goes, they’re already there, so bombing them back is a ridiculous suggestion. Is it ok with you for a Government with a Stone Age mentality to have Nucs?
It’s not for me.
News for you, if Iran gets Nucs and uses them, it won’t make a shit who’s in the White House (unless it’s a no balls Carter type), the launch will happen.
jillian
01-24-2007, 04:05 PM
If you feel this way, how would you explain Bush's diplomacy-only approach to North Korea?
Diplomacy only, Jeff? Hmmmmmmm interesting question. Kim Jong-Il has been stamping his feet, begging us to talk to him for a few years now. We've refused to have unilateral talks, so nothing has been done. I guess that can be called "diplomacy only", but without the diplomacy part. :D
Mr. P
01-24-2007, 04:06 PM
Where has the world talked? Iran has Lebanon by way of Hezbollah, Iraq by way of the funding and "insurgents" they sent over the border; and an alliance with Syria. They're the big cheese in the region now. And have said "screw you", not to talking, but to unilateral threats that have nothing behind them since we're perceived as having failed in the region.
The U.S. would never tolerate another country or countries telling us what to do unilaterally. Why would we think that any other sovereign nation (particularly one with the power Iran now has) would do so? Sometimes you have to talk to the schoolyard bully. Helps to back it up with the threat of abject misery, but sometimes there's no choice.
The UN.
EDIT: Thanks MB I missed your post before I replied.
5stringJeff
01-24-2007, 04:15 PM
Diplomacy only, Jeff? Hmmmmmmm interesting question. Kim Jong-Il has been stamping his feet, begging us to talk to him for a few years now. We've refused to have unilateral talks, so nothing has been done. I guess that can be called "diplomacy only", but without the diplomacy part. :D
Well, we've insisted that South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia be involved in the talks as well. And we certainly haven't attacked Pyongyang yet! :D
Gaffer
01-24-2007, 04:23 PM
Diplomacy only, Jeff? Hmmmmmmm interesting question. Kim Jong-Il has been stamping his feet, begging us to talk to him for a few years now. We've refused to have unilateral talks, so nothing has been done. I guess that can be called "diplomacy only", but without the diplomacy part. :D
lil kim has never begged anything. He shoots off missiles sets off nukes and demands we talk to him. we have said we would but only along with the regional neighbors who have a lot more at stake there than we do. NK is nothing but an extortion state trying to rip off the rest of the world. They need even more restrictions put on them and no talks until they disband their nuclear program completely.
Humanitarian aid to NK never reaches the people anyway. So more restrictions won't hurt anything.
it's funny...did YOU ever serve? I did...during the Vietnam years...and my father and mother were peace activists who protested the war in Vietnam. I NEVER once felt that they were disrespecting me in any way.
ANd you clearly do not understand the word "job" from a military perspective. Our JOB - our ONLY JOB - is to go whereever the suits in DC send us and do whatever they tell us to do to the utmost of our ability and continue to do IT until they tell us to come home. The mission is not the job...the mission is what you do as part of your job. Missions come and missions go...but the JOB is there. My folks hated the war in Vietnam - so did I... but that never stopped them from supporting ME in my JOB and it didn't stop ME from doing my JOB. Got it?
Now you can tell me that I am "absolutely wrong" kind sir, but you'll need to give me some reason as to why YOUR opinion on a subject that I am intimately familiar with has more credence than mine and gives you the right to judge MY opinion. For example.... if my cardiologist told me I needed to get my cholesterol down below 140 and you said he was "absolutely wrong" I'd need to see some credentials that allowed you to make that judgment.
Maine who the fuck are you to tell anybody that your opinion is more important than theirs? I fucking hate elitist pricks like you, you don't know shit.
Kind of reminds me of a guy I ran across called Psychoblues, next thing you'll be telling us is you served in every conflict from the Civil War to Desert Storm.
I don't believe you ever served because if you did you wouldn't espouse the traitorous views that you do.
retiredman
01-24-2007, 06:18 PM
Maine who the fuck are you to tell anybody that your opinion is more important than theirs? I fucking hate elitist pricks like you, you don't know shit.
Kind of reminds me of a guy I ran across called Psychoblues, next thing you'll be telling us is you served in every conflict from the Civil War to Desert Storm.
I don't believe you ever served because if you did you wouldn't espouse the traitorous views that you do.
OCA...kind sir...I would NEVER presume to say that my opinion is more IMPORTANT than yours, only that in this specific topic, it is, most likely, more informed than yours. I am not an elitist by any stretch. I just happen to have served in the US military for a long time and got to see the way men and units reacted to a variety of outside stimuli....and there is no doubt in my mind that the political discussions that swirled around the country regarding any particular mission that our military was engaged in had little to no impact on unit or individual morale. The actions of our civilian bosses in the Pentagon were of infinitely greater importance to us.
And I must say, that I take personal offense at being called a traitor. Why must you ALWAYS be so personally insulting?
OCA...kind sir...I would NEVER presume to say that my opinion is more IMPORTANT than yours, only that in this specific topic, it is, most likely, more informed than yours. I am not an elitist by any stretch. I just happen to have served in the US military for a long time and got to see the way men and units reacted to a variety of outside stimuli....and there is no doubt in my mind that the political discussions that swirled around the country regarding any particular mission that our military was engaged in had little to no impact on unit or individual morale. The actions of our civilian bosses in the Pentagon were of infinitely greater importance to us.
And I must say, that I take personal offense at being called a traitor. Why must you ALWAYS be so personally insulting?
You say one thing and then backpedal, this is becoming a habit with you.
I believe that your views on coddling Muslim extremists and your support of a Marine turncoat(Murtha) who criticizes boots on the ground and who's solution to Iraq is to raise the white flag of surrender.....well maybe traitor is too strong of a word, how about turncoat?
retiredman
01-24-2007, 10:19 PM
You say one thing and then backpedal, this is becoming a habit with you.
I believe that your views on coddling Muslim extremists and your support of a Marine turncoat(Murtha) who criticizes boots on the ground and who's solution to Iraq is to raise the white flag of surrender.....well maybe traitor is too strong of a word, how about turncoat?
and I believe that you must fuck goats for pleasure. The only marines Murtha critcized were the ones who murdered innocent civilians...I find it repulsive and nauseous that you would support those scum...but then, I consider the source.
stephanie
01-24-2007, 10:22 PM
Someone's gonna blow a gasket...
Sheesh..:laugh:
manu1959
01-24-2007, 10:32 PM
I would point you to a moment in history when a fellow named Nikita banged his shoe on the desk at the United Nations and proclaimed his intent to "bury us".
Tell me, then, how did we EVER talk to the soviet union from that day forth?
i seem to recal a president with balls crushed the soviet union
Grumplestillskin
01-24-2007, 11:45 PM
i seem to recal a president with balls crushed the soviet union
Please don't say Ronnie Raygun.....pleaze!!!!:eek2:
manu1959
01-24-2007, 11:49 PM
Please don't say Ronnie Raygun.....pleaze!!!!:eek2:
that is president raygun to you
retiredman
01-25-2007, 07:46 AM
i seem to recal a president with balls crushed the soviet union
yeah...the soviet union had not been collapsing under the weight of its own failed economic model for decades... yeah..they were a strong and vibrant and super-powerful enemy and old Ronnie single-handedly brought them to their knees.
whatever. he was a B movie hack who governed us with Alzheimer's... and it showed.
stephanie
01-25-2007, 07:51 AM
yeah...the soviet union had not been collapsing under the weight of its own failed economic model for decades... yeah..they were a strong and vibrant and super-powerful enemy and old Ronnie single-handedly brought them to their knees.
whatever. he was a B movie hack who governed us with Alzheimer's... and it showed.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah....And we all know, your hero saved US from the World...
One blowjob after another....
manu1959
01-25-2007, 11:57 AM
yeah...the soviet union had not been collapsing under the weight of its own failed economic model for decades... yeah..they were a strong and vibrant and super-powerful enemy and old Ronnie single-handedly brought them to their knees.
whatever. he was a B movie hack who governed us with Alzheimer's... and it showed.
yes russia was under pressure for 65 years financially, socially etc ... i was there i saw it ..... the afghan war brought russia to her knees, ronnie just applied more economic pressure and finished them off .... which then allowed clinton to cut the military and balance the budget on the financial windfall of the dotcom industrial revloution and then with false confidence appease the entire world ( sound familiar to the 20's and 30's) which then allowed the terrorists to become emboldened and attack various things (sound familiar to the 30's and 40's) which then bush stepped into the middle of ..... and next up will be ....either a continuation of trying to get a failed islamic totalitarian radical tribal philosophy to collapse (sound familiar to the cold war) or negotiations and appeasement .... all in all this is simply a continuation of beating the moors back from the steps of europe .... a war which was never finished and had simply been interupted by the first world fighting amongst themselves .....
retiredman
01-25-2007, 12:41 PM
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah....And we all know, your hero saved US from the World...
One blowjob after another....
MY hero is Ted Williams...I don't know what you're talking about
avatar4321
01-25-2007, 01:03 PM
kind sir... respectfully speaking...I am not suggesting that the gentle lady not be allowed to have an opinion on foreign policy, just that if she is going to be grossly disrespectful to atwo-war combat veteran and suggest that he is missing his testicles, I feel compelled to take some degree of umbrage on his behalf and on behalf of the rest of us veterans who disagree with this terribly counterproductive war we find ourselves in.... and do you also, kind sir, believe that diplomacy should only be undertaken with countries that like us? You see... I think that diplomacy must be undertaken with all parties in order to prevent holocaust.... and I just reached down and checked and both of my testicles are still sitting ensconces in my scrotum even as I type.
Because talking worked Oh so well for Chamberlain in preventing Holocaust.
avatar4321
01-25-2007, 01:06 PM
I totally agree that nothing would come to talking with Iran. However, diplomacy isn't going to hurt anyone's standing. With Iran it's more of a formality to say, "yeah we tried it, nothing came to fruition, now we can go to war." It's a matter of telling our troops that we did everything we could in order to avoid going to war.
Im getting kinda tired of going through formalities before we do what we know we need to.
Granted we need to make sure its the right time to do what we need to do, but if you wait too long its too late.
avatar4321
01-25-2007, 01:10 PM
Here we go.... Kind sir... let me merely point out that the Soviet Union was clearly an adversary whose entire military might was developed to be able to indeed bury us. I spent the better part of my life chasing their surface vessels and submarines around the world's oceans and every one of those missiles subs of theirs had hundreds of megatons of nuclear warheads sitting on top of ballistic missiles continually aimed at the United States.
Yet we talked with them... we even had a telephone line hooked up and continually manned so that we could talk to one another on a moment's notice.
There was never a doubt that the USSR was our ENEMY during the entire cold war.... and we were closer than you can even imagine on a number of occasions from turning the globe into a cinder....
yet we talked with them.
We had diametrically opposing views that put us at loggerheads about just about anything and everything...
yet we talked with them.
Your suggestion that Iran is somehow different because they are an Islamic country is without merit... being turned into a pile of ashes by the soviets would not be any better way to go than having the same thing done - and much less effectively, by the way - by Iran.
so we should talk.. because it beats the hell out of the alternative
We didnt difuse the situation with talk. We beat them by defeating them.
avatar4321
01-25-2007, 01:13 PM
Diplomacy only, Jeff? Hmmmmmmm interesting question. Kim Jong-Il has been stamping his feet, begging us to talk to him for a few years now. We've refused to have unilateral talks, so nothing has been done. I guess that can be called "diplomacy only", but without the diplomacy part. :D
Diplomacy is as much about what you dont say as it is with what you say.
I think people are confusing diplomacy for justice talking. War is in and of itself a form of diplomacy.
manu1959
01-25-2007, 01:21 PM
can anyone give me an example where diplomacy and talking did not end up in war?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.