http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RA3C100&show_article=1

I will give my answer in a minute. But let me ask you - Why do WE have to have a plan? And by " We " I mean the United States.

We need a plan because the President of the United States can't come up with one, maybe? So far his plan seems to have been to antagonize the Iranians by calling them part of the Axis of Evil.

Herb, for my answer, I suggest you go back and search for the one I gave you the last few times you asked this same exact question without providing any sort of plan of your own.

Andrew

Herb doesn't have a plan except to retreat to Cuba when things fall apart here. Castro will save him!!!

Look at where our minds have been forced; " It's a foregone conclusion that The United States needs to be the one to do something."

I am not convinced of that anymore. We all know why I am a bit fatigued with that way of thinking.

I say let them have Iraq. How's that?

"I say let them have Iraq. How's that?"

OK. Then let us know how you'll feel once Israel and Europe are nuked.

Herb

OK. I will. But I don't believe that to be a foregone conclusion either.

Sorry. I just don't. I understand why you think it is. But you can at least understand why others may disagree, right?

So why can't Israel and Europe take care of it then?

Fair question.
They've been neutralized and are afraid of torqueing off their own Muslim populations.
Witness Spain...they went Socialist and were blackmailed to leave Iraq after the train bombings. You guys see that?

Herb

I do. ( Well, kind of. Blackmailed? Even if that were true to the degree you want me to use as reasoning - I'm not there yet. ) But I don't believe that to be an accurate prediction of how they would react. You are VERY deep into a mindset that The United States ONLY can fix ALL problems.

I do not believe that.

As ugly as it sounds, here is where I believe we are as a nation right now. The next time someone needs our help, they'd best be VERY public about it. There had best be an entire globe of poeple BEGGING us to come in and help. Until then, no dice. There are plenty of scenarios in which that could easilly happen.

NONE of them are in place right now. If we go in before that, we will not be helped, welcomed or even mildly successful. People will have to die for another nation to come to us anymore. Pre-emptive strikes aren't needed right now. And if we, as a nation, become the only ones who think it is needed - then we need to swallow our pride and watch it unfold.

Bottom line; We are asked to help in NO uncertain terms or we do nothing. NOTHING. ( And slowing down some arms sales to sketchy countries would be a good thing too ). IN a world where we are " damned if we do and damed if we don't," right now, with all the help WE need in our own backyard, I would rather be damned if we don't. I think we have some high ground with that.

So, nothing. We do nothing. It's not easy. In fact, it's harder to do that than something - but I believe it to be the better option right now.

Still waiting for your plan for deal with Iran, Herb.

Andrew

"The next time someone needs our help, they'd best be VERY public about it."

That sounds good and has a lot of solid reasoning behind it. Yet when it comes to our so-called 'buddies' in Saudi Arabia, they're careful not to appear too close to the US, in fear that their own extremists will indeed be torqued off.

Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf appears to walk the tightrope pretty well, though.

I kind of agree with you.

Herb

So do you count Saudi Arabia as an ally? I kind of don't. Not in the sense that it carries any diplomatic weight. I mean, sure, they bought 20 billion in arms from us today. That helps our economy. But is that all that matters?

Do you count them as an ally?

Still waiting for your plan for deal with Iran, Herb.

Andrew

Hmmm......Here's my plan:

http://www.adapage.com/magazzino/Immagini%20Esplosioni/nuclear_explosion%2006.jp g

Wham, Bam, Thank You Mam!

And Herb, since you brought it up, where on your list of options in your mind, before I brought it up, was " Do nothing."? If I had said " Bomb the hell out of them pre-emptively " would you have found someone who is more like-minded as you? Where do you stand on the list of options? What is your #1 as is all stands TODAY. Just today, for now.

"Still waiting for your plan for deal with Iran, Herb."

Many appear to favour containment.

It won't work with nukes.

I say go pre-emptive if necessary.
The problem is that if we share intel with the Russians or Chinese, they'll likely tip Iran off.

Now with Sarkozy & Merkel, we just may have the ability to take Iran's nukes out without too much fuss. Kind of like Saddam's Osiris that the Israelis took out in the 1980's.

Leave the Iranian people alone as much as possible, just take out the nukes.

Herb

BTW...I was only kidding but that's how I feel! I'm tired of the US taking shit of these bozo's when we can just end it with some surplus nukes and then go home in one day! No Muss No Fuss! I am actually against nukes unless they are used against us first, however precision strikes using conventional weaponry to remove threats is all fine and well as far as i'm concerned. These countries have meaningless air power and we can go in on a whim and do what we need and leave without ground troops. You wanna setup a weapons plant, go ahead, we'll flatten it for ya!

"I say go pre-emptive if necessary."

Define or expound " Pre-emptive " and then define " necessary."

Herb writes:
I say go pre-emptive if necessary.
The problem is that if we share intel with the Russians or Chinese, they'll likely tip Iran off.

Why would they need to be tipped off? You think they didn't built their nuclear facilities with the assumption that the US might well bomb them?

Now with Sarkozy & Merkel, we just may have the ability to take Iran's nukes out without too much fuss. Kind of like Saddam's Osiris that the Israelis took out in the 1980's.

Except that the Iranians presumably learned from the Iraqis and have built their nuclear facilities deep underground - not impossible to bomb but not the cake walk the Israeli bombing of Iraq was.

Leave the Iranian people alone as much as possible, just take out the nukes.

Which is a hell of a lot harder than you seem to think. Surely thousands of Iranians would be killed, given the kind of weaponry we'd need to take out underground facilities. And then what if you don't get them all? What if they still manage to turn around a bomb? Won't they be much more likely to use it on someone if they've already been bombed and thousands of their people killed?

Consider this: why didn't America just bomb Iraqi WMD sites instead of invading? Because American planners realized you couldn't guarantee we could get them all with bombing (although Clinton's Operation Desert Fox in 1998 was remarkably effective in crippling Saddam's military, we found out much later). Iran is much stronger than Iraq was.

And what do you think an American bombing campaign would do to world oil prices? Prepared to pay $5 or $10 a gallon at the pump and see the economy head into a tail spin?

Andrew

Iran is a paper tiger. Anyone ever play Texas Hold'em? Iran is holding a 2, 7 down and the flop is a 10, 10, Jack. The US has a Jack and a 10 down. Iran is bluffing. They have no nukes and their future capability is questionable. I say contain them and it won't be long until Mackmood is booted by the Iranians. Should Iran try anything foolish, it should be understood that they will be wiped out.

"Won't they be much more likely to use it on someone if they've already been bombed and thousands of their people killed?"

Okay, Einstein. Your sniping is all fine and dandy. But what's YOUR plan?

Herbert

Since when are we the World's police force. Geeeeezzzz. Leave them be and just prior to them becoming a nuclear threat bomb that threat out of existance. Let them know up front that if the choose to proceed that they will not be allowed to see it through to conclusion and that it will be removed by force!

1.) Warn
2.) Watch
3.) Remove Threat with surgical strikes
4.) Go Home and have dinner with family

The thing about Iran is this: They have very few friends in the world, and that includes their own region of the world. They would in essence be acting alone, and if they were dumb enough to try and provoke something there they would have the whole world pretty much united against them. No-win for sure. Oh sure, they can depend on North Korea, another rogue state going about it alone.

I REALLY think that it would be best to let Iran make the first dunderhead move. We have proven that a pre-emptive war started by us cannot be properly finished by us, and we already have enough enemies in the region. Conversely, we would have no backing from our allies (much like now in Iraq) and would be stuck in a protracted conflict that there is no successful way out of (see Iraq, Vietnam). If we let THEM make the first move, we have all the collateral at our discretion.

"I REALLY think that it would be best to let Iran make the first dunderhead move."

This exposes what many on the democrat side think. The problem is that they're willing to delay addressing the issue until it's too late.

We know the UN is impotent.
We know that Iran bodes ill toward any non-Muslim nation, and even some who are Muslim.

Letting Iran make the first dunderhead move will not work. Not unless you want to allow them to blackmail anyone whom they choose.

As much as the left has denounced Mr. Bush's pro-active and pre-emptive strikes against terror, it's apparent that little else will work when you're dealing with a suicidal mindset. Otherwise, be prepared to sentence millions upon millions to their demise.

That's the fact.

Herb

Hey I am all for the pro-active and pre-emptive strikes against terror, WHERE IT IS APPLICABLE. Like Afghanistan, where our SOLE focus should have been this whole time in the search for bin Laden.

Iraq truly posed no threat to us, or anyone else in the region. As bad as it was for those people under Saddam, one can honestly say that things are much worse under our watch, and not getting better. That wasn't a pre-emptive strike against terror, that was a horseshit invasion and occupation based on faulty intelligence and faulty decisions, and LOTS of lies. Do I want another Iraq, right next to Iraq? Uhhh no thank you sir.

There is a theme here:

Preemptive:

NAMBLA -- screw the law, just fry the bastards, before any more kids get hurt

Iraq -- Screw the law, just take out Saddam and get control before somebody else does.

Terror (generally) -- Screw the law, just do what it takes to find the terrorists and kill them.

Abortion -- Screw the law, we have to protect the murder of the innocent.

And that's not a Herb slam. I know lots of people saying that stuff.

ChickenJuggler has a great point. This just isn't always our deal. I'll add, it's really not our deal when our own house is not in order.

Get the States running solid, get trusted globally again, then maybe it's time to go out and lead a little. There is NO way we can do that right now.

We can't even lead ourselves!

"...protect the murder of the innocent..."

I can think of no greater cause on this earth.

"...get trusted globally again..."

Given their human rights abuses, as if we should be concerned about what the communist Chinese and North Koreans think.

Herb

NAMBLA, who has said anything about screw the law, you have self professed child molesters, and I think the majority of people think they should not be allowed to use public property to espouse their cause.

Iraq, no laws were broken, the US congress gae the president all the authority he needed to act.

Other than a few isolated instances, where the guilty were tried, have any laws been broken in the war on terror.

This just in:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RA6IS80&show_article=1

Herb

I have a plan. It call's for un-earthing all of the buried technology that we have and the government has buried to keep the oil mongers contributing to their campaigning and end our reliance of middle east oil. That would be an awesome "Take Your Oil And Go To Hell" for sure!

End our dependency on foreign oil and we end this conflict. Can't the US produce enough oil on it's own and not need to import the "CRUD"! (pun intended)

You cite that as if it's new ideas. Heck, Herb - " Stay the course " has been the MANTRA. I mean, leave it to Bush that the lesson to take away from Vietnam " We should have stayed longer." ( Which is the new administration public relations campaign right now ).

This may seem a little far fetched - but just stick this idea in your head. Don't do anything with it. Just hold onto it;

Every time Bush starts working for public support or opinion for a policy like he is doing right now, it is usally a sign that he is about to reverse course. So when I see some speech text like you cite here Herb, the FIRST thing I think is " Oh - he must be getting ready to do the opposite of whatever he's saying." He has the opposite of The Midas Touch. It's actually quite dazzling. The harder he campaigns for an appointee, the more confident I am that they are on their way out. It's like a game to him.

After YEARS of saying " Iraq is nothing like Vietnam " the stated policy is now " It's like Vietnam."

I know I'm not the first to note this. But the weird part is then all his Republican supporters suddenly change lock-step and go " Oh - yeah - this thing that Democrats have been predicting since day one and Bush resisted? Yeah. We're going to go ahead and accept that truth and market it as if it was our idea to begin with."

Whatever. I don't care who tries to take or get credit. But let's not pretend that this is not a CLEAR signal that an about face is coming.

Will you neo-cons be willing to pull our troops out when our death count surpasses that of Vietnam?

This was is not winnable and if we stay there until we think we can win it, our great-great-great ...... grandchildren will be dying there.

So I ask you neo-cons, what will it take to get your support for withdrawal? 60,000 coffins?

I dunno.

Iran is the 800 lb. gorilla.

If we don't deal with Iraq correctly, we'll definitely strengthen Iran.

Herb

How would WE strengthen Iran?

OK, Herb, I'll make you a deal. Support leaving Iraq and I'll support warning Iran we'll bomb the hell out of them if they invade Iraq.

Ok.

Herb

Bomb, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb Iran

It does have a nice ring to it.

See Herb, not all liberals oppose war, just wasting our troops in unwinnable ones.

I agree.....when necessary send in the stealths and squash the bomb plants!

President Bush has been wrong EVERY STEP OF THE WAY! That's why when I hear him say stuff like Iran will take over, I simply don't believe him. Not gonna happen.

I don't even see Iran as a 40 pound monkey, much less an 800 pound gorilla.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53669

Sounds like we're already at war with Iran.

Herb

Vitalogy, you are forcing me to support the neo-cons on this one

Iraq is so weak, a Girl Scout troop with slingshots could take over the country. Iran has the military that can do it.

I would use a nuke today if it meant that 3,000 more military men and women are saved in this senseless war in Iraq.
If it meant that WOMEN and CHILDREN were going to stop being killed senselessly in Iraq I'd nuke today.
If it meant that DUHbya and Co. would stop making asinine policies for Iraq that enabled thousands of our young men and women to be killed senselessly I would nuke today.

Iran knows that if they tried anything major in Iraq, they'd be toast. I don't buy the bluff.

>>>"President Bush has been wrong EVERY STEP OF THE WAY! That's why when I hear him say stuff like Iran will take over, I simply don't believe him. Not gonna happen.

I don't even see Iran as a 40 pound monkey, much less an 800 pound gorilla."


Naivety on the highest order.

All we have to do is be nice to the terrorists and they won't come over here, won't kill anybody anymore and will be a true asset and contribute good things to society.

If we are nice to them Iran won't Itack Iraq.

Am I wrong?

I believe defense experts see Iran as pretty sophisticated. If they weren't, I doubt if they could put together a nuke.

Herb

So Deanne, why is Iran an 800 pound gorilla? Because their crazy leader makes statements he knows he can't back up?

The true 800 pound gorilla is China. They hold enough US treasuries that pretty soon we will be at their mercy.

Probably the stupidest, most ill informed post I've ever seen on this or any other forum was when someone posted a few months ago that Pearl Harbor was our fault, that the Japanese would not have attacked us if we had been nice to them.

I'm not saying be nice and they won't attack. What I'm saying is that words from crazy leaders don't mean squat. So when Mackmood starts mouthing off, that's like the guy at the table with the short stack of chips. His leverage is minimal, and his bark is stronger than his bite.

Andrew, you took the words right out of my keyboard.

"Herb, for my answer, I suggest you go back and search for the one I gave you the last few times you asked this same exact question without providing any sort of plan of your own."

Herb has his countries and species wrong when he says:

"Iran is the 800 lb. gorilla."

No, they are not. We are talking about another fairly Westernized country in the Middle East that wants to join the nuclear family. Is this a great idea? No. However, we have been given many chances to change the situation, and we did not. Pakistan and India were bad ideas too, but we sure made money when we helped them out with technology.

"So do you count Saudi Arabia as an ally? I kind of don't. Not in the sense that it carries any diplomatic weight. I mean, sure, they bought 20 billion in arms from us today. That helps our economy. But is that all that matters?"

I am with you Chickenjuggler. I see Saudi Arabia as a country that sent the hijackers on 9/11. I see Saudi Arabia as having undue influence over our politics, our economy and our lives. I see Saudi Arabia as a country that oppresses many of their own people and gives women little or no rights. Saudi Arabia feels entitled to our power, our money and our lives because our administration is so snuggly with them. Personally, I find Saudi Arabia as revolting as Chile under Pinochet.

"Sounds like we're already at war with Iran."

Herb is right, but forgot to mention the other party involved. We are in the middle of a war. This power grab between Iran and Saudi Arabia is being fought in Iraq. The real cheers that go up from Arabs when Americans die are the cheers of Saudis. They are still smarting from allowing a bunch of permanent bases on their sovereign soil when the threat was based on a lie -- twice. They love the idea that we might do all of their dirty work in this current conflict. This is why Saudi Arabia has spent so much money making civil unrest in Iraq. To stay in the game, Iran is simply trying to match the efforts of the Saudis.

"OK, Lefties..."

I am a right handed centrist, so perhaps I should not have responded.

Deane, I hope you know I was being very sarcastic!

>>>"Deane, I hope you know I was being very sarcastic!"


I indeed did read it that way. However, it seemed a good time to add the reference to the Pearl Harbor post as a further emphasis that "being nice to bullies" won't make them go away as some extremely naive people think would happen.

You know Herb, you accuse those of us on the left of being against any war. I have ALWAYS said if we were going to wage a war on terror, Iran was the country we should have invaded.

1. They have weapons of mass destruction AND admit it.

2. They fund terrorist organizations AND admit it.

3. They don't treat their people very well AND most people in Iran would have supported us invading and helping them revamp their government.

If you listened to me, THIS is what we should have done in the first place. I would have supported a war with Iran. I guess that's what happens when everyone has their heads that far up their asses, no one hears.

Plus, I mean come on. How is it NOT a good idea to ask these kinds of questions like " What makes it an 800 lb. gorilla? " Be specific - rhetoric from their leader?

The days of over-stating things way too early to create fear ( or at least the degree of fear implied with 800 lb gorilla ) in order to justify action - ALSO implied, if not flat out called for - are OVER! DONE!

We will take action when EVERY SINGLE QUESTION AND IDEA HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. Now Herb, I know your fingers are already typing " h-a-n-d-w-r-i-n-g-i-n-g " but dude. Do you not think some more questions should be asked AND ANSWERED of our current government before all this talk of " Well, we've got to do something TODAY " begins? We're not anywhere near NEEDING to stike with some military action. I'm sure Bush would like it as it may create some kind of legacy or something. Who knows if he wants it? Not me. But I am more sure that YOU want it. That's fine. Thank God YOU can't.

Put down your 2 x 4 for a second and start thinking.

"We will take action when EVERY SINGLE QUESTION AND IDEA HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. "

Hell yes!

This is not being nice. It's being rational, and using every source of leverage.

"We're not anywhere near NEEDING to stike with some military action."

Chickenjuggler-With all due respect, unless you have a security clearance I'm not aware of, neither of us is in a position to determine if Iran is capable of using nukes. That's one of the few jobs government can do.

Herb

A lot of good the guys with security clearances did last time!

Seriously,
any action against against Iran should be tabled at least until the next administartion takes over.
This one has demonstrated beyond doubt that they cannot be trusted with such decisions.

"...any action against against Iran should be tabled at least until the next administartion takes over."

Now think.

If you were the president of Iran, isn't this precisely when you would make some reckless decisions, whilst listening to the left bash our leader as democrats give the appearance of US weakness? This is EXACTLY how liberals emboldened our sworn enemies in Vietnam.

The democrats are pulling a Jane Fonda all over again.

Herb

No, the GOP is looking to pull another GOP.

Our enemies think we're weakest when socialists want to cut and run.

If you don't believe that, who would be insane enough to have attempted to pull another terror attack once our defense status was so high in the months after 9/ll?

No. They wait until we fight amongst ourselves and see that as weakness. I'm sure it's a Sun Tsu kind of thing.

Herb

Like now?

So, we should all just shut up and let W handle it?

Herb,

The Vietnamese were not emboldened by watching protests in Berkeley on TV. Most of them did not even have a good working radio to hear CCR on AFVN. Right or wrong, they were fighting and dying for Vietnam. They did not need permission from Barbarella or Country Joe & the Fish to fight and die for what they perceived to be freedom.

All people want independence. This sort of desire is universal. When any group of people are oppressed long enough, they develop the tools and the ability to fight. To many folks over the centuries, the United States guerrilla rebellion against an empire in 1776 was the blueprint for their own liberation. Though each culture has an individual rationale, this is why the citizens of any given country fight and die for what they perceive to be independence.

Like any growing nation with high ideals, money and technology, we grew pretty powerful. Soon, we became an empire too. We were a major player in an increasing number of conflicts, and this last century brought two huge challenges to our strength. With lofty visions of liberation and a unified world, we prevailed in both the War to End All Wars and the Good War. The results were the League of Nations, and later, the United Nations -- an oft-used synonym for Allied during World War Two.

After achieving what was touted as a lasting peace in 1945, we have sent troops and operatives to various and sundry places all over the world. In the simplest of terms, it has been an endless war for the last 60+ years, not a lasting peace. Sometimes we made a sound decision, but most of the time, we did not. The end results of our poorly thought out coups, seizures, covert invasions and overt occupations have been, to be charitable, rather unsatisfactory.

What we have to show for all of our current effort is carnage and profiteering in Iraq, and carnage and record poppy crops in Afghanistan. Brave American Men and Women are getting wounded and dying every day to feed an underground economy. Unrest equals profit and the money mill is grinding all the time. This should only be about liberation, but unfortunately, it is not. In fact, it isn't even just about oil.

The axis of greed includes the buddy-buddy oil companies, crony defense contractors, highly positioned smugglers and hundreds of thousands of private soldiers. When contrasted with the sad quagmire on the Korean peninsula, or the still healing tragedy of Vietnam, those terrible wars seem almost clean and well organized.

Perhaps it is because those wars had combat journalists sending reports to a country still enamored with freedom of the press. Perhaps it is because our soldiers fed themselves, were well trained, repaired their own gear and knew it like the back of their hands. Perhaps it is because thousands and thousands of mercenaries were not involved in the battles. Perhaps it is because America had only been at war since late 1941, and at first, the time of constant conflict seemed shorter to the general public.

Sometimes, we really ought to just stay home and mind our own business. Remember when Argentina took the Falklands? The Argentines threatened a tiny group of nearby islands claimed by Britain, and sure enough, the ever starchy leader of the U.K. started talking craziness about nuclear actions in our hemisphere. Like most Americans, I thought the old broad was off of her nut.

History has shown that the United States made the right decision. Reagan stayed the hell out of it, but privately told Thatcher that atomic weapons were nuts. It was the best plan. If Great Britain had nuked the Americas, they would have had hell to pay. The Brits brought the bomb to our hemisphere, but they wisely did not use it. Before long, the war was over and the saber rattling was through.

Maggie's sweet dear son is an international arms dealer and makes a killing -- literally and figuratively -- every day the current war continues. Perhaps ol' Ronnie knew that the expedition was hyped to make her family and friends some some money. The ol' Hearst-Roosevelt maneuver still works like a charm, heck, just ask Fox-Bush.

What we call terrorists one week, were freedom fighters the week before. Many Taliban were escorted around our bases, taught to use our weaponry, and provided specialized training not even given to rank and file members of our own military. After a few years, they were left to turn a desolate corner of the world into a drug empire and the headquarters for a sporadic series of attacks on other nations. Tragically, they were very good students.

This handful of well funded radicals have now perverted the very meaning of fight for freedom, distorted the very texts of their scriptures and have killed people around the globe including many of their own. Saddam Hussein did not tolerate Al-Qaeda and they did not arrive until after we did.

Most Iraqis were well fed, well housed and well educated under Saddam, but they were not free. With their infrastructure intact, and a new government, they would already be well on the road to being a great and wealthy non-sectarian nation. I would have applauded our effort, but I did not, because that did not happen.

We knew every square inch of that country, and surgical strikes could have been carried out with ease. Given what we know of the results of shock and awe, our forces in the skies were given targets that would create a huge amount of work for exclusively American contractors.

We broke our promise of liberation, and instead, created opportunities for opportunists. If our troops are tired of being there, the Iraqis are tired of us being there, and the American people are tired of us being there, well, that my friend is consensus.

In our current mess, unilaterally attacking Iran is about as good an idea as walking through a smelter in wooden shoes. I've said this all at least twice before, but here it is again: There are other nuclear powers, like Russia, India, China, Pakistan, France and Great Britain. These folks are all one hell of a lot closer to Iran than the United States. They ought to have a good chunk of the discussion and we ought to be one part of a truly international coalition of countries concerned with Iranian weapons development.

Do not underestimate the desires of folks. Folks of any race in any region want the same damn things. Freedom is a big one. The sooner you look at humans as simply human, the better off you will be my friend. You will not see a gorilla, but a crowd of hard working, church going, tax paying, law abiding Iranians. Just like you.

Iranians simply live in a country where the government is led by pulpit pounding extremists and the wealthy. Just like you. The people themselves may yet have a chance to change the power base. Just like you. Perhaps, they also have a chance to avoid another long and bloody war in the region. Just like you.

So, Herb, what is your big plan for Iran? Like many of your vaporware solutions to the problems of our globe, we have all waited patiently for you to unveil it. I think it is time to put up or shut up.

"We're not anywhere near NEEDING to stike with some military action."

Chickenjuggler-With all due respect, unless you have a security clearance I'm not aware of, neither of us is in a position to determine if Iran is capable of using nukes. That's one of the few jobs government can do."

Wait a minute. I thought the base question you even started this thread with was " Given what we know, hear and believe, what is a plan?"

I give you a plan and reasons and NOW you say " Well, you don't have security clearance to make that kind of call."

No shit. WTF? Then why did you even ask? Was I SO off base that any and all thoughts on the matter need to be met with that response from you? I could say that to everything anyone ever says in here. Everything.

Geeze. Forget it then. Weak.

Wow, all this talk about bombings and military action . . . doesn't anyone realize we don't have much of an army anymore?

Blow hards like the prez and some here haven't realized we've spent 800 BILLION and created a mess of Biblical proportions all the while the prepardness of our armies have declined significantly from 2001.

We don't have a big stick anymore. We've just a twig.

You know......it won't matter if they build it underground! With smart bombs like these:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5398094301625411421&q=bunker+buster&tota l=212&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
We can just keep hitting the same hole over and over until we dig those rats out! And we have some pretty damn good shovels!

Herb said>>>
Our enemies think we're weakest when socialists want to cut and run.

Socialists?? Then your regime must be COMMIES??? Nazis??? Prevail at all costs?? Incite war?? Use Propaganda to make YOUR way work???
You want to continue to send our men and women into the meat grinder for the next what 25-30 years? Oh, that's right! Just like DUHbya says.... It's another Presidents problem not mine. You don't want it to be YOUR problem...
COWARD!

"So, Herb, what is your big plan for Iran?"

I don't know about a big plan. But here are a few suggestions. I would also defer to Nwokie.

1. Keep a close eye on them by continuing to monitor the situation closely.

2. Don't trust the UN to do anything. They'll only screw it up. However, NATO might come in handy here.

3. Rattle our sabre if they progress with nukes.

4. If back-door diplomacy doesn't work in eliminating their nukes, park a few aircraft carriers off their coastline and take 'em out.

You libs have anything better than that?

Herb

Don't trust the UN to do anything. They'll only screw it up.

Like DUHbya and Co. hasn't???


Saudi Arabia is OUR biggest problem and fund MORE terrorism than Iran could ever think of. We should take out them out tomorrow with enough nukes to turn them to dust and Iran will fall in line in a heartbeat. With Iran now understanding that we mean business Syria will follow also.
GAME OVER!

"We should take out them out tomorrow with enough nukes to turn them to dust and Iran will fall in line in a heartbeat."

I'm beginning to think you're right. With the Saudi's madrassahs, terror funding and the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, they better start playing nice.

Herb

All that sand and a couple of nukes would make a huge glass bowl!

Like it or not, Saudi Arabia is the pimp and the US is the prostitute. Similar to the Chinese, the Saudi's have a considerable investment in our economy and do have the leverage to make our lives difficult. A borrower doesn't threaten his lender without consequences.

Vitalogy that is why when it comes to the Saudi's DUHbya and Co. are complete pussies!

It's easy to get caught up in plans and scenarios and ideas and hopes. They are all good and most of them are contingiency plans. As in " If X happens, then Y would be an acceptable response."

But the one thng that I am fairly certain of; I do not trust our current administration to properly execute any of them. I want Bush to sit on his hands until we get someone else in there with a better skill set and THEN start developing a strategy - if it is even needed.

My point is that there is no way I trust Bush to be Commander in Chief for another major military operation.

No way.

Nor do I want him to create another mess for someone else to clean up. There is no imminent threat today. All this talk about needing to come up with a plan is fruitless with our current administration.

Unless, of course, God told Bush to do it. ( How sad is it that an absurd statement like that is genuinely in place right now with Iraq? Man, we have lost our way ).