american drones - not so efficient

[DogOnPorch]

Good. Now if they'd only do that before dropping drones on people America might have a point to make.

"Dear al-Qaeda, Taliban Member;

Please be advised that on Oct 12th, 2012 23:35 hrs, we plan to strike you and your cell with C-130 gunships while you R&R in the known safe house near Gereshk, Kandahar province. Take whatever measures you deem appropriate in order to ensure your safety as well as those in your cell. You might wish to take this opportunity to move civilians and members of the media into that area in order to turn this into a massacre of the innocents. Just thought we'd give you a heads up.

Yours,

USAF c/o

10th Mountain Division"

[bleeding heart]

As far as anti-Americanism: the day I come to MLW and find a thread praising America for its actions, I'll let you know.

When not crying "Hail, Caeser!" means anti-Caesarism, you just know the pc sludge has gotten a little too thick.

At any rate, your new standard here excoriates all MLW members as anti-American; and through inaction, yet.

Edited October 5, 2012 by bleeding heart

[dre]

When not crying "Hail, Caeser!" means anti-Caesarism, you just know the pc sludge has gotten a little too thick.

At any rate, your new standard here excoriates all MLW members as anti-American; and through inaction, yet.

Theres no gray area for some people. You either pick up the pom-poms or you are there enemy.

[DogOnPorch]

When not crying "Hail, Caeser!" means anti-Caesarism, you just know the pc sludge has gotten a little too thick.

At any rate, your new standard here excoriates all MLW members as anti-American; and through inaction, yet.

Like yourself, I don't start a lot of threads.

[DogOnPorch]

Theres no gray area for some people. You either pick up the pom-poms or you are there enemy.

I wonder how far that grey area extends if you're captured by the Taliban (et al)...Again, you're being Western-centric. I do, like Robert McNamara suggested, empathize with the enemy. Why is he fighting?

[dre]

I wonder how far that grey area extends if you're captured by the Taliban (et al)...Again, you're being Western-centric. I do, like Robert McNamara suggested, empathize with the enemy. Why is he fighting?

Not sure how much you empathize with the enemy. Take Iran for example... you seem to think theyve spent billions of dollars and 30 years on a nuclear program so they can give the results to terrorists... Instead of the obvious... that this a country that has been the victim of multiple invasions by both the west and western backed neighbors over the last century, and a nation that the leader of the free world branded as "evil".

If anybody needs a nuclear deterent its Iran. If Iraq had gone better they would have been sacked already.

[DogOnPorch]

Not sure how much you empathize with the enemy. Take Iran for example... you seem to think theyve spent billions of dollars and 30 years on a nuclear program so they can give the results to terrorists... Instead of the obvious... that this a country that has been the victim of multiple invasions by both the west and western backed neighbors over the last century, and a nation that the leader of the free world branded as "evil".

If anybody needs a nuclear deterent its Iran. If Iraq had gone better they would have been sacked already.

Hezbollah is a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as well as a 'terrorist group'. Empathy doesn't equal one's love for something/someone. It means trying to understand another's position. It makes perfect sense to give Hezbollah the capability to do the actual deed, leaving Iran in the catbird's seat. It's what either of us would likely try if hypothetically tasked with such a mission as destroying Israel. Leave the ICBMs as a later option.

As for Saddam being 'Western backed'...that's a tad of a stretch. Although I understand he received satellite reports of Iranian positions from America, the Iran-Iraq War was odd in that the Iranians used the US weapons while Saddam's army was purely Russian armed.

As far as "multiple invasions" go, are you referring to when Iran was going to join Hitler, when the Mongols attacked or something earlier like Alexander the Great taking out Darius?

[Bonam]

Yeah, I think it's a lesson that needs to be learned the hard way. I share your cynicism.

Learned again, you mean. Learned the hard way every few generations. Peace loving people never remember that appeasement doesn't work.

[bud]

As for Saddam being 'Western backed'...that's a tad of a stretch. Although I understand he received satellite reports of Iranian positions from America, the Iran-Iraq War was odd in that the Iranians used the US weapons while Saddam's army was purely Russian armed.

really? for a guy with a bachelor in wikipedia, i'm surprised you missed most of the information on 'western backed' iraq.

what about:

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983. According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same

or this:

According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." Lang disclosed that more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments. He cautioned that the DIA "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Despite this claim, the Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.

and this:

Iraqi military personnel received various types of guidance from their American counterparts on U.S. soil. According to Roque Gonzalez, an ex-Special Forces officer with multilingual expertise, Saddam's elite troops received instruction in unconventional warfare at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. "The idea was that, in the event of an Iranian victory, the Iraqi soldiers would be able to wage a guerrilla struggle against the occupying Iranian force"

and this:

The United States assisted Iraq through a military aid program known as "Bear Spares", whereby the U.S. military "made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs."

back to the chemical weapons:

On February 9th, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce."

The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq.

how about some diplomacy:

In 1984, Iran introduced a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council, citing the Geneva Protocol of 1925, condemning Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. In response, the United States instructed its delegate at the UN to lobby friendly representatives in support of a motion to take "no decision" on the use of chemical munitions by Iraq. If backing to obstruct the resolution could be won, then the U.S. delegation were to proceed and vote in favour of taking zero action; if support were not forthcoming, the U.S. delegate were to refrain from voting altogether.

Edited October 5, 2012 by bud

[DogOnPorch]

I'm aware that you're going to allude to the usual crap that may or may not have actually had any bearing to events. Like the US supplying Saddam's actual chemical weapon program, for example. Or US supplied bacteria/viruses ending up actually being turned into weapons. Why not do a wee expose' of all the European and Arab companies that supplied Saddam's REAL chemical goodies for his various projects like gassing Kurds? Or is that something I have to rant on about AGAIN?

[GostHacked]

I have a question for you: why did you put good guys in quotes?

Being the 'good guys' is relative to what side of the conflict you were on.

[GostHacked]

I fail to see how nuking Japan to save lives is the same as taking out Iran's nuke program (who is the non-aggressor here).

Japan attacked and got what it deserved.

Iran has not attacked anyone. If they do, have at them. Until then, why all the rhetoric to start another war? Have we not seen enough war in our lifetimes??

[Guest]

I fail to see how nuking Japan to save lives is the same as taking out Iran's nuke program (who is the non-aggressor here).

Japan attacked and got what it deserved.

Iran has not attacked anyone. If they do, have at them. Until then, why all the rhetoric to start another war? Have we not seen enough war in our lifetimes??

Whilst I am not in favour of attacking anyone without good cause, it seems to me that waiting for them to attack and then having at them will condemn millions of innocents to death. If Iran's weapons program and intentions become obvious enough, it might be the saner and more humane choice to nip them in the bud.

[GostHacked]

Whilst I am not in favour of attacking anyone without good cause, it seems to me that waiting for them to attack and then having at them will condemn millions of innocents to death. If Iran's weapons program and intentions become obvious enough, it might be the saner and more humane choice to nip them in the bud.

We are already committing Iranians to death with the sanctions, which can be considered an act of war on it's own. The war on Iran is already underway. Cyber terrorism (stuxnet, duku, flame), taking out Iranian military sites IN Iran killing revolutionary guard.

But think this way. Innocent until proven guilty. What we are doing is punishing Iran for something they may never do.

On the other hand, Israel has taken out two other country's nuclear sites. Tell me who the aggressor is in these cases?

[DogOnPorch]

Being the 'good guys' is relative to what side of the conflict you were on.

Thanks, but I wasn't asking you.

[GostHacked]

Thanks, but I wasn't asking you.

Anytime, it is an open forum, jump in at anytime. Answer if you wish, don't answer if you do not wish. The choice is yours.

[DogOnPorch]

GH: Iran has not attacked anyone. If they do, have at them. Until then, why all the rhetoric to start another war? Have we not seen enough war in our lifetimes??

Iran uses proxy groups to attack its enemies so that handy fellows can claim 'Iran has not attacked anyone'. Seems to work quite well.

[DogOnPorch]

Anytime, it is an open forum, jump in at anytime. Answer if you wish, don't answer if you do not wish. The choice is yours.

Duh...

[GostHacked]

Iran uses proxy groups to attack its enemies so that handy fellows can claim 'Iran has not attacked anyone'. Seems to work quite well.

And the west also used proxies to attack Iran. What exactly is your point?

[DogOnPorch]

And the west also used proxies to attack Iran. What exactly is your point?

The 'West' uses proxies? Who? The 'East'?

[GostHacked]

The 'West' uses proxies? Who? The 'East'?

Are you saying it does not happen?

[DogOnPorch]

Are you saying it does not happen?

The term 'West' refers to many countries. Are you suggesting that some secret meetings of 'the West' occur where it chooses its proxies? Is Mr Burns at the head of the table?

Either way, I'm happy to see you finally admit Iran does, in fact, attack folks.

[GostHacked]

The term 'West' refers to many countries. Are you suggesting that some secret meetings of 'the West' occur where it chooses its proxies? Is Mr Burns at the head of the table?

Either way, I'm happy to see you finally admit Iran does, in fact, attack folks.

And you admit that the west (whatever you want to consider the 'west') has also been funding terrorism. In the end looks like we both agree both sides fund terrorism. But is Iran's terrorism a response to western aggression by means of terrorism of the past or is this something new?

Back forth, back forth , back forth, and no progress made at all. When will Israel strike anyways? Or is it a case of 'two out of three ain't bad'.

[DogOnPorch]

And you admit that the west (whatever you want to consider the 'west') has also been funding terrorism. In the end looks like we both agree both sides fund terrorism. But is Iran's terrorism a response to western aggression by means of terrorism of the past or is this something new?

You obviously weren't alive in 1979.

Back forth, back forth , back forth, and no progress made at all. When will Israel strike anyways? Or is it a case of 'two out of three ain't bad'.

Dunno. I doubt it's possible.

[dre]

And you admit that the west (whatever you want to consider the 'west') has also been funding terrorism. In the end looks like we both agree both sides fund terrorism. But is Iran's terrorism a response to western aggression by means of terrorism of the past or is this something new?

Back forth, back forth , back forth, and no progress made at all. When will Israel strike anyways? Or is it a case of 'two out of three ain't bad'.

Irans "terrorism" is mostly part of a sectarian war that has been going on between religious sects for a long long time. They fund groups like Hezbollah because those groups represent the Shia in various areas.

Back forth, back forth , back forth, and no progress made at all. When will Israel strike anyways? Or is it a case of 'two out of three ain't bad'.

Meh... WHo cares. If I had to choose I would rather Israel and Iran did not go to war, be it nuclear or conventional. But I wouldnt actually spend my money on trying to stop them. Let em fight if they wanna fight.

If folks in the west DO want to pick a side, then they can write a check and send it to whoever they please, but I aint writing any.

Edited October 5, 2012 by dre