If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Lawmakers: You really want these tanks, huh? Army: No, not really. Lawmakers: Come on... you know you want 'em. Army: Goddammit we said "No"   (security.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 306
    More: Asinine, Odierno, Yoshiaki Iwasaki, General Dynamics, Drew Griffin, Sierra Nevada  
•       •       •

6455 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2012 at 8:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-10 11:49:35 AM  

ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.


Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.
 
2012-10-10 11:50:04 AM  

strapp3r: HotWingConspiracy: Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.

CRUSH & FRISK!


www.primolo.de
 
2012-10-10 11:51:42 AM  

GoldSpider: Well, that, and Israel's right to exist as an independent state.


That's all political bullsh*t speech. The average Iranian doesn't give two sh*ts about Israel existing, but they do sympathize with fellow Muslims being treated the way Israel treats the Palestinians.
 
2012-10-10 11:51:52 AM  

coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.


And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.
 
2012-10-10 11:52:07 AM  

strapp3r: HotWingConspiracy: Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.

CRUSH & FRISK!


all the contraband just squirts out the sides
 
2012-10-10 11:54:51 AM  

coeyagi: Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.


He's a politician. He's using political rhetoric. While I'm sure there are Iranian people that feel that way, they're not the majority. Do you really think most Iranians would sign up with the military to go invade Israel if the Israelis were just a little bit nicer to the Palestinians? I don't believe most would sign up right now, even with the way the Palestinians are currently treated.
 
2012-10-10 11:55:19 AM  
Ditch diggers? National broadband, or national smartgrids? Green energy? Roads? Working sewers or drinking water pipelines? COMMIEFASCOSOCIALISMKENYANISMDOESNTWORK.

A few thousand seven-figure pieces of military hardware sitting in mothballs? REAL AMERICA.

Goddamn, I hate these assholes on Capitol Hill. Anything to keep the pork flowing, as long as it's your pork.
 
2012-10-10 11:56:28 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.


Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.
 
2012-10-10 11:56:58 AM  

GoldSpider: It's like keeping buggy-whip factories open, because someday we might have to go back to horse-and-buggy, and BECAUSE JOBS!!


Well you never know, we do have TV shows predicting it, so, we'd better keep making them to be sure.... 

scifiward.com
 
2012-10-10 11:57:24 AM  

GoldSpider: Well, that, and Israel's right to exist as an independent apartheid state.


Ahem.
 
2012-10-10 11:57:44 AM  

ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

He's a politician. He's using political rhetoric. While I'm sure there are Iranian people that feel that way, they're not the majority. Do you really think most Iranians would sign up with the military to go invade Israel if the Israelis were just a little bit nicer to the Palestinians? I don't believe most would sign up right now, even with the way the Palestinians are currently treated.


Depends on how much their "fearless leader" lies to them. It seemed to work for us around 2003.
 
2012-10-10 11:59:30 AM  

GoldSpider: ox45tallboy: Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, that, and Israel's right to exist as an independent state.


And Israeli plans to tear down the Al Aqsa mosque--the third holiest site in Islam--and rebuild the Temple
 
2012-10-10 11:59:54 AM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.


You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion.
 
2012-10-10 12:02:00 PM  
Screw this noise- where are my spider-walking mecha tanks and tachikomas?
 
2012-10-10 12:07:45 PM  

coeyagi: Depends on how much their "fearless leader" lies to them. It seemed to work for us around 2003.


Oh, I'm sure a 9/11-level attack on their country would motivate their people just as much as it did the US, and he's skilled enough as a politician to get the people to back the invasion of some country other than the one that actually attacked them, but that's what it would take - a 9/11-level act of terrorism.

And they're probably not as inept as we were at preventing that sort of thing.

btw, it's not like he actually makes any of the real decisions, but he is instrumental in selling the policies of the Assembly of Experts to the people. He's a (relatively) charismatic figurehead that other countries can mock to their hearts' content, and that the Supreme Leader can replace whenever politically convenient, such as when the people rebel against a nasty action. The best part is that the President is elected by the people, so they think they have some form of control over their government.
 
2012-10-10 12:12:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.

You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion.




How much would it cost the world to just move Israel to Arizona? I bet it would be cheaper in the long run, enable Israel's society to flourish, let the middle-east eat itself without a common enemy, and make life a lot simpler for their residents.

They could be completely autonomous and protected by America super-easily.

/They need to get over the whole "sacred land" thing. That goes for the Islamians and Christians, too.
 
2012-10-10 12:14:41 PM  

fickenchucker: How much would it cost the world to just move Israel to Arizona? I bet it would be cheaper in the long run, enable Israel's society to flourish, let the middle-east eat itself without a common enemy, and make life a lot simpler for their residents.

They could be completely autonomous and protected by America super-easily.

/They need to get over the whole "sacred land" thing. That goes for the Islamians and Christians, too.


Bonus: They get Sheriff Joe to complain about.
 
2012-10-10 12:16:37 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.


Saying that the PM of Israel wants to start a war with Iran, when he has repeatedly and emphatically confirmed that fact publicly, is not the same as hating all of Israel or being anti-semitic.

Americans need to learn to talk like grownups when we discuss the Middle East in general and Israel in particular.
 
2012-10-10 12:18:39 PM  

imontheinternet: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.

Saying that the PM of Israel wants to start a war with Iran, when he has repeatedly and emphatically confirmed that fact publicly, is not the same as hating all of Israel or being anti-semitic.

Americans need to learn to talk like grownups when we discuss the Middle East in general and Israel in particular.


Name calling is far more easier than discussing. Putz.

/I mean that in the nicest way possible.
 
2012-10-10 12:23:32 PM  
Congress-people are like crack-whores.


Contractors the dealers...
 
2012-10-10 12:29:27 PM  
This is what they mean by "fiscally responsible small government." Trust them at your peril.
 
2012-10-10 01:03:33 PM  
Happens all the time. DOD projects pushed by interested Reps and Sens are the bane of the budget.

But go ahead and cut BigBird. That'll help.
 
2012-10-10 01:08:11 PM  
Fiscal Conservatism in action.

Hypnozombie
 
2012-10-10 01:14:56 PM  

ox45tallboy: WhyteRaven74: liam76: Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.

And the ability to modify production equipment has improved by orders of magnitude since then. Back then if you wanted to go from stamping out airplane parts to stamping out car parts, it was going to take a while. Today? Can do it a lot faster. The machine doing the stamping, then as now, doesn't change you just need a new die. Well back then, it took a while to make one and there was always the chance it wouldn't turn out right. Today? Thanks to computer controlled cutting machines they're made to tolerances that are best understood in terms of the width of a human hair. And it's faster. A lot faster.

My position is that it would take about the same amount of time today to change over our factories to wartime production as it did in the 1940's. Things like complexity of the product are canceled out by complexity and effectiveness of the machinery involved, as well as improved communications and computers to keep track of inventory. Do you think that it could be accomplished as quickly as we did it in the 1940's?


No... unless you would like to fight on equal footing with any other competing country...
 
2012-10-10 01:27:14 PM  

dittybopper: James F. Campbell: Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.

Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century, and we still ended up getting dragged into a couple of world wars, and we were unprepared for both. Luckily, we could ramp up production fairly quickly, but since weapons systems have become more complex with a longer lead time, you don't really have that luxury anymore.


Does isolationism require blindness? We could have seen both wars coming. The unpreparedness part was just farking stupidity, not an inherent trait of leaving people alone.

/Also, 'pre-emptive war'? Is not in any way a requirement of not being isolationists. That was just bullshiat.
 
2012-10-10 01:53:53 PM  
Can I have one?
I mean, if I paid for it and it's just sitting there ....

Pretty puh-leaseeeeee!? *puppy dog eyes*
 
2012-10-10 01:56:37 PM  

GAT_00: And Republicans tell us we can't cut defense spending.

We waste money on F-22s, when the type of air to air combat they were designed for never actually happens - standoff anti-air missions - and they are worse than any existing plane for any other role. We waste money on main battle tanks, when open tank battles are a thing of the past. We waste money on decades old ICBMs that just sit rotting in their silos. We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason. We waste money maintaining bases around the world defending absolutely nothing. We waste money on "research" into new designs that are unlikely to work and are still designed to win the last war.

And yet we can't cut defense spending, the single greatest example of wasteful government spending with no return on investment.


Clearly, the answer is to cut food stamps and defund PBS.
 
2012-10-10 02:53:21 PM  
 
2012-10-10 03:05:09 PM  
Corporate welfare is completely acceptable to republicans for some reason.
 
2012-10-10 03:13:07 PM  
MyRandumbName: Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, blat blat blaaat.

I'll just leave this here. 

/guaranteed never to RickRoll ya ;3
 
2012-10-10 03:24:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion


Want to point me to where he said that?

If that is his plan why would anyone need to folow up with a ground invasion?

imontheinternet: Saying that the PM of Israel wants to start a war with Iran, when he has repeatedly and emphatically confirmed that fact publicly, is not the same as hating all of Israel or being anti-semitic.

Americans need to learn to talk like grownups when we discuss the Middle East in general and Israel in particular.


When did he say he wants to start a war?

Queeg has a long history of double standards towards Israel.
 
2012-10-10 03:26:31 PM  

liam76:
imontheinternet: Saying that the PM of Israel wants to start a war with Iran, when he has repeatedly and emphatically confirmed that fact publicly, is not the same as hating all of Israel or being anti-semitic.

Americans need to learn to talk like grownups when we discuss the Middle East in general and Israel in particular.

When did he say he wants to start a war?

Queeg has a long history of double standards towards Israel.


And starting a war in order to stop someone from getting nukes still doesn't equal what he said "turn Iran into a smoking crater"
 
2012-10-10 03:33:47 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion

Want to point me to where he said that?

If that is his plan why would anyone need to folow up with a ground invasion?


That's what would be required to militarily stop Iran form getting a nuclear weapon.

Are you under the illusion that it can be done quickly and cheaply?

Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a wide geographic area. Air strikes to disable the Iranian air defense system, including radar sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, airfields, command and control centers, communications facilities and the power grid would be required to support the strikes on the nuclear facilities themselves. Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped. Only physical occupation of the facilities will do that.

And that's without considering what might have to be done to counter Iranian military actions in the Persian gulf or against US or allied forces based in the region.
 
2012-10-10 03:45:19 PM  
Now you're screwing with someone's pork. Time for a war on the Army.
 
2012-10-10 05:32:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion

Want to point me to where he said that?

If that is his plan why would anyone need to follow up with a ground invasion?

That's what would be required to militarily stop Iran form getting a nuclear weapon.


So, you went from "imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater" to "massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion" and glossed over the fact that his latest speech wasn't a call for actual bombing but a call for a "red line" to be drawn (and you have failed to link anything with him saying we must bomb Iran).

Link


Philip Francis Queeg: Are you under the illusion that it can be done quickly and cheaply?


Are you under the illusion that cost and time = smoking crater?


Philip Francis Queeg: Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a wide geographic area. Air strikes to disable the Iranian air defense system, including radar sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, airfields, command and control centers, communications facilities and the power grid would be required to support the strikes on the nuclear facilities themselves. Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped.


FTFY. Even if you were right, and even if we ignore the fact that Bibi has not said he wants to bomb them regardless of their nuclear program, that still won't make the country a "smoking crater".


Philip Francis Queeg: Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped. Only physical occupation of the facilities will do that.


If I destroy a facility I don't need to occupy it to make sure it isn't being used.
 
2012-10-10 05:46:43 PM  

SnakeLee: BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

It would be really great if the army had a rebuttal to that point in the article. The whole thing seems to boil down to gambling on whether or not we will be in a large scale tank war sometime in the next 25 years. I am guessing no. In fact, it sort of seems like the WWI moment of charging a tank with calvary because it is all you know.


We will not. Anybody we fight in the next 25 years, we won't be having a large-scale armor war with, because anybody we fight in the next 25 years either can't meet us head to head with that kind of armor (i.e. an insurgent force) or, if they can (Iran, N. Korea), we wouldn't face them in that kind of ground war, we'd hammer them from the sky with our known superior air power. The days of a Kursk Salient style tank battle died that day in Kursk when it became apparent such a battle was too costly to fight.

Do we still need tanks? Yes, absolutely. What we don't need are tanks to occupy Europe with again, because we're not going to be fighting our way across the USSR with them.
 
2012-10-10 05:56:20 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion

Want to point me to where he said that?

If that is his plan why would anyone need to follow up with a ground invasion?

That's what would be required to militarily stop Iran form getting a nuclear weapon.

So, you went from "imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater" to "massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion" and glossed over the fact that his latest speech wasn't a call for actual bombing but a call for a "red line" to be drawn (and you have failed to link anything with him saying we must bomb Iran).

Link


Philip Francis Queeg: Are you under the illusion that it can be done quickly and cheaply?

Are you under the illusion that cost and time = smoking crater?


Philip Francis Queeg: Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a wide geographic area. Air strikes to disable the Iranian air defense system, including radar sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, airfields, command and control centers, communications facilities and the power grid would be required to support the strikes on the nuclear facilities themselves. Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped.

FTFY. Even if you were right, and even if we ignore the fact that Bibi has not said he wants to bomb them regardless of their nuclear program, that still won't make the country a "smoking crater".


Philip Francis Queeg: Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped. Only physical occupation of the facilities will do that.

If I destroy a facility I don't need to occupy it to make sure it isn't being used.


Rogers said that Netanyahu does not believe President Obama would attack to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and that the Israeli leader was frustrated that the United States has not set out clear "red lines" that would trigger a U.S. attack.

So your point is that the term "smoking crater" isn't an appropriate description of the effects of a massive and widespread bombing campaign? Seriously?

As for your other corrections once again your deep well of ignorance is on display again. Iranian airfields would be among the primary target of the first wave of strikes. We would seek complete air superiority. We would not simply let the Iranian air forces take off and land at will. We would eliminate their aerial capability as quickly as we could to protect the later waves of bombers. This has been the US strategy each time we have struck Iraq. I mean even one as ignorant as you cannot believe that the US would leave Iranian airfields intact during a bombing campaign.

US strategy has also included attacks to disrupt the power grid. Read up on the BLU-114/B and it's uses.

A military attack on Iran to eliminate their nuclear program would leave widespread and long lasting damage through a vast area of country. Look at the condition that Iraq was left in after the first gulf war. Smoking crater is not much of an exaggeration.
 
2012-10-10 06:32:18 PM  

cptjeff: ladyfortuna: Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...

There are ways to get surplus tanks.


with

nail polish.

Bunch of farkin' amateurs.
 
2012-10-10 06:48:32 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So your point is that the term "smoking crater" isn't an appropriate description of the effects of a massive and widespread bombing campaign? Seriously?


Going to play stupid and dishonest again? Seriously?

That was one of my points. I made them pretty clear above. I will go ahead and repeat them with new words you might understand (and go ahead and repeat from the link you quoted where you ignored them)

1 - It wouldn't take a "widespread bombing campaign". Striking military targets and nuclear sites isn't a "widespread bombing campaign", and that is very far from your original claim of making the country a smoking crater.

FTFY

2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

his latest speech wasn't a call for actual bombing but a call for a "red line" to be drawn:



3 - They in no way call for putting troops on the ground.

If I destroy a facility I don't need to occupy it to make sure it isn't being used :


4 - I never said anything about cost or time, just commented on the smoking crater comment, so you pulling out that comment was dishonest as always.

Are you under the illusion that cost and time = smoking crater?:

Philip Francis Queeg:
Iranian airfields would be among the primary target of the first wave of strikes.


Military airfields. We aren't going to have to bomb all airfields as your post indicated.

Philip Francis Queeg: US strategy has also included attacks to disrupt the power grid. Read up on the BLU-114/B and it's uses.


So since US strategy has at some point included power infrastructure it must be included in every future campaign?

Philip Francis Queeg: A military attack on Iran to eliminate their nuclear program would leave widespread and long lasting damage through a vast area of country. Look at the condition that Iraq was left in after the first gulf war. Smoking crater is not much of an exaggeration


1 - Iraq wasn't a "smoking crater" after the first gulf war.

2 - We weren't going in to try and take out a few select sites, we were trying to wipe out an army. The question, as always with you on the topic of Israel is are you being too dishonest or obtuse to see the difference?
 
2012-10-10 08:29:21 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a wide geographic area. Air strikes to disable the Iranian air defense system, including radar sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, airfields, command and control centers, communications facilities and the power grid would be required to support the strikes on the nuclear facilities themselves. Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped. Only physical occupation of the facilities will do that.


To occupy, long-term, a developed nation of 74 million people with high technology would probably require a conscripted army at least ten million strong. It's nothing less than jerkoff material for rightwingers.
 
2012-10-11 01:50:06 AM  

Endrick: WAIT, I just got a brilliant idea
[hugereviews.com image 300x225]


Throw in the catgirls and I'm there.
 
2012-10-11 01:54:44 AM  

moothemagiccow: NewportBarGuy: We have plenty for the next few wars

The fact that people think like this is what's wrong with this country. How about we not have any wars?


How about we perform brain surgery on everyone at birth so that they never even think about war?

As long as there is land, resources, religion or ego there will be wars. That is one of the hallmarks of or species.
Those wars will become even more frequent in the future as resources become more scarce, and those that have will do all they can to keep it from those that have not.
 
2012-10-11 01:56:08 AM  
That is one of the hallmarks of our species.

/FTFM
 
2012-10-11 06:29:18 AM  

sunlion: Philip Francis Queeg: Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a wide geographic area. Air strikes to disable the Iranian air defense system, including radar sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, airfields, command and control centers, communications facilities and the power grid would be required to support the strikes on the nuclear facilities themselves. Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped. Only physical occupation of the facilities will do that.

To occupy, long-term, a developed nation of 74 million people with high technology would probably require a conscripted army at least ten million strong. It's nothing less than jerkoff material for rightwingers.


I agree with that completely. My problem is that the desire to occupy is pulled right out of Queeg's ass, not bibi's mouth.
 
2012-10-11 11:42:02 AM  

liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)


Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.

Netanyahu 'determined to attack Iran' before US elections, claims Israel's Channel 10


liam76: Military airfields. We aren't going to have to bomb all airfields as your post indicated.


I keep forgetting how profoundly ignorant you are and then your posts remind me. Let's start by pointing out that I never said all airfields. Let's then move onto the fact that many airfields around the world, including in the US, serve a dual purpose. One example of this is Mehrabad International Airport, the main commercial airport in Iran for domestic flights. It also serves as a military base.

liam76: 3 - They in no way call for putting troops on the ground.

If I destroy a facility I don't need to occupy it to make sure it isn't being used :


Oh look, more ignorance. What a shock. Apparently you are unaware that some of the key Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow are deeply buried in a mountain. There is no way to determine if it is destroyed from the air.

liam76: So since US strategy has at some point included power infrastructure it must be included in every future campaign?


It has been a central part of the strategy for every US bombing campaign since Serbia. It is vital in the effort to cripple the air defense network since most of that stuff uses electricity. Iran had a more sophisticated air defense system than Serbia or Iraq did.

liam76: 2 - We weren't going in to try and take out a few select sites, we were trying to wipe out an army. The question, as always with you on the topic of Israel is are you being too dishonest or obtuse to see the difference?


This part isn't ignorant, it is just plain stupid. Are you aware of what country lies immediately to the east of Iran? It's a place called Afghanistan. You may have heard that the US is involved in a war there. If the US was to get into an armed conflict with Iran, the US would undoubtedly take measure to ensure that the Iranian military is prevented from making attacks on our nearby units. It would be the height of folly to leave the Iranian Army unmolested in that situation. The leaders of the US military are not as ignorant and unintelligent as you, so any plan for strikes in Iran would take this into account.

I am simply being honest about the scope of what a US attack to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program would entail. It really has almost nothing to do with Israel.
 
2012-10-11 11:50:37 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.


I think we are doen here.

You are too dishonest/stupid to have thsi conversation if you can't get past "attacking their facilities if they don't stop developing nukes" doesn't equal "attack them."

Nice link with an inflammatory headline that has no proof bib sais anything of the sort.
 
2012-10-11 11:54:22 AM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.

I think we are doen here.

You are too dishonest/stupid to have thsi conversation if you can't get past "attacking their facilities if they don't stop developing nukes" doesn't equal "attack them."

Nice link with an inflammatory headline that has no proof bib sais anything of the sort.


Sorry if my facts got in the way of your propaganda. Really you should try to educate yourself before you post. You might not end up looking so silly all the time if you did.
 
2012-10-11 03:19:16 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.

I think we are doen here.

You are too dishonest/stupid to have thsi conversation if you can't get past "attacking their facilities if they don't stop developing nukes" doesn't equal "attack them."

Nice link with an inflammatory headline that has no proof bib sais anything of the sort.

Sorry if my facts got in the way of your propaganda. Really you should try to educate yourself before you post. You might not end up looking so silly all the time if you did.


What facts? The fact that your own links don't back you up??
 
2012-10-11 03:23:52 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.

I think we are doen here.

You are too dishonest/stupid to have thsi conversation if you can't get past "attacking their facilities if they don't stop developing nukes" doesn't equal "attack them."

Nice link with an inflammatory headline that has no proof bib sais anything of the sort.

Sorry if my facts got in the way of your propaganda. Really you should try to educate yourself before you post. You might not end up looking so silly all the time if you did.

What facts? The fact that your own links don't back you up??


Tell us will it only be puppies that Bibi intends to send to Iran, or is he going to send cute cuddly kittens too? Perhaps a nice fruit basket? Jam of the month club?
 
2012-10-12 06:32:34 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.

I think we are doen here.

You are too dishonest/stupid to have thsi conversation if you can't get past "attacking their facilities if they don't stop developing nukes" doesn't equal "attack them."

Nice link with an inflammatory headline that has no proof bib sais anything of the sort.

Sorry if my facts got in the way of your propaganda. Really you should try to educate yourself before you post. You might not end up looking so silly all the time if you did.

What facts? The fact that your own links don't back you up??

Tell us will it only be puppies that Bibi intends to send to Iran, or is he going to send cute cuddly kittens too? Perhaps a nice fruit basket? Jam of the month club?


Back to puppies?

What is really sad about your fundamental dishonesty here (what bibi actually said, trying to support your 'smoking crater' argument with air fields but really only mean bombing some airfields, etc) is that I have specifically addressed that BS point. Saying he doesn't want to turn iran into a smoking crater doesn't have fark all to do with puppies.

It is like whackamole of lies with you whenever Israel is involved.
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report