how many more months until november?

next up: 350HP930
Mad Rocket Scientist
posts for us some more "facts" he read while standing in a market checkout line. :rolleyes:

Yep, the phone calls Great Britian made to Hitler probably made about the same impression.

Clearly if the Iranians had already taken positions in Iraq, the logical next move would be to attack them if they did not withdraw. Not hesitate till they came in further and wait to be attacked and be on the defensive. What would you do...a Clinton/Kerry and call the FBI to arrest them?

The only thing keeping the Iranians out is the fact that the U.S. is there and they know not to screw around with us when we have a Republican President. Brings to mind when the Gipper was elected. Iran could not give back the hostages fast enough. Of course if things go badly in Nov, the Iranians will be back to walk on us again.......

Sometimes I wonder if anything the US does is the wrong thing. The fact is the artical tells a small sliver of one side and some are so willing to jump on the "The US military is wrong all the time" bandwagon.

CAM: Please tell me the difference in preperations a military unit would take in an attack and a defence?

Interesting. This sounds like one of those consequences that Americans are just now starting to understand. You know, one of those consequences that our leadership would have considered as part of the decision to go to war. Now we've got neighboring countries prepared to take advantage (and real estate). And we'd be in a classic squeeze position if we tried to stop it.

I do not think this is a liberal or conservative issue, except for the question of whether Dubya considered these kinds of impacts when he decided we would attach Iraq. Honestly, I don't think he did. I honestly believe he looked at this decision like a child. Like playing "Army" in the back yard. He gets his dad's vengeance, and he gets to pretend to be a war leader. I think it was as simple as that for him. More complicated now.

Super: Yeah, nothing like jumping to concuslions with only part of the information. I am glad nobody here has done that. BTW, maybe you can post your transcripts from the meetings considering the war in Iraq since you seem to have the inside scoop. And while your at it give us your psycological profile you conducted on the pres so we can understand how he like to "play army".

aside from the occasional possible skirmishes into Iraqi territory, I honestly don't believe Iran has the huevos grandes to entertain any large-scale incursion into Iraq. doing so would be foolhardy at best

I agree and I think what is clear from the article is that the british were wise enough to understand this and rectify it with some diplomacy instead of the use of military force.

CAM: Please tell me the difference in preperations a military unit would take in an attack and a defence?

Sure. If you prepare to attack, then the decision whether there is a fight is yours (you "attack").

If you prepare to defend, you might do more or less the same thing. However, there is only a fight if you are attacked (then, you "defend").

Basically, if I hear someone is told to "prepare to defend" I see a lot less aggression than "prepare to attack".

I gotta say I don't have a lot of faith in the US military outside of their ability to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut (which I cannot deny - you guys have got the goods). I'm just floating the idea that there might be better alternatives.

Fintstone - you mentioned Hitler first, and have therefore already lost the argument. :D

Cam: My point was and I think you got it. Logisticly they are nearly identical preperations for an attack and defence. You need to have the right people in the right place at the right time with the right equipment. in both cases due to the rules of engagment the unit has to wait until commanded to return fire or fire. FYI in my partcular militarty unit we do the exact same thing when defending or attacking(battle stations and wait for orders). I know this is symantics but the reality is we do not yet know the whole story and it is ignorant for either of us to take up sides on this until we do. Being a military coms guy myself I have to wonder if the order to "prepare to attack" was given in a open comunication that was intended to be intercepted by the Iranians. It would not be ther first time missinformation was used to defuse a fight.

Foolhardy yes, Ronin, but if they were going to do it, right now is the time.

Araine, that information is not available to you. National security, you know. Terrorists. WMD.

Maybe it's the Iranian's bit of land anyway, and it's an appropriate time to take it back. Who cares about a kilometer of desert.

Plus you are already getting the oil you are fighting for.

It appears from the articles that the british let them have it so I would assume its legitimate territory they lost during the iraq-iran war.

Super. I have TS clearance, But that stuff may be SSI. LOL

On the contrary CAM, If Great Britian's Neville Chamberlain had not sought to placate Hitler in 1938 by agreeing that the Sudetenland should be handed over to Germany....WW2 might never had happened...ignoring history dooms one to repeat it.

PS..the US military has the capability to do whatever it is directed to do. Unfortunately, the civilians controlling it often do not have the will to brave the attacks of the left and direct them properly.

If you think that a concession from england not being granted would have stopped WWII you suffer from a pretty sad ignorance of history.

:rolleyes:

And why would you think that is the case? Many historians think otherwise. Since when do easy victories not fuel the taste for conquest?

I suspect my knowledge of history..and in particular, military history, which I taught at a major university..rival your's. Your personal insults don't make my point any less valid, so why stoop to making them?

LOL, I learned quite a bit while I was at college but I would bet that my several thousand pages of supplemental reading puts yours to shame.

Study up on the NAZI build up of their military and their covert activities long before they took the sudenland and tell me when you have a clue that germany was going to do what it was going to do, with or without the rest of the world caving into the initial land grabs.

If you think the opinion of the world was so important to hitler and his minions why didn't they stop when england decided to declare war for their further incursions? If england had decided to balk earlier do you really think hitler would have stopped and said 'whoops, my bad, I give up'?

Well, at least we all now know your flawed beliefs are not limited to the subject of politics.

As my earlier point indicated, the Great Britian and the rest of the world waited far too long. Regardless of Hitler's ambitions, he was at his weakest politically and militarily prior to his string of successive, easy victories. Confrontation would probably have prevented his later alliances with Japan and Italy and his opponents in Germany would have probably been able to deal with him. By the time Great Britian declared war, it was too late. Even on the playground it is common knowledge that appeasement never works when dealing with bullies.

350HP:

That's Sudetenland

And it was a part of Germany until 1806 and of the German Confederation between 1815 and 1866. After the First World War the Sudetenland became part of Czechoslovakia.

All depends on who wrote your history book I suppose....