As Dr. Dre would say (on the clean version), "An n-word with a mutha-farkin gun."
The message above was approved by the committee to re-elect Jonny Dangerously.
Thanks to Donkey & Rhino for bringing back the only Auroran to be against police brutality yet for racist cops. They know a good thing when they see it...besides the fact that my baseballnyc blog imploded and became a "gay Rusty Staub" porn link site.
Just an aside but I have seen an awful lot of that happening since Google took over Blogger. Seriously, the site was deleted for like ten minutes before some perv purveyor grabbed it.
Now back on point and I'll try be brief...I have seen a whole lot of comparisons on here and in the news of our current War on Terror and Vietnam hence the reference to a master plan. It seems our enemies have a master plan and yet we still don't really have one. Therein lies the main similarity between the wars.
I don't think we lost Viet Nam. We killed more of them and they killed less of our soldiers (another similarity to the current war). Communism has never gained the foot hold that democracy has and can anyone really argue that they would rather live in a modern communist society rather than a free America? But we did lose it in the court of public opinion and it appears to be headed in that direction once again.
But the times have changed...the wars are completely different in three very important areas.
1.) Women aren't burning their bras and having promiscuous sex with me.
2.) No ones turning off and tuning out...What happened to a little casual LSD usage? Kids today are huffing detergent and taking their mom's prescription Valiums. They are more interested in euphoria than getting all f'd up...I say, get some balls kiddies. Buy a lava lamp, take some illegal narcotics and listen to Bad Company if you really want to be anti social.
3.) Iran. Simple as that, the biggest difference between Viet Nam and the War on Terror is that we have an enemy in Iran who is already strategically planning to react if we ever attack them. Palestinian sources say they have been told by Iran to attack Israel if either Israel or the United States even hints at strikes against them. Iran has told Syria to attack Israel and U.S. targets if an attack happens against their military and nuclear facilities. They have Hezbollah, Hamas, and all the other non groovy terrorist organizations ready to attack Israel and the United States if there ever is even a whiff of an attack against them. How do they know that these radicals will do their bidding? Easy, they have been supplying them with weapons. Rocket launchers, missiles, guns and all the things you need to start WWIII. We have sent more aircraft carriers recently to the region. Is this enough to set off Iran and have them give directives to other nations & the terror organizations who sheepishly & secretly obey these nations? I don't know but in our war with Viet Nam we didn't have to worry about them calling in multiple nations to attack us. They are preparing for war and I am pretty sure that they will get sick of waiting for us to attack. So what do we do? Do you think it is inevitable?
I was listening to the Savage Nation last night and he made what I thought was a good point. If you think that someone is going to plant a car bomb in your mother's car, do you wait for them to do it before you try to stop them? I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. Do you?
I may not be the man with the master plan but I certainly don't think we can let Iran use fear to dictate how we exist in the world. They are already dictating it to too may countries already.
PS - If Rhino posts any gratuitous crotch shots, I will boot myself. Hey, I may have worn skirts back in the day but that doesn't mean I'm "gay Rusty Staub" (not that there's anything wrong with that).
16 comments:
I think you're right that Iran can send a whole lot of shit our way if we attack them. But this is a reason not to attack them, isn't it? Some people are even advocating a nuclar attack on Iran. What would have happened if we had launched a nuclear attack on the USSR?
Just because Iran would retaliate if we attacked them doesn't mean they will attack us, knowing that they would face massive retaliation. Should we attack every country that might conceivably some day attack us?
I think they have told these other countries/terror groups to attack us if we attack them for a reason and and it's the same reason they have let it be known that they told them. It's to keep us at bay until they are ready to attack. I think that is inevitable. They plan on wiping Israel off the map. They have said as much. The president has made it known that he doesn't even consider Israel a country. They chant "death to America" in the streets and even scarier...during their prayers. I think that stating a country doesn't exist (it does, it's on a map I have at home) and shouting death to another will stop being rhetoric at some point. Do we wait for them to decide when that time is? I don't think the consequences will be good either way but we have to prepare the same way they are...someone will blink. On each of our aircraft carriers we have an airforce that is larger than pretty much any country on earth. It would not be good if Iran blinks first as the gloves will undoubtably come off.
I think Iran's motive is to deter our attack on them.Iran made overtures toward negotiation back in 2003 and was rebuffed by the Bush administration. They were willing to put everything on the table, including support of Hamas and Hizbullah, and recognizing Israel. There is no indication that Iran is foolish (and suicidal enough) to attack Israel or America.
There is no actual evidence that they are developing nuclear weapons, only suspicion. They are years away from that capability in any event.
Their current President (who has under their law no authority over foreign policy) is a clown who is losing support in Iran. He replaced a more moderate President after the US adopted a more bellicose policy and rhetoric.
Launching a war of agression (which is what it would be) on Iran would be a serious mistake and a crime.
once again gary you look a bully in the eye and want to run.
Here's the deal. right now we can kick there ass and not worry about retaliation because all they can do is lob some rockets into Israel which would suck, but is nothing that Israel hasn't successfully dealt with before, however if we wait until they have NUKES which even the pussy U.N. say they're rushing towards then it changes the whole ball game!
They want us dead, they want Israel gone. The time to do something about it is BEFORE they have the capability to do it because once they have the bomb there's no stopping them without total destruction.
Also, your analogy with the USSR doesn't fit because
1. they already had the bomb and so did we so they knew it would be mutual annihalation and so did we.
2. they weren't religious fanatics just commies. There's a difference.
3. We have been at war with Iran since 1979 when they took our embassy personnel. it's just that they haven't been able to really hurt us yet.
So we can either crush them now and have the rest of the world call us names, or we can wait until they attack us or Israel first with nukes. I say we F them up right now. No more U.N. sanctions, no more votes, no more bullshit. Just bomb the nuke facilities and put them on notice that if you threaten the U.S. we will take you seriously and defend ourselves.
If i was running for president my platform would be:
I'll bomb Irans nuke facilities
I'll close the Mexican border
I'll take all the troops in regions of the world where we're not fighting (ie germany/japan etc) and drop them right into baghdad
I'll smash the n. koreans if they keep talking shit
I'll eliminate the IRS and everyone will be moved to a flat tax
And just for good measure
i'll take over Cuba and give it to Exxon to build oil refineries and lower the price of gasoline.
I think i could get elected.
They can do a lot more than lob a few missiles at Israel, as Mookie pointed out. Iran is trying to deter an attack and negotiate with us.There is not a lot of support for attacking Iran in the world, in our own military, nowhere really except in insane neoconservative circles. Are you seriously advocating launching an illegal war of agression against another country because 10 years from now they MIGHT have the bomb?
Attacking them would delay their nuclear weapons program (if they have one--again there is no evidence) but would not stop it, only drive it further underground.
You are wrong Gary. Iran is not trying to deter an attack and negotiate with us.
....they are on offense and have been attacking us for decades and getting themselves some nukes wont change that and make them go on defense...they will continue their jihad.
How do you not see that?
Then why did they try to negotiate with us in 2003? Could it be that they knew that they were next on the neocon hit parade?
By the way, even the neocons are having second thoughts about attacking Iran. Take a look at the symposium on the subject at David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine.
We should negotiate with Iran, insisting on a strict program of inspections and supervision of their nuclear energy program. Our long-term goal should be regime change. A program of engagement rather than confrontation is more likely to get us there, given that the mullahs in Iran are not terribly popular with the people.
Iran, being a Shiite nation is also not terribly popular with most of the Islamic world. An intelligent, rather than insane, policy could exploit these divisions.
Iran and Syria have both put support for Hamas and Hizbullah on the table. It is my fervent hope that President Bush will move toward a program of real peace in the Middle East, between Israel and its neighbors. If he were to accomplish this he would go down in history as a great President, rather than the worst.
But more likely he'll fuck it all up.
says you....
"We should negotiate with Iran, insisting on a strict program of inspections and supervision of their nuclear energy program. Our long-term goal should be regime change. A program of engagement rather than confrontation is more likely to get us there, given that the mullahs in Iran are not terribly popular with the people."
says me....
Isnt that exactly the approach Clinton took with N Korea and all that ended up happening was that we paid for their nuke program.
Yeah good plan... jackass!
Gary, first of all Iran is continuing their nuke program and according to the U.N. they not only ignored the deadline that they agreed to (feb.21) but actually SPED IT UP.
As to why would they want to negotiate? Gee i don't know why did hitler want to negotiate? He agreed to only take poland and the rest of europe was happy to oblige the madman. How did that work out for em?
From now on try to actually think before you write something because i'm getting tired of your idiocy.
North Korea didn't develop the bomb during the Clinton years but during Bush. During Clinton there were tight inspections. Then Bush called North Korea part of the axis of evil and they kicked out the inspectors, started producing plutronium and built atomic bombs.
Bush then resumed negotiations.
And, yes, Iran is moving ahead with their "nuke program" if by that you mean enriching uranium for a nuclear power plant. This would admittedly move them one step closer to nuclear weapons capability, although they would still have a good ways to go.
We should insist on stringent inspections.
Attacking Iran would be a catastrophe.Hell, even Michael Ledeen agrees with that, and they don't get any crazier. He also says "I do not believe we have enough good information about the Iranian nuclear program to give us confidence that a military strike would effectively derail the project for a meaningful period of time."
Ok, so we should face catastrophic consequences for an attack that probably won't even do the job?
Whose the idiot?
I will reiterate...
Sir, you are a jackass.
Sending Jimmy Carter over to N. Korea does not equate to having "tight inspections" and dont be so naive to think that Kim only started his nuke program after Bush called him a name. In all due respect thats just stupid and shows that your are blinded by your partisanship.
That being said, I am not in favor of a pre-emptive strike on Iran. However I fear that the day is nearer than you think where our hand will be forced and our only course of action will be a full scale aerial assualt perhaps even nukes and leave the entire country in rubble (that should give the moderats a fighting chance of gaining power) as half of our leaders, the media and the sheepish American public too busy speed dialing for their favorite American Idol contestant or watching nonstop Anna Nicole coverage are too big of pussies to stomach a long drawn out traditional landwar as is being proven in Iraq -- not to mention the fact that since our enemies refuse to abide by the rules of engagement, I dont see any reason why we should be expected to either.
...and I dont give a shit about world sentiment or support. Weve pretty much been hated throughout our entire history except of course when they needed our help and money. The world is our drunk unemployed deadbeat cousin that resents our success and talks shit about us behind our back until he needs a fiver for a fifth of brandy.
Fuck em all!
says you...
"Attacking Iran would be a catastrophe.Hell, even Michael Ledeen agrees with that, and they don't get any crazier. He also says "I do not believe we have enough good information about the Iranian nuclear program to give us confidence that a military strike would effectively derail the project for a meaningful period of time."
Ok, so we should face catastrophic consequences for an attack that probably won't even do the job?"
That sounds like an excellent argument against listening to the anti-climatic alarmists regarding "global warming".
On global warming the catastrophic consequences will come from ignoring it.
On North Korea, I was referring to nuclear inspectors not Carter. The North Koreans did restart the program after Bush made it clear that he did not want to negotiate, although Bush certainly negotiated after they got the bomb.
That thing you are sitting on--that's your ass. The Grand Canyon is a hole in the ground. Any questions?
Erroneous, erroneous on all counts.
(technically a canyon is not a hole, but I guess in your case after fleet week it is)
Spencers sales of lava lamps have spiked...
Spoken like a true Jersey mallrat.
Promiscuous women still aren't having sex with me...
Post a Comment