Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 82

Thread: That Peaceful Iranian Nuclear Program

  1. #41
    I don't see here where Iran and/or the sympathizers will retaliate. It is an absolute absurdity to think that an attack on Iran will not produce more murder around the globe in a variety of methods.

    Moreover, with China getting 20% of it's oil from Iran, I would think that they have a huge stake in keeping Iran afloat and military aid in many forms is not out of the question.

  2. #42
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4374409]Logic doesn't work when you debate with people that willfully ignore the things they can see with their eyes. Iran has been working on acquiring nukes for 20 years. They have been fighting proxy wars against the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. The original act of war happened in 1979 when they took our people hostage there.[/QUOTE]

    In 1983 Iran financed Hezbollah's suicide bombing of the Marines barracks in Beirut, Lebanon.

  3. #43
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4375420]Yes since kenya said it, it must be true. Screw it, lets let Iran and all the other radical islamist countries get nukes right. When they use them and millions die we can point to uberlibs like you and say I told you so. That worked well when we got to point fingers at your hero Neville Chamberlain and say see, I told you so.[/QUOTE]

    It's funny how moonbats want the US to dismantle our nuke arsenal, yet they have no problem with Iran building one. I wouldn't want to see a nuke go off anywhere on this planet, and moonbats tell me they wish the same thing--- except if it's Israel. Then it's ok.

    I mean, moonbats are f'n crazy. I'm talking, bag lady shoving an empty whiskey bottle up her bunghole crazy.

  4. #44
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4375386]I disagree with you.
    They are no more a threat to us than Iraq was. You are making the same arguments that were made prior to invading Iraq. This is not a priority for us to get the military involved in.[/QUOTE]

    Don't agree I don't make the argument that we have to topple their government or take out their army. Simply take out their ability to make nuclear weapons if they don't back down from sanctions.

    Iran is a threat to us they have killed and wounded many of our soldiers in Iraq, kidnapped US citizens and are a State sponsor of terrorism around the globe including on US soil.

    They also have missle technology that can reach Turkey and Southern Europe. No need to ignore the threat or go to war over the threat. If they refuse to comply with International law take out their capability and leave them alone.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 02-24-2012 at 01:50 PM.

  5. #45
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4375555]I think that's the beauty of the situation for the US...

    They don't have to act. They can let the Israeli's act and deal with the political fallout afterward...

    Win/win...[/QUOTE]

    Not if Israel has to resort to tactical nuclear weapons than it is a decidedly lose/lose. There may come a time when we are the only ones who can prevent this without resorting to WMD's.

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    There are literally dozens of US military bases surrounding Iran. They aren't attacking anyone...

  7. #47
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4375616]I don't see here where Iran and/or the sympathizers will retaliate. It is an absolute absurdity to think that an attack on Iran will not produce more murder around the globe in a variety of methods.

    Moreover, with China getting 20% of it's oil from Iran, I would think that they have a huge stake in keeping Iran afloat and military aid in many forms is not out of the question.[/QUOTE]

    Is this the same China that exports their products to the US to the tune of trillions per year? Your theory is that China and their inferior military will take on the full force and might of the US military to protect one of their many sources of oil? Really? Did you think this all the way through?

  8. #48
    [QUOTE=parafly;4375799]There are literally dozens of US military bases surrounding Iran. They aren't attacking anyone...[/QUOTE]

    Wow, thanks for clearing that up. Iran isn't a threat. Let them have the nukes. I;m sure their leaders are just lying when they say their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel and the US. Good call there.

  9. #49
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4375824]Wow, thanks for clearing that up. Iran isn't a threat. Let them have the nukes. I;m sure their leaders are just lying when they say their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel and the US. Good call there.[/QUOTE]

    I said none of those things, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

    In my opinion, Iran is not attacking anyone any time soon. The consequences are simply too great.

    But please, continue on with your drum beating for a pre-emptive war because of WMD. With such a track record of success in that strategy, what could possibly go wrong? Good call there.

  10. #50

    Know the whole truth.....

    [QUOTE=Frequent Flyer;4375621]In 1983 Iran financed Hezbollah's suicide bombing of the Marines barracks in Beirut, Lebanon.[/QUOTE]


    Israel Charged with Systematic Harassment of U.S. Marines

    [QUOTE]It was 12 years ago, on March 14, 1983, that the commandant of the Marine Corps sent a highly unusual letter to the secretary of defense expressing frustration and anger at Israel. General R.H. Barrow charged that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon. There was, he wrote, a systematic pattern of harassment by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that was resulting in “life-threatening situations, replete with verbal degradation of the officers, their uniform and country.”

    Barrow’s letter added: “It is inconceivable to me why Americans serving in peacekeeping roles must be harassed, endangered by an ally...It is evident to me, and the opinion of the U.S. commanders afloat and ashore, that the incidents between the Marines and the IDF are timed, orchestrated, and executed for obtuse Israeli political purposes.”1

    Israel’s motives were less obtuse than the diplomatic general pretended. It was widely believed then, and now, that Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, one of Israel’s most Machiavellian politician-generals, was creating the incidents deliberately in an effort to convince Washington that the two forces had to coordinate their actions in order to avoid such tensions. This, of course, would have been taken by the Arabs as proof that the Marines were not really in Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers but as allies of the Israelis, a perception that would have obvious advantages for Israel.2

    Barrow’s extraordinary letter was indicative of the frustrations and miseries the Marines suffered during their posting to Lebanon starting on Aug. 25, 1982, as a result of Israel’s invasion 11 weeks earlier. Initially a U.S. unit of 800 men was sent to Beirut harbor as part of a multinational force to monitor the evacuation of PLO guerrillas from Beirut. The Marines, President Reagan announced, “in no case... would stay longer than 30 days.”3 This turned out to be only partly true. They did withdraw on Sept. 10, but a reinforced unit of 1,200 was rushed back 15 days later after the massacres at the Palestinian refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila that accompanied the Israeli seizure of West Beirut. The U.S. forces remained until Feb. 26, 1984.4

    During their year-and-a-half posting in Lebanon, the Marines suffered 268 killed.5 The casualties started within a week of the return of the Marines in September 1982. On the 30th, a U.S.-made cluster bomb left behind by the Israelis exploded, killing Corporal David Reagan and wounding three other Marines.6

    Corporal Reagan’s death represented the dangers of the new mission of the Marines in Lebanon. While their first brief stay had been to separate Israeli forces from Palestinian fighters evacuating West Beirut, their new mission was as part of a multinational force sent to prevent Israeli troops from attacking the Palestinian civilians left defenseless there after the withdrawal of PLO forces. As President Reagan said: “For this multinational force to succeed, it is essential that Israel withdraw from Beirut.”7

    “Incidents are timed, orchestrated, and executed for Israeli political purposes.”

    Israel’s siege of Beirut during the summer of 1982 had been brutal and bloody, reaching a peak of horror on Aug. 12, quickly known as Black Thursday. On that day, Sharon’s forces launched at dawn a massive artillery barrage that lasted for 11 straight hours and was accompanied by saturation air bombardment.8 As many as 500 persons, mainly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, were killed.9

    On top of the bombardment came the massacres the next month at Sabra and Shatila, where Sharon’s troops allowed Lebanese Maronite killers to enter the camps filled with defenseless civilians. The massacres sickened the international community and pressure from Western capitals finally forced Israel to withdraw from Beirut in late September. Troops from Britain, France, Italy and the United States were interposed between the Israeli army and Beirut, with U.S. Marines deployed in the most sensitive area south of Beirut at the International Airport, directly between Israeli troops and West Beirut.

    It was at the airport that the Marines would suffer their Calvary over the next year. Starting in January 1983, small Israeli units began probing the Marine lines. At first the effort appeared aimed at discovering the extent of Marine determination to resist penetration. The lines proved solid and the Marines’ determination strong. Israeli troops were politely but firmly turned away. Soon the incidents escalated, with both sides pointing loaded weapons at each other but no firing taking place. Tensions were high enough by late January that a special meeting between U.S. and Israeli officers was held in Beirut to try to agree on precise boundaries beyond which the IDF would not penetrate.10

    No Stranger to the Marines

    However, on Feb. 2 a unit of three Israeli tanks, led by Israeli Lt. Col. Rafi Landsberg, tried to pass through Marine/Lebanese Army lines at Rayan University Library in south Lebanon. By this time, Landsberg was no stranger to the Marines. Since the beginning of January he had been leading small Israeli units in probes against the Marine lines, although such units would normally have a commander no higher than a sergeant or lieutenant. The suspicion grew that Sharon’s troops were deliberately provoking the Marines and Landsberg was there to see that things did not get out of hand. The Israeli tactics were aimed more at forcing a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy than merely probing lines.

    In the Feb. 2 incident, the checkpoint was commanded by Marine Capt. Charles Johnson, who firmly refused permission for Landsberg to advance. When two of the Israeli tanks ignored his warning to halt, Johnson leaped on Landsberg’s tank with pistol drawn and demanded Landsberg and his tanks withdraw. They did.11

    Landsberg and the Israeli embassy in Washington tried to laugh off the incident, implying that Johnson was a trigger-happy John Wayne type and that the media were exaggerating a routine event. Landsberg even went so far as to claim that he smelled alcohol on Johnson’s breath and that drunkenness must have clouded his reason. Marines were infuriated because Johnson was well known as a teetotaler. Americans flocked to Johnson’s side. He received hundreds of letters from school children, former Marines and from Commandant Barrow.12 It was a losing battle for the Israelis and Landsberg soon dropped from sight.

    But the incidents did not stop. These now included “helicopter harassment,” by which U.S.-made helicopters with glaring spotlights were flown by the Israelis over Marine positions at night, illuminating Marine outposts and exposing them to potential attack. As reports of these incidents piled up, Gen. Barrow received a letter on March 12 from a U.S. Army major stationed in Lebanon with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO). The letter described a systematic pattern of Israeli attacks and provocations against UNTSO troops, including instances in which U.S. officers were singled out for “near-miss” shootings, abuse and detention.13 That same day two Marine patrols were challenged and cursed by Israeli soldiers.14

    Two days later Barrow wrote his letter to Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, who endorsed it and sent it along to the State Department. High-level meetings were arranged and the incidents abated, perhaps largely because by this time Ariel Sharon had been fired as defense minister. He had been found by an Israeli commission to have had “personal responsibility” for the Sabra and Shatila massacres.15

    Despite the bad taste left from the clashes with the Israelis, in fact no Marines had been killed in the incidents and their lines had been secure up to the end of winter in 1983. Then Islamic guerrillas, backed by Iran, became active. On the night of April 17, 1983, an unknown sniper fired a shot that went through the trousers of a Marine sentry but did not harm him. For the first time, the Marines returned fire.16

    The next day, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was blown up by a massive bomb, with the loss of 63 lives. Among the 17 Americans killed were CIA Mideast specialists, including Robert C. Ames, the agency’s top Middle East expert.17 Disaffected former Israeli Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky later claimed that Israel had advance information about the bombing plan but had decided not to inform the United States, a claim denied by Israel.18 The Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Veteran correspondent John Cooley considered the attack “the day [Iranian leader Ayatollah] Khomeini’s offensive against America in Lebanon began in earnest.”19

    Still, it was not until four months later, on Aug. 28, that Marines came under direct fire by rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons at International Airport. They returned fire with M-16 rifles and M-60 machine guns. The firefight resumed the next day with Marines firing 155mm artillery, 81mm mortars and rockets from Cobra helicopter gunships against Shi’i Muslim positions. Two Marines were killed and 14 wounded in the exchange, the first casualties in actual combat since the Marines had landed the previous year.20

    From this time on, the combat involvement of the Marines grew. Their actions were generally seen as siding with Israel against Muslims, slowly changing the status of the Marines as neutral peacekeepers to opponents of the Muslims.21 Israel could hardly have wished for more. The polarization meant that increasingly the conflict was being perceived in terms of the U.S., Israel and Lebanon’s Christians against Iran, Islam and Lebanon’s Shi’i Muslims.

    Accelerating the Conflict

    Israel accelerated the building conflict on Sept. 3, 1993 by unilaterally withdrawing its troops southward, leaving the Marines exposed behind their thin lines at the airport. The United States had asked the Israeli government to delay its withdrawal until the Marines could be replaced by units of the Lebanese army, but Israel refused.22 The result was as feared. Heavy fighting immediately broke out between the Christian Lebanese Forces and the pro-Syrian Druze units, both seeking to occupy positions evacuated by Israel, while the Marines were left in the crossfire.23 On Sept. 5, two Marines were killed and three wounded as fighting escalated between Christian and Muslim militias.24

    In an ill-considered effort to subdue the combat, the Sixth Fleet frigate Bowen fired several five-inch naval guns, hitting Druze artillery positions in the Chouf Mountains that were firing into the Marine compound at Beirut airport.25 It was the first time U.S. ships had fired into Lebanon, dramatically raising the level of combat. But the Marines’ exposed location on the flat terrain of the airport left them in an impossible position. On Sept. 12, three more Marines were wounded.26

    On Sept. 13, President Reagan authorized what was called aggressive self-defense for the Marines, including air and naval strikes.27 Five days later the United States essentially joined the war against the Muslims when four U.S. warships unleashed the heaviest naval bombardment since Vietnam into Syrian and Druze positions in eastern Lebanon in support of the Lebanese Christians.28 The bombardment lasted for three days and was personally ordered by National Security Council director Robert McFarlane, a Marine Corps officer detailed to the White House who was in Lebanon at the time and was also a strong supporter of Israel and its Lebanese Maronite Christian allies. McFarlane issued the order despite the fact that the Marine commander at the airport, Colonel Timothy Geraghty, strenuously argued against it because, in the words of correspondent Thomas L. Friedman, “he knew that it would make his soldiers party to what was now clearly an intra-Lebanese fight, and that the Lebanese Muslims would not retaliate against the Navy’s ships at sea but against the Marines on shore.”29

    By now, the Marines were under daily attack and Muslims were charging they were no longer neutral.30 At the same time the battleship USS New Jersey, with 16-inch guns, arrived off Lebanon, increasing the number of U.S. warships offshore to 14. Similarly, the Marine contingent at Beirut airport was increased from 1,200 to 1,600.31

    A Tragic Climax

    The fight now was truly joined between the Shi’i Muslims and the Marines, who were essentially pinned down in their airport bunkers and under orders not to take offensive actions. The tragic climax of their predicament came on Oct. 23, when a Muslim guerrilla drove a truck past guards at the Marine airport compound and detonated an explosive with the force of 12,000 pounds of dynamite under a building housing Marines and other U.S. personnel. Almost simultaneously, a car-bomb exploded at the French compound in Beirut. Casualties were 241 Americans and 58 French troops killed. The bombings were the work of Hezbollah, made up of Shi’i Muslim guerrillas supported by Iran.;32

    America’s agony increased on Dec. 3, when two carrier planes were downed by Syrian missiles during heavy U.S. air raids on eastern Lebanon.;33 On the same day, eight Marines were killed in fighting with Muslim militiamen around the Beirut airport.;34

    By the start of 1984, an all-out Shi’i Muslim campaign to rid Lebanon of all Americans was underway. The highly respected president of the American University of Beirut, Dr. Malcolm Kerr, a distinguished scholar of the Arab world, was gunned down on Jan. 18 outside his office by Islamic militants aligned with Iran.;35 On Feb. 5, Reagan made one of his stand-tall speeches by saying that “the situation in Lebanon is difficult, frustrating and dangerous. But this is no reason to turn our backs on friends and to cut and run.”;36

    The next day Professor Frank Regier, a U.S. citizen teaching at AUB, was kidnapped by Muslim radicals.;37 Regier’s kidnapping was the beginning of a series of kidnappings of Americans in Beirut that would hound the Reagan and later the Bush administrations for years and lead to the eventual expulsion of nearly all Americans from Lebanon where they had prospered for more than a century. Even today Americans still are prohibited from traveling to Lebanon.

    The day after Regier’s kidnapping, on Feb. 7, 1984, Reagan suddenly reversed himself and announced that all U.S. Marines would shortly be “redeployed.” The next day the battleship USS New Jersey fired 290 rounds of one-ton shells from its 16-inch guns into Lebanon as a final act of U.S. frustration.;38 Reagan’s “redeployment” was completed by Feb. 26, when the last of the Marines retreated from Lebanon.

    The mission of the Marines had been a humiliating failure�not because they failed in their duty but because the political backbone in Washington was lacking. The Marines had arrived in 1982 with all sides welcoming them. They left in 1984 despised by many and the object of attacks by Muslims. Even relations with Israel were strained, if not in Washington where a sympathetic Congress granted increased aid to the Jewish state to compensate it for the costs of its bungled invasion, then between the Marines and Israeli troops who had confronted each other in a realpolitik battlefield that was beyond their competence or understanding. The Marine experience in Lebanon did not contribute toward a favorable impression of Israel among many Americans, especially since the Marines would not have been in Lebanon except for Israel’s unprovoked invasion.

    This negative result is perhaps one reason a number of Israelis and their supporters today oppose sending U.S. peacekeepers to the Golan Heights as part of a possible Israeli-Syrian peace treaty. A repeat of the 1982-84 experience would certainly not be in Israel’s interests at a time when its supporters are seeking to have a budget-conscious Congress continue unprecedented amounts of aid to Israel.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff.html[/url]

  11. #51
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4375847]Israel Charged with Systematic Harassment of U.S. Marines



    [url]http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff.html[/url][/QUOTE]

    Allison Weir is a fake anti Israeli plant. Use a legitimate source.

  12. #52
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4375899]Allison Weir is a fake anti Israeli plant. Use a legitimate source.[/QUOTE]

    Is there an American news source which would publish a negative article
    about Israel?

  13. #53
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4375899]Allison Weir is a fake anti Israeli plant. Use a legitimate source.[/QUOTE]

    I suppose the letter from General Barrow is not legit either.....

    Read more.....


    Copyright 1983. Don Wright. The Miami News. Reprinted with permission.

    [QUOTE]and that of the Marines. This was done on 30 January. Four days earlier, the Israeli practice of reconnaissance by fire had ended, although patrolling continued.26

    In February, the understanding with the Israelis over boundaries and the conduct of patrols--which was thought to be a settled matter--was found to be not so clearly understood as originally thought. The single-most notable demonstration of this lack of understanding occurred on 2 February, when three Israeli tanks attempted to go through Captain Charles B. Johnson's Company L position.

    [B]At about 0800, from his observation post, Captain Johnson, together with the advance party of the British MNF contingent,27 observed an Israeli patrol coming up Old Sidon Road from the south. This was normal. Half an hour later, he spotted a north-to-south patrol, which also was normal. It consisted of three tanks, two armored personnel carriers (APCs), and dismounted troops. "Again, we're seeing them about 3,000 meters off. We could see that far, all the way down the Sidon Road."28

    The only thing that was unusual about this patrol was that the troops ere dismounted, for the Israeli patrols in the previous two weeks had all been mounted. Captain Johnson] then went on to say:
    . . . sometime between 0830 and 0900, one of my surveillance people . . . spotted three additional tanks coming on the road . . . the one they had built along the railroad tracks, and then they [the tanks] broke off the road and they continued up the railroad tracks right up to the edge of the university grounds. . . . That's when I knew something was up. There were three tanks road. . . There was no tactical reason for them to do that. . . . They brought tanks right through the middle of Shuwayfat, which is a Muslim area and it's relatively dangerous to do that.29

    What Captain Johnson had spotted were three tanks ng from the north and three tanks coming from the south. He couldn't see them when they were in the town, but they were spotted shortly after as they left it and broke through the orchard on the western side of the Sidon Road into the buffer zone between the road and the university. The tanks were heading for a section of the fence where Captain johnson had confronted an APC-mounted Israeli patrol on 20 January. The COmpany L commander quickly got in his jeep and went to the spot the tanks were approaching.

    Captain Johnson didn't think that:
    . . . they would actually try to come through a joint Marine-lebanese checkpoint like that. But once it developed, I was very concerned that if the tanks were allowed to move forward, there was a very dangerous situation, because the road they were on . . . went right through the heart of the
    --45--

    university . . . divided the Marine company and the Lebanese company.30
    Johnson feared that if the tanks attempted to pass, a firefight might erupt between the Lebanese and the Israelis. If a fight ensued, the Marines would have to support the lebanese. He wasn't worried about the Marines' fire discipline, but he was concerned about that of the Lebanese soldiers.

    As the Israeli tanks approached the fence, Captain Johnson jumped out of his jeep, ran up to the tanks, and stood in the center of the road. The lead tank stopped about six inches in front of Johnson, would told the Israeli lieutenant colonel in the lead tank, "You will not pass through this position." After a short pause, the Israeli dismounted, spoke with Johnson, and then climbed back aboard the tank, saying that he was going through. Johnson later stated that he replied, "You will have to kill me first."31 He drew his pistol, chambered a round, and held the weapon at the ready position.

    There was another pause as the Israeli officer apparently spoke over his radio to his headquarters. The lead tank then pulled slowly to the side of the road with Captain Johnson walking alongside and then the two others suddenly revved up their engines and whipped forward toward the fence.

    The young Marine captain jumped on the lead tank, grabbed the Israeli officer, and yelled at him to order his tanks halted. The tank commander complied and then purportedly told Johnson, "One thing we don't want to do is kill each other." Johnson answered, "Yes, but if you keep doing things like this, the likelihood is going to occur."32

    While the local Arab radio stations were telling and retelling the story of the American who stopped the three Israeli tanks singlehandedly, the Israeli press was accusing Captain Johnson of having liquor on his breath and being drunk. Worse, they called the whole affair a misunderstanding on the part of the Marines. Confronted by evidence, among other things, that Johnson was a teetotaler, the Israelis quickly toned down, and finally stopped such comments when they saw they were not going to be given credence.[/B]

    Within a few minutes of the confrontation, Johnson's battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel Matthews, arrived on the scene. He had observed part of what happened and asked Johnson a full and immediate report, "And I gave him the whole thing . . . and we spent about 20 minutes walking the ground an so forth."33 Matthews then said they should tell the whole story to Colonel Stokes, who went back to the fence area with Johnson and rewalked the area where the confrontation took place. The MAU commander reported the incident through the chain of command. The next day, 3 February, Israeli and American diplomats met in Beirut, where they agreed to mark the boundary lines more clearly so there would be no future misunderstandings.

    A routine, daily press conference was held at 1600 on the afternoon of the 2d at Colonel Stokes' headquarters. The most important topic concerned a ricochet 75mm tank round that had landed in Company I's positions.

    Nothing was said about Captain Johnson's experience until the press stormed back into the compound at 2300 that evening, undoubtedly having been queried by their home offices why stories had not been filed on the U.S.-Israeli affair. When the reporters asked Colonel Stokes why he hadn't told them about it, he replied that no one had asked, and said further, ". . . it's not my job to determine what's newsworthy and what's not. . . ."34

    Normally a quiet officer despite his impressive military presence, Captain Johnson was told by his CO that he was going to have to submit to the questions of the print and television reporters at a press conference, much as he disliked the prospects of such an encounter. A by-product of this instant fame was heavy mail. A large number of former Marines and retired servicemen wrote and sent messages of support. "A lot of children wrote from schools and they were really nice letters. A lot of people wrote. I got hundreds of letters."

    Captain Johnson also received a message from the Commandant after the 24th left Lebanon. "It was a wonderful message to my men, how he was proud of the men," Johnson said. In retrospect, Johnson never felt that what he had done was wrong. "I had no doubt in my mind that what I had done was the right thing. . . . I had regret that it happened, but I did not have any regret in what I had done."35

    During the month of January, the MAU prepared for its scheduled relief in February. Like the previous October's turnover, it would be a relief in place. The advance party of the 22d MAU arrived in Beirut on 9 February and each member was taken in hand by his 24th MAU counterpart. Since the first relief had gone so smoothly, there was little reason to believe that the second would be otherwise.

    It wasn't. At 0700 on 14 February, elements of the 22d MAU started landing and BLT 3/8 was relieved in place by BLT 2/6 by 1251, MSSG 24 was relieved by MSSG 22 at 1300, and HMM-264 relieved HMM-263 of the Cobra alert mission at 1326. Colonel Mead, commander of the 22d MAU, back in Beirut for a third time, assumed control of the forces ashore at 1515. The next day, 15 February, he assumed command of the U.S. Multi-National[/QUOTE]

  14. #54
    [QUOTE=parafly;4375832]I said none of those things, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

    In my opinion, Iran is not attacking anyone any time soon. The consequences are simply too great.

    But please, continue on with your drum beating for a pre-emptive war because of WMD. With such a track record of success in that strategy, what could possibly go wrong? Good call there.[/QUOTE]

    Iran will have nukes within a year or so. You say we shouldn't stop them. Where is the confusion here. Either you want to stop them from getting nukes or you dont.

  15. #55
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4375980]Iran will have nukes within a year or so. You say we shouldn't stop them. Where is the confusion here. Either you want to stop them from getting nukes or you dont.[/QUOTE]

    I'm more concerned about Pakistan, India and North Korea. This Iran is starting to sound a lot like Iraq.

  16. #56
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,845
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4375980]Iran will have nukes within a year or so. You say we shouldn't stop them. Where is the confusion here. Either you want to stop them from getting nukes or you dont.[/QUOTE]

    Stop pissing yourself about Iran having nukes. It's unbecoming of you....


    Like Mohammed Ali being afraid to get into a fight with this guy:

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU[/url]

  17. #57
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4375980]Iran will have nukes within a year or so.[/QUOTE]

    We've been hearing this statement for years.

    [QUOTE]You say we shouldn't stop them.[/QUOTE]

    Again, I said no such thing.

    [QUOTE]Either you want to stop them from getting nukes or you dont.[/QUOTE]

    The argument is not about the desire to stop them, it's about what actions should be taken to stop them. You want all out war, most rational people don't.

    As technology improves and scientific strides are made, the ability to enrich materials for nuclear weapons will become easier and easier. It may not happen within my lifetime, but a nuclear world with far greater scope than the current bounds is an inevitability in my opinion.

    What good is war at the present time if 50 or 100 years from now nuclear enrichment will be attainable by any competent scientist in a basic lab setting?

    We are living in an era with a very strong fascination and weak justification for pre-emptive war. It's scarey, destructive, and should not be taken lightly.

  18. #58
    [QUOTE=cr726;4375992]I'm more concerned about Pakistan, India and North Korea. This Iran is starting to sound a lot like Iraq.[/QUOTE]

    India concerns you? There is reason for concern in Pakistan and North Korea for sure. NK is about self preservation however. They are not likely to use their weapons. Pakistan is an unstable country. Who knows. Iran is run by a group no different than al quaeda. Essentially we have a country that is run by folks no different from Bin Ladin on the verge on nuclear armament. They can be stopped with minimal to no American bloodshed today. If we wait we will be dealing with what is a nuclear armed terrorist country. Lets be clear. Iran has promised to wipe out little satan (Israel) and the great satan (USA). George Bush didnt say it. Achmadenajad and Khomeni have said it. Where is the confusion here. Hitler said he was going to kill all the Jews and take over Europe. No one believed him. Churchill was ridiculed for sounding the alarm. People here on a poli sci forum should have a better grasp of history.

  19. #59
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,845
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4376006]People here on a poli sci forum should have a better grasp of history.[/QUOTE]

    You go first.

  20. #60
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4376006]India concerns you? There is reason for concern in Pakistan and North Korea for sure. NK is about self preservation however. They are not likely to use their weapons. Pakistan is an unstable country. Who knows. Iran is run by a group no different than al quaeda. Essentially we have a country that is run by folks no different from Bin Ladin on the verge on nuclear armament. They can be stopped with minimal to no American bloodshed today. If we wait we will be dealing with what is a nuclear armed terrorist country. Lets be clear. Iran has promised to wipe out little satan (Israel) and the great satan (USA). George Bush didnt say it. Achmadenajad and Khomeni have said it. Where is the confusion here. Hitler said he was going to kill all the Jews and take over Europe. No one believed him. Churchill was ridiculed for sounding the alarm. People here on a poli sci forum should have a better grasp of history.[/QUOTE]

    India has nukes and is a Shi!hole. You are a pure alarmist.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us