Forums | MacLife

He means that if we actually had to fight Iran (or anyone else for that matter), our resources are so spread out and tied up in bullsmurf to organize anything effective.

Most of the reasons the warmongers give to attack Iran are complete and total BS. However if hypothetically real reasons to attack Iran pop up, we've not the organizable resources to be effectual.

user wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

He means that if we actually had to fight Iran (or anyone else for that matter), our resources are so tied up in bullsmurf to organize anything effective.

Is he saying that he would actually support such an action? Or would it be run through the same rigamarole of reasons as to why its invald (ie they never attacked us, they're only responding to our belligerence in trying to get weapons (never mind the fact that they had a secret program for 20 years), its a distraction from the real war on terror).
In other words, if we did have  our resources free, many of the same people arguing against any action in Iraq would be arguing against any action in Iran on the same grounds.

Why the smurf do you insist on turning this around into a critique on what I, personally, might support and THEN present an array of responses that some other person you invented might do?

It's simply not relevant to what I was saying. ScifiterX was entirely correct about my meaning, btw.

If one were to deescalate in IRaq and escalate in Afghanistan/Pakistan then you would have the exact same issue if we needed to deal with a crisis elsewhere. Then one could say afghanistan was a diversion from Iran.

Of course though, were we to deal with Iran it might not require a literal invasion, and might require different portions of our military. If we needed to redeploy though, what country is on the border of IRan again?

bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran

Ribtorus wrote:

user wrote:

Czechoslovakia?

McCain's going to take on the Ottomans!

But he thinks he's going to fight the Parthians!

"Crassus, where are my eagles???"

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

user wrote:

Czechoslovakia?

McCain's going to take on the Ottomans!

But he thinks he's going to fight the Parthians!

"Crassus, where are my eagles???"

Funny stuff. And Obama thinks  he'll be president for ten years and that there are 57 states. Mccain gets a countries name wrong which was renamed, Obama can't even tell how many states this country has. Or how long the job he's running for is supposed to last.

everlong205 wrote:

Even Obama is on board saying that they are a grave threat. He just thinks that he can magically get them to change their tune by talking sense to them.

Is that what Obama is actually claiming?

It's just some foolish fictional version you're trotting out.

everlong205 wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Most of the reasons the warmongers give to attack Iran are complete and total BS. However if hypothetically real reasons to attack Iran pop up, we've not the organizable resources to be effectual.

they're not trying to enrich uranium in defiance of the international community?
Even Obama is on board saying that they are a grave threat. He just thinks that he can magically get them to change their tune by talking sense to them.
I guess when he in fact does try to negotiate (if he becomes elected) and meets the same brick wall and then attempts to impose tougher sanctions he will then be amongst the warmongers  lying about Iran.

Even if he does come up against such a brick wall, its better to attempt to negotiate, and fail, then to not negotiate and preemptively attack... again.

user wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

Even Obama is on board saying that they are a grave threat. He just thinks that he can magically get them to change their tune by talking sense to them.

Is that what Obama is actually claiming?

It's just some foolish fictional version you're trotting out.

The fact that Obama thinks it would work has as much basis in reality as if he used magic pixie dust.
But as stated, we've already done the direct negionation as per this conversation, and we are still where we were yesterday. Why do supporters of obama and the media keep trotting out how Bush is now followng the Obama playbook (talking about a withdrawal in Iraq an escalation in Afhganistan and direct talks with Iran) when in fact the direct talks led to a dead end. And John Bolton is probably standing on the sidelines saying "NO smurf you dolts. I told you it was stupid to try to engage iran directly as they will not budge and it makes you look weak." (paraphrasing). Now 2 weaks from now, when Iran rejects our offer, the various groups will discuss tougher sanctions. How do I know this will occur? Because its common sense. I don't know that we'll get the tougher sanctions but I do know what Iran's answer will be.

And as far as Iraq and afghanistan removal of troops has already been discussed and factored in, (as already discussed back in January Patreus already said things were goingso well that they could draw down troops) and in fact a time horizon has already been agreed to by maliki and bush (but based on the situation and on results) and already stated that it looked like Al Qaeda seemed to be moving back to afghanistan after being trounced in iraq, AND its already been reported (and ridiculed) that Bush had said to make a final attempt at getting bin laden. In other words, all issues already adressed by the actions of bush and patreus. yet somehow, the media hasn't gotten the memo. Didn't I read these stories in the newspapers or in the media? Why are they not aware of their own reporting? Ah yes, they're in the bag for Obama.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-22 3:18 pm)

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

Funny stuff. And Obama thinks  he'll be president for ten years and that there are 57 states. Mccain gets a countries name wrong which was renamed, Obama can't even tell how many states this country has. Or how long the job he's running for is supposed to last.

A quick search reveals the right-wing blogs are all in a tizzy over this.  Take what you can get, I guess?

Why, if you are going to get in a tizzy over borders, and names of foreign countries shoudn't the right wing blogs get in a tizzy over this? I'm pretty sure that Mccain knows about the borders in the ME and I'm sure that OBama knows how many states there are, but why, if you can't refrain from pointing out the mistakes shouldnt the righties point out obama's?

user wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

The fact that Obama thinks it would work has as much basis in reality as if he used magic pixie dust.

Glad you admit it. It IS something made up to simply make Obama seem foolish.

The fact that you are ignoring is that Obama has not limited his possible actions to negotiations. He just refuses to rattle sabers at Iran.

He has said that Iran is a grave threat (and will repeat this in isreal) and that they can't get  nukes. This establishes that in fact we are in the right in trying to get Iran to suspend enrichment, in Obama's eyes. He's also said he woudl go to Iran, tell them what is requested of them and engage in a dialog but that they had to suspend enrichment. ANd if said dialogue fails he would then get toughter with Iran and attempt to impose toughter sanctions..
How is this different than what just occured last week? THere might be some nuance differences but its fundametally the same (he just would speak to them directly as opposed to having his ambassador do it).If he engages in said talks and Iran still doesn't budge, can we then say he is saber rattling?

The thing is he said something flip and immature at a debate along time ago, that seasoned politicians scoffed at (that he woudl engage in direct negotiations without preconditions) at the time, and not wanting to say he was wrong, is now fixed on that position. ANd now its his followers and the medias job to suggest that his stupid remark was actually clever, and viable so that he doesn't have to say it was a stupid suggestion.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-22 3:35 pm)

Insisting on hard preconditions for a negotiation is the stupid idea.