PDA

View Full Version : Warning: Nat. Sec. Advisor Flynn *Draws Red-Line* on Iran



exotix
02-01-2017, 02:34 PM
*Breaking*

http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1485977785/100_8458_v5pgnq.jpg

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 02:39 PM
*Breaking*

Oh God - Jared Kushner is going to have to babysit impulsive children Donald and Flynn like 24/7 or we're gonna be in a hot war we don't need.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/flynn-trump-iran_us_5890fbcee4b0522c7d3dba76

Cigar
02-01-2017, 02:58 PM
https://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/122bcab8-8c8e-4fd1-b586-e2f31fbcdd6b-original.jpeg

Peter1469
02-01-2017, 03:31 PM
I think he is just setting a base line. The next time Iran cheat on the agreement (not treaty) we can say they backed out of it.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 04:11 PM
I think he is just setting a base line. The next time Iran cheat on the agreement (not treaty) we can say they backed out of it.
I agree. I heard less than a minute. But it looks like a reasonable approach. We need to substantially rebuild the military before we fight Iran.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 04:14 PM
I agree. I heard less than a minute. But it looks like a reasonable approach. We need to substantially rebuild the military before we fight Iran.

I agree .. spending more on our military than the next 15 countries combined just isn't enough.

Let's make it 30 right MV? :rolleyes:

Peter1469
02-01-2017, 04:42 PM
I agree. I heard less than a minute. But it looks like a reasonable approach. We need to substantially rebuild the military before we fight Iran.

I doubt we would have much of a fight with them beyond naval and air.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 04:45 PM
I agree .. spending more on our military than the next 15 countries combined just isn't enough.
Let's make it 30 right MV? :rolleyes:
Let's make it the right amount without regard to those who are not spending enough. We have plenty o upgrading to do. We need more end strength in all of the services. We can begin to eliminate the hundreds of welfare programs to pay for the defense increases.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 04:46 PM
I agree. I heard less than a minute. But it looks like a reasonable approach. We need to substantially rebuild the military before we fight Iran.
Is Trump planning on consulting the American people and their Congressional representatives before he launches this glorious war against Iran?

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 04:46 PM
I doubt we would have much of a fight with them beyond naval and air.
It is a very big country. Experts told us Iraq would be easy.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 04:47 PM
We need to substantially rebuild the military before we fight Iran.

Is Trump planning on consulting the American people and their Congressional representatives before he launches this glorious war against Iran?
Yes. A cause and support for war will have to be built. All in due time.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 04:47 PM
Let's make it the right amount without regard to those who are not spending enough. We have plenty o upgrading to do. We need more end strength in all of the services. We can begin to eliminate the hundreds of welfare programs to pay for the defense increases.
And there you have Republican ideology summed up in a nutshell. Cut spending on services for poor Americans so we can spend more money on our bloated military empire. And, of course, being a defense contractor, you will benefit handsomely from such an arrangement.

Peter1469
02-01-2017, 04:48 PM
Let's make it the right amount without regard to those who are not spending enough. We have plenty o upgrading to do. We need more end strength in all of the services. We can begin to eliminate the hundreds of welfare programs to pay for the defense increases.

Our combat forces and their equipment are warn out by a decade + of war. It will cost a lot of money to get the equipment up to snuff and get the troops retrained for their conventional missions. Most brigade combat teams fall below standards today.

Peter1469
02-01-2017, 04:48 PM
It is a very big country. Experts told us Iraq would be easy.

It is also very mountainous - terrain that will largely negate our technical advantages.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 04:49 PM
Yes. A cause and support for war will have to be built. All in due time.

Never going to happen. Americans are sick of war and many of them voted for Trump based on his stated intention to reduce foreign interventionism and concentrate on America first. If he starts a war with Iran, he will have zero chance at a second term.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 04:52 PM
And there you have Republican ideology summed up in a nutshell. Cut spending on services for poor Americans so we can spend more money on our bloated military empire. And, of course, being a defense contractor, you will benefit handsomely from such an arrangement.
Wars have to be planned for whether you like it or not.

Yes, we can eliminate the hundreds of unconstitutional federal welfare programs to pay for the Constitutional defense of the nation.

I am not a defense contractor. I have been retired a couple of years now. I write these days. My time as a systems engineering manager is over. I do benefit in two ways. Unconstitutional programs will end. And an appropriate level of defense will be created and maintained. Win-win.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 04:53 PM
Our combat forces and their equipment are warn out by a decade + of war. It will cost a lot of money to get the equipment up to snuff and get the troops retrained for their conventional missions. Most brigade combat teams fall below standards today.
We agree. I see a multi-year, sustained effort to reequip, rearm, retrain and grow all of the branches. I believe the intelligence community will require new tools as well.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 04:55 PM
It is also very mountainous - terrain that will largely negate our technical advantages.
We can determine how much or how little war we want at the appropriate time. If done properly perhaps the major fighting can be done by Iranians against the IslamoNAZI regime.

Captain Obvious
02-01-2017, 04:55 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iKuMVqht4U

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 04:57 PM
A cause and support for war will have to be built. All in due time.

Never going to happen. Americans are sick of war and many of them voted for Trump based on his stated intention to reduce foreign interventionism and concentrate on America first. If he starts a war with Iran, he will have zero chance at a second term.
I understand you are against wars. There is a place for you.

I do not recall saying when war would come. But I know it must. A leader prepares the force and a leader prepares the nation.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 04:59 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iKuMVqht4U
:-) One of my favorites!

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 04:59 PM
Wars have to be planned for whether you like it or not.

That presupposes that there will be a war. But if Trump goes the constitutional route and seeks congressional authorization, there won't be a war because the American people simply will not tolerate it. They've had enough foreign interventionism. Part of the reason they voted for Trump is because he said would stop meddling overseas and start concentrating on America first.


Yes, we can eliminate the hundreds of unconstitutional federal welfare programs to pay for the Constitutional defense of the nation.

Trump has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of even cutting those programs, let alone eliminating them.

And you're not talking about "defense" of the country. You're talking about starting another foreign war of intervention thousands of miles away from our shores.


I am not a defense contractor. I have been retired a couple of years now. I write these days. My time as a systems engineering manager is over. I do benefit in two ways. Unconstitutional programs will end. And an appropriate level of defense will be created and maintained. Win-win.

Fair enough. But Trump isn't going to cut welfare programs and you're not really talking about defense.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 05:01 PM
And there you have Republican ideology summed up in a nutshell. Cut spending on services for poor Americans so we can spend more money on our bloated military empire. And, of course, being a defense contractor, you will benefit handsomely from such an arrangement.

There is no mansplaining away the abject stupidity of perpetually propping up the Military Industrial Complex.

If would appear as if we'll never learn. SAD!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 05:03 PM
We agree. I see a multi-year, sustained effort to reequip, rearm, retrain and grow all of the branches. I believe the intelligence community will require new tools as well.

Yes, we all cannot hardly WAIT for T-Rump's "limited nuclear war".

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:03 PM
I understand you are against wars. There is a place for you.

I'm pretty sure all rational people are against wars. That said, I'm not categorically opposed to war. There are times when it's entirely just. But this is not one of those times. Iran, for all its belligerent rhetoric, poses little to no threat to America. They've never attacked our country and American and Israeli intelligence have both said there is no evidence which indicates they are pursuing nuclear weapons. It would be far easier to wage peace on Iran than war.


I do not recall saying when war would come. But I know it must. A leader prepares the force and a leader prepares the nation.

Why must it? Is Iran planning to attack America or something? Are their ships headed for our shores?

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:04 PM
That presupposes that there will be a war. But if Trump goes the constitutional route and seeks congressional authorization, there won't be a war because the American people simply will not tolerate it. They've had enough foreign interventionism. Part of the reason they voted for Trump is because he said would stop meddling overseas and start concentrating on America first.
Trump has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of even cutting those programs, let alone eliminating them.
And you're not talking about "defense" of the country. You're talking about starting another foreign war of intervention thousands of miles away from our shores.
Fair enough. But Trump isn't going to cut welfare programs and you're not really talking about defense.
All of your points are good ones. When the war comes, as I know it must, we will be ready to fight it. Defense includes taking our wars to enemy countries. It is far better to fight them there than it is to fight them here.

Things take time. Candidate Trump promised a strong military. I believed him then. I believe him now. Recreating a strong military will take years. We can begin there.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:08 PM
Yes, we all cannot hardly WAIT for T-Rump's "limited nuclear war".
The deep underground facilities are difficult targets. I believe we will need wholly new deep penetrating munitions to destroy them. They might be nuclear. They might be hypersonic. Imagine a one ton very dense long rod slamming into the ground at 25,000 miles per hour. It may cause discomfort for those in the facility.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:08 PM
All of your points are good ones. When the war comes, as I know it must, we will be ready to fight it. Defense includes taking our wars to enemy countries. It is far better to fight them there than it is to fight them here.

Things take time. Candidate Trump promised a strong military. I believed him then. I believe him now. Recreating a strong military will take years. We can begin there.
Do you also believe Trump when he says he will not cut federal entitlements?

As for your claim that it's far better to fight them there than it is to fight them here, that assumes Iran has any interest in attacking America, which they do not. Not only do they have no interest in it, they are essential incapable of it. They cannot project force globally, so they cannot possibly pose a threat to the American homeland.

AZ Jim
02-01-2017, 05:08 PM
Never going to happen. Americans are sick of war and many of them voted for Trump based on his stated intention to reduce foreign interventionism and concentrate on America first. If he starts a war with Iran, he will have zero chance at a second term.He is not getting a second term and most likely won't finish his first!

Peter1469
02-01-2017, 05:12 PM
Rods of God are likely already in the inventory.
The deep underground facilities are difficult targets. I believe we will need wholly new deep penetrating munitions to destroy them. They might be nuclear. They might be hypersonic. Imagine a one ton very dense long rod slamming into the ground at 25,000 miles per hour. It may cause discomfort for those in the facility.

Peter1469
02-01-2017, 05:14 PM
He is not getting a second term and most likely won't finish his first!

You're going to impeach him, right. :shocked:

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:15 PM
Why is there this assumption that the only way to improve upon American defensive capabilities, we must spend more than we're already spending? Cannot we not simply allocate present spending in a more judicious and efficient manner?

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:16 PM
I'm pretty sure all rational people are against wars.
Of course. The most rational ones know wars must come. The rational people begin with a war-winning strategy, then build the forces necessary to win the kinds of wars we are likely to see.

That said, I'm not categorically opposed to war. There are times when it's entirely just.
I completely agree with "just war" theory. When the time comes it will be a just war.


But this is not one of those times.
I cannot judge as it has not yet occurred.


Iran, for all its belligerent rhetoric, poses little to no threat to America.
This is false.


They've never attacked our country and American and Israeli intelligence have both said there is no evidence which indicates they are pursuing nuclear weapons. It would be far easier to wage peace on Iran than war.
Iranian expertise and materials have been used to murder Americans. Let's see what our intelligence community has to say now that we're being led by Americans once again. Barack Hussein O supported the Islamofascists. Barack has insinuated Muslim Brotherhood operatives deep inside Federal government. It will take time to root them out. I have confidence the current leadership is up to the task of cleansing the nation's intelligence community. We may have to fire everybody at the State department. I believe State is so compromised the only thing to do is burn it down and start over.

Why must it? Is Iran planning to attack America or something? Are their ships headed for our shores?
Why must war come? They have a different world view than we have. We will clash.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 05:17 PM
The deep underground facilities are difficult targets. I believe we will need wholly new deep penetrating munitions to destroy them. They might be nuclear. They might be hypersonic. Imagine a one ton very dense long rod slamming into the ground at 25,000 miles per hour. It may cause discomfort for those in the facility.

YOU and your clueless president cause me GREAT discomfort when you suggest that we can use nukes strategically and that a successful "first strike" is actually an intelligent possibility.

He now has the codes (aka biscuit) in his size 72 coat pocket.

Sorry, but the sane throw up at such a thought.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 05:18 PM
Why is there this assumption that the only way to improve upon American defensive capabilities, we must spend more than we're already spending? Cannot we not simply allocate present spending in a more judicious and efficient manner?

YES .. next question?

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 05:19 PM
I think he is just setting a base line. The next time Iran cheat on the agreement (not treaty) we can say they backed out of it.


I believe you're right. The administration knows that they need to prove that Iran is not abiding by the ill advised agreement. Once that's established, it can be scrapped.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:22 PM
Do you also believe Trump when he says he will not cut federal entitlements?
I do. I believe he will tackle that mess the best possible way, with well-paying jobs. As fewer welfare dollars are needed we can begin cutting programs. There are hundreds of overlapping federal welfare programs.

As for your claim that it's far better to fight them there than it is to fight them here, that assumes Iran has any interest in attacking America, which they do not. Not only do they have no interest in it, they are essential incapable of it. They cannot project force globally, so they cannot possibly pose a threat to the American homeland.
I believe a well coordinated, visible policy shift of obliterating the DNA line of any terrorist who harms an American anywhere in the world will greatly reduce war's likelihood. The Iranians, flush with obamaBucks, can project terrorist power anywhere in the world they choose. When they do wee must be ready to obliterate the terrorists entire family. We should leave no near relative alive. Parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, their children and the terrorist's children must all perish as national policy.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:24 PM
Rods of God are likely already in the inventory.
I know we have explored techniques in the past. I had not heard the expression Rods of God before.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 05:27 PM
All of your points are good ones. When the war comes, as I know it must, we will be ready to fight it. Defense includes taking our wars to enemy countries. It is far better to fight them there than it is to fight them here.

Things take time. Candidate Trump promised a strong military. I believed him then. I believe him now. Recreating a strong military will take years. We can begin there.
Very Bushlandian .. Yay Tough Guy MV!

We're gonna fight 'em there so's we don't gotta fight 'em here!

Fantabulous foreign policy that has only cost us around 5 trillion since Junior left the building!

http://www.notable-quotes.com/b/george_w_bush_quote_2.jpg

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:28 PM
He is not getting a second term and most likely won't finish his first!
How did your earlier prognostications play out? Did Crooked Hillary win?

I suggest some hedge words. He might not get a second term. And if he does he might not finish it!

Your helpful friend,

A winner

:grin:

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:30 PM
Why is there this assumption that the only way to improve upon American defensive capabilities, we must spend more than we're already spending? Cannot we not simply allocate present spending in a more judicious and efficient manner?
What would you suggest? I already said the rational actor will begin with a war-winning strategy and build the force structure to accomplish the win.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:31 PM
Of course. The most rational ones know wars must come. The rational people begin with a war-winning strategy, then build the forces necessary to win the kinds of wars we are likely to see.

War is only inevitable to those who are intent on waging it.


I completely agree with "just war" theory. When the time comes it will be a just war.

And what conditions would justify a war against Iran?


I cannot judge as it has not yet occurred.

Yet you keep acting like a war is inevitable.


This is false.

Iran is an underdeveloped, relatively weak country that cannot project force globally. They pose little to no threat to America.


Iranian expertise and materials have been used to murder Americans.

They've attacked US military targets overseas in places where we shouldn't have been in the first place.


Let's see what our intelligence community has to say now that we're being led by Americans once again. Barack Hussein O supported the Islamofascists. Barack has insinuated Muslim Brotherhood operatives deep inside Federal government. It will take time to root them out. I have confidence the current leadership is up to the task of cleansing the nation's intelligence community. We may have to fire everybody at the State department. I believe State is so compromised the only thing to do is burn it down and start over.

Israeli intelligence has made the same assessment. Are they infected by Muslim Brotherhood operatives, too?


Why must war come? They have a different world view than we have. We will clash.

So we're going to go to war with every country who possess a "different world view"? When are we going to war with North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Russia?

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 05:31 PM
It's going to be refreshing to see some decisiveness on foreign policy issues.

Private Pickle
02-01-2017, 05:32 PM
So-called "Red Lines" are generally a bad idea unless you are going to follow through once that line is inevitably crossed. If you don't you end up looking like Obama.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 05:33 PM
War is only inevitable to those who are intent on waging it.


Disagreeing with your foreign policy ideas does not mean someone is intent on going to war.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:34 PM
I do. I believe he will tackle that mess the best possible way, with well-paying jobs. As fewer welfare dollars are needed we can begin cutting programs. There are hundreds of overlapping federal welfare programs.

That might take a while.


I believe a well coordinated, visible policy shift of obliterating the DNA line of any terrorist who harms an American anywhere in the world will greatly reduce war's likelihood. The Iranians, flush with obamaBucks, can project terrorist power anywhere in the world they choose. When they do wee must be ready to obliterate the terrorists entire family. We should leave no near relative alive. Parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, their children and the terrorist's children must all perish as national policy.

We already possess the ability to obliterate Iran ten times over.

AZ Jim
02-01-2017, 05:34 PM
My desire, not one red cent to the Pentagon until all existing HOME-FRONT social programs are fully funded.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:35 PM
YOU and your clueless president cause me GREAT discomfort when you suggest that we can use nukes strategically and that a successful "first strike" is actually an intelligent possibility.
He now has the codes (aka biscuit) in his size 72 coat pocket.
Sorry, but the sane throw up at such a thought.
I agree President Trump ought to ask the questions about using nuclear weapons to accomplish his objectives. I believe we will see new options developed in response to Trump's questions. That is a very good thing. When I was in that line of business the single integrated operational plan changed annually.
I am also very comfortable with President Trump, and his chain of command, having the so-called nuclear codes. I know a great deal about this system and how it works. I shall say no more about it.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 05:35 PM
Dude ^ is in LOVE with the idea of war ... with anyone.

The fact that Trump and Flynn are his ideas of great guys is of great concern.

Beevee
02-01-2017, 05:35 PM
Is Trump planning on consulting the American people and their Congressional representatives before he launches this glorious war against Iran?

...and if he challenges other countries with 'you are either with us or against us' he may not like the responses.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:37 PM
What would you suggest?

Eliminating waste, fraud, and duplication of efforts, for starters. Reducing foreign aid and troops levels over time. Placing a greater onus on foreign countries to finance their own defense.


I already said the rational actor will begin with a war-winning strategy and build the force structure to accomplish the win.

A rational actor will begin by trying to AVOID a war. And as it stands, we are already more than capable of defeating Iran in any military conflict.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:38 PM
Disagreeing with your foreign policy ideas does not mean someone is intent on going to war.
When you keep saying that war "must" come, yea, it does mean that.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:38 PM
War is only inevitable to those who are intent on waging it.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.

The living must plan for it.

Private Pickle
02-01-2017, 05:39 PM
Eliminating waste, fraud, and duplication of efforts, for starters. Reducing foreign aid and troops levels over time. Placing a greater onus on foreign countries to finance their own defense.



A rational actor will begin by trying to AVOID a war. And as it stands, we are already more than capable of defeating Iran in any military conflict.

A country's defense is secondary to the ability for the U.S. to power project. It's that exact power projection that avoids war.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:40 PM
Only the dead have seen the end of war.

The living must plan for it.

Many wars are wars of choice and not necessity.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:40 PM
And what conditions would justify a war against Iran?
We will know that as the time draws near.

Yet you keep acting like a war is inevitable.
War is inevitable.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:41 PM
A country's defense is secondary to the ability for the U.S. to power project. It's that exact power projection that avoids war.
We don't need to have troops stationed in foreign countries in order to project force globally. We have a navy for that.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:42 PM
Israeli intelligence has made the same assessment. Are they infected by Muslim Brotherhood operatives, too?
Please allow me to be skeptical of what we think we know about Israeli intelligence assessments.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:42 PM
We will know that as the time draws near.

Uh, so you don't know what conditions would need to be met in order to justify a war with Iran?


War is inevitable.

Not in this case. Iran is actually desirous of peace. They merely insist on having their independence and their sovereignty respected by the globalists.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:43 PM
So we're going to go to war with every country who possess a "different world view"? When are we going to war with North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Russia?
That is the way to bet. Those who fail to prepare are preparing to lose.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:44 PM
Please allow me to be skeptical of what we think we know about Israeli intelligence assessments.


Leaked cables show Netanyahu’s Iran bomb claim contradicted by Mossad (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad)

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:44 PM
That might take a while.
We already possess the ability to obliterate Iran ten times over.
No. We don't.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:44 PM
That is the way to bet. Those who fail to prepare are preparing to lose.
So you see war with countries like Russia and North Korea as inevitable?

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:44 PM
My desire, not one red cent to the Pentagon until all existing HOME-FRONT social programs are fully funded.
Fortunately, your side, the socialists and fellow travelers lost.

Private Pickle
02-01-2017, 05:45 PM
We don't need to have troops stationed in foreign countries in order to project force globally. We have a navy for that.

Well let's take a look at the DMZ in Korea for example. The killing of a U.S. soldier there by any N. Korea action would immediately draw the ire from both friends of theirs and enemies. That is why they look for soft targets like an industrialized island or a S. Korean fishing boat...etc.
The fact that we put our soldiers there stops North Korea from more aggressive acts that could easily be dismissed if an American soldier was not affected.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:45 PM
No. We don't.
Of course we do. Our naval power alone could bomb them into oblivion and there is nothing they could do to stop us.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:46 PM
Dude ^ is in LOVE with the idea of war ... with anyone.
The fact that Trump and Flynn are his ideas of great guys is of great concern.
The most effectual means to avoid war is to be prepared for it. Don't worry your pretty little head over it. The adults are taking care of it.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 05:47 PM
I agree President Trump ought to ask the questions about using nuclear weapons to accomplish his objectives. I believe we will see new options developed in response to Trump's questions. That is a very good thing. When I was in that line of business the single integrated operational plan changed annually.
I am also very comfortable with President Trump, and his chain of command, having the so-called nuclear codes. I know a great deal about this system and how it works. I shall say no more about it.

Yes, you've made your cluelessness abundantly evident.

Go MacGruber!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKKaZhNXJe0

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:47 PM
Well let's take a look at the DMZ in Korea for example. The killing of a U.S. soldier there by any N. Korea action would immediately draw the ire from both friends of theirs and enemies. That is why they look for soft targets like an industrialized island or a S. Korean fishing boat...etc.
The fact that we put our soldiers there stops North Korea from more aggressive acts that could easily be dismissed if an American soldier was not affected.

If all it takes is one US soldier to have that effect, then there is no reason not to reduce troop concentrations. We would still maintain a robust naval presence in order to maintain deterrence.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 05:49 PM
When you keep saying that war "must" come, yea, it does mean that.


What? Get a grip young feller.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:50 PM
Eliminating waste, fraud, and duplication of efforts, for starters. Reducing foreign aid and troops levels over time. Placing a greater onus on foreign countries to finance their own defense.
None of those things matter. We do agree and Trump does as well that allied countries must pay more of their way. That will not change what it costs to rebuild our forces.

"I already said the rational actor will begin with a war-winning strategy and build the force structure to accomplish the win."

A rational actor will begin by trying to AVOID a war. And as it stands, we are already more than capable of defeating Iran in any military conflict.Yours is a war losing non-strategy. One does not win by trying to avoid wars. One wins by preparing for them. Ironically, great preparations may be the most effective way to avoid war.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:51 PM
What? Get a grip young feller.
Mister V has repeatedly said that war with Iran must come.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:54 PM
That is the way to bet. Those who fail to prepare are preparing to lose.

So you see war with countries like Russia and North Korea as inevitable?
I have already answered. That is the way to bet. Those who fail to prepare are preparing to lose.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 05:54 PM
Mister V has repeatedly said that war with Iran must come.

Trump has an angry neocon in his ear (Flynn) which is not good.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:54 PM
Of course we do. Our naval power alone could bomb them into oblivion and there is nothing they could do to stop us.
No. We don't.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:55 PM
None of those things matter.

Quite the persuasive rebuttal.


We do agree and Trump does as well that allied countries must pay more of their way. That will not change what it costs to rebuild our forces.

You asked how I would go about reducing military spending without sacrificing our defensive capabilities. I gave you an explanation. What is your specific objection to my explanation?


Yours is a war losing non-strategy. One does not win by trying to avoid wars. One wins by preparing for them. Ironically, great preparations may be the most effective way to avoid war.
You keep operating under the false assumption that a war with Iran cannot be avoided. I maintain that it can and should be avoided. I also maintain that our present capabilities are more than adequate in terms of our ability to obliterate Iran.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 05:56 PM
If all it takes is one US soldier to have that effect, then there is no reason not to reduce troop concentrations. We would still maintain a robust naval presence in order to maintain deterrence.
We agree a muscular, capable navy is essential to defending our worldwide interests. The navy needs to grow by about 50%.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:56 PM
That is the way to bet. Those who fail to prepare are preparing to lose.

I have already answered. That is the way to bet. Those who fail to prepare are preparing to lose.

I asked you a yes or no question and you replied with a cryptic remark. That's not an answer, it's an evasion.

So do you think war with countries like Russia and North Korea must come? That they are inevitable? Again, it's a yes or no question.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 05:59 PM
No. We don't.
Please explain how Iran would stop the US navy from parking off its shores and launching an endless volley of missiles, including nukes, into their country.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 06:00 PM
Please allow me to be skeptical of what we think we know about Israeli intelligence assessments.

NettyYahoo intel assessments?

You kidding ... RIGHT?

http://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/bibi-meme1.jpg

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:01 PM
Quite the persuasive rebuttal.
Thanks! I try to keep things as simple as possible.

You asked how I would go about reducing military spending without sacrificing our defensive capabilities. I gave you an explanation. What is your specific objection to my explanation?
In my experience, everyone claims they are going to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. It is a futile exercise. Reducing our foreign aid might increase defense costs. And other nations carrying their own costs for their defense will not change what our forces cost to protect our interests.

You keep operating under the false assumption that a war with Iran cannot be avoided. I maintain that it can and should be avoided. I also maintain that our present capabilities are more than adequate in terms of our ability to obliterate Iran.
We can agree to disagree. War is always inevitable. Only the timing varies.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 06:01 PM
We agree a muscular, capable navy is essential to defending our worldwide interests. The navy needs to grow by about 50%.
The navy is the main effort, but it does not need to grow by some arbitrary amount. It only needs to be as big as it needs to be in order to achieve a given set of objectives. As it stands, the US navy is already the unquestioned master of the world's oceans.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:03 PM
I have already answered. That is the way to bet. Those who fail to prepare are preparing to lose.

I asked you a yes or no question and you replied with a cryptic remark. That's not an answer, it's an evasion.
Is war with...inevitable? That is the way to bet.

So do you think war with countries like Russia and North Korea must come? That they are inevitable? Again, it's a yes or no question.
Is war with...inevitable? That is the way to bet.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:03 PM
Please explain how Iran would stop the US navy from parking off its shores and launching an endless volley of missiles, including nukes, into their country.
The enemy always gets a vote. Try to remember that.

exotix
02-01-2017, 06:04 PM
Why is there this assumption that the only way to improve upon American defensive capabilities, we must spend more than we're already spending? Cannot we not simply allocate present spending in a more judicious and efficient manner?I'm still wondering what this bully-on-the-block I'm-calling-you-out-after-school froth actually means besides freaking America and the world out ...

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 06:04 PM
Thanks! I try to keep things as simple as possible.
In my experience, everyone claims they are going to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. It is a futile exercise. Reducing our foreign aid might increase defense costs. And other nations carrying their own costs for their defense will not change what our forces cost to protect our interests.

Why is it futile? I thought Trump was supposed to be a great manager who got things done. If there is waste, nix it. If there is fraud, prosecute it. If there is duplication of efforts, consolidate it. What's the problem?


We can agree to disagree. War is always inevitable. Only the timing varies.

Fatalism is the enemy of rational thought. We have the power to change the world and to be the masters of our destiny. We are not slaves to fate.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 06:05 PM
Ethereal Wins Thread!! ^^^

LOOK clowns .. we've had about enough of this crap that has cost our country not only blood, but TREASURE we cannot afford.

Please stop it ..

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 06:05 PM
I have already answered. That is the way to bet. Those who fail to prepare are preparing to lose.

Is war with...inevitable? That is the way to bet.

Is war with...inevitable? That is the way to bet.
Let the record show that you did not answer the question as asked.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 06:06 PM
The enemy always gets a vote. Try to remember that.
Are you going to explain how Iran will stop the US navy from obliterating them or not?

Private Pickle
02-01-2017, 06:07 PM
If all it takes is one US soldier to have that effect, then there is no reason not to reduce troop concentrations. We would still maintain a robust naval presence in order to maintain deterrence.
You mean leave 1 American soldier on the DMZ and hope he gets hit?

Private Pickle
02-01-2017, 06:09 PM
Ethereal Wins Thread!! ^^^

LOOK clowns .. we've had about enough of this crap that has cost our country not only blood, but TREASURE we cannot afford.

Please stop it ..

Where've you been the last 8 years?

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 06:13 PM
Are you going to explain how Iran will stop the US navy from obliterating them or not?

I've asked @MisterVeritis (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1287) to mansplain this many times .. still no answer.

Thanks God HE is not in control of codes and military expenditures, but we're F'd now that Donald IS no matter.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 06:13 PM
Mister V has repeatedly said that war with Iran must come.

Hes not one of Trump's cabinet members.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 06:14 PM
You mean leave 1 American soldier on the DMZ and hope he gets hit?
Of course not. But if the death of "a U.S. soldier" (your words) is all it takes to elicit the "ire" of North Korea's friends and enemies, then it stands to reason that a reduction in troop levels can be implemented without sacrificing the underlying deterrence. And as I keep saying, the reduce troop presence in South Korea would be augmented by a robust naval presence.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 06:15 PM
Hes not one of Trump's cabinet members.
I'm not debating one of Trump's cabinet members, I'm debating Mister V. He was the one I was referring to when I said there are people who are intent on waging war.

Private Pickle
02-01-2017, 06:16 PM
Of course not. But if the death of "a U.S. soldier" (your words) is all it takes to elicit the "ire" of North Korea's friends and enemies, then it stands to reason that a reduction in troop levels can be implemented without sacrificing the underlying deterrence. And as I keep saying, any troop presence in South Korea would be augmented by a robust naval presence.

It depends on the type and scale of the threat. In Germany sure. In England, OK. Although in both cases we lose our ability to maneuver quickly if needed. Places like S. Korea or Iraq where they are bordered but people who have openly called for the destruction of the U.S. and her allies need more scale.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 06:22 PM
I'm not debating one of Trump's cabinet members, I'm debating Mister V. He was the one I was referring to when I said there are people who are intent on waging war.

people like him don't make those decisions. Ulitimately, he doesn't matter.

If people in positions of power in our country are serious, decisive and project strength, we are less likely to go to war.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:25 PM
The navy is the main effort, but it does not need to grow by some arbitrary amount. It only needs to be as big as it needs to be in order to achieve a given set of objectives. As it stands, the US navy is already the unquestioned master of the world's oceans.
No. It isn't.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 06:25 PM
It's also worth noting that Flynn did not actually "draw a red line". As usual, Exotix is lying.

Flynn said he is putting Iran "on notice", whatever that means.

He cited Iran's testing of a missile and its alleged support for Houthi militants in Yemen.


National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Puts Iran 'on Notice' (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-puts-iran-notice/story?id=45201810)

Some quick thoughts.

Iran has been testing missiles for decades. This is nothing new.

Also, there is scant evidence that Iran is supporting the Houthis or that the Houthis have been hostile towards the USA. Granted, the Houthis have undoubtedly been hostile towards Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but who cares? Saudi Arabia and Qatar are bombing and starving Yemen in an attempt to reinstall their favored autocrat into power. The USA has no dog in that fight. We should not be providing any assistance to the Saudis and Qataris war in Yemen. Not only is that war ethically and legally dubious, it's not in our vital interests. So let the Houthis attack the Saudis and Qataris as much as they like. It's no skin off our backs.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 06:26 PM
No. It isn't.

Well, I'm convinced.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:28 PM
Why is it futile? I thought Trump was supposed to be a great manager who got things done. If there is waste, nix it. If there is fraud, prosecute it. If there is duplication of efforts, consolidate it. What's the problem?
They are not positives. They are negatives. During my working life, I have seen administrations promise savings of $20-30 billion dollars by finding and stopping waste, fraud, and abuse. It is like finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It does not ever materialize. Ever.
War is always inevitable. Only the timing varies.

Fatalism is the enemy of rational thought. We have the power to change the world and to be the masters of our destiny. We are not slaves to fate.
Nothing you said changes war's inevitable nature.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:30 PM
The enemy always gets a vote. Try to remember that.

Are you going to explain how Iran will stop the US navy from obliterating them or not?
It is not possible for the Navy to obliterate Iran. As far as stopping the US Navy goes try to remember, when they are in range, so are we.

Archer0915
02-01-2017, 06:33 PM
https://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/122bcab8-8c8e-4fd1-b586-e2f31fbcdd6b-original.jpeg
Have you read the entire work?

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:36 PM
I've asked @MisterVeritis (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1287) to mansplain this many times .. still no answer.
Thanks God HE is not in control of codes and military expenditures, but we're F'd now that Donald IS no matter.
I have played a minor role in supporting Army budgeting. And I did attend and graduate from the Combat Developer school as a field grade officer.

The problem I see with most of your "wave of the hand" comments is their failure to take the enemy into consideration. To be the undisputed masters of the world's oceans requires more capabilities than we currently have. And sometimes we are surprised.

For example, do the Iranians have an equivalent to the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile capability? Every nation is interested in anti-access, area denial technologies. So when Iranian targets are within range of our naval vessels and naval aviation our ships are within range of their countering systems.

What about Iranian counter-ship cruise missiles? They have hundreds of them.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:36 PM
Hes not one of Trump's cabinet members.
True. I am just one smart guy.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 06:37 PM
The enemy always gets a vote. Try to remember that.

It is not possible for the Navy to obliterate Iran. As far as stopping the US Navy goes try to remember, when they are in range, so are we.

So are WE?

What in the F does THAT mean Gomer?

You my friend are disturbing

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:38 PM
I'm not debating one of Trump's cabinet members, I'm debating Mister V. He was the one I was referring to when I said there are people who are intent on waging war.
Quite the opposite is true. I am intent on building the force structure necessary to win our wars. This is not a trick question. Do you understand the difference?

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:39 PM
people like him don't make those decisions. Ulitimately, he doesn't matter.

If people in positions of power in our country are serious, decisive and project strength, we are less likely to go to war.
:-)

This restates my argument. Begin with a war-wining strategy. Then build the force structure to win.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:41 PM
Have you read the entire work?
It is a short, frequently misunderstood book.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 06:44 PM
Flynn is a scary M-Fuker.

Still angry at Obama about being fired ..

Sad & .. DANGEROUS

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:44 PM
The enemy always gets a vote. Try to remember that.

It is not possible for the Navy to obliterate Iran. As far as stopping the US Navy goes try to remember, when they are in range, so are we.

So are WE?
What in the F does THAT mean Gomer?
You my friend are disturbing
I am sorry. I may have typed something not understandable to many untrained people. When our naval assets are within range of their targets our naval assets are equally within range of the enemy's countering systems.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 06:44 PM
The enemy always gets a vote. Try to remember that.

It is not possible for the Navy to obliterate Iran. As far as stopping the US Navy goes try to remember, when they are in range, so are we.

US submarines could launch trident missiles at Iran from 12,000 KM away.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:45 PM
Flynn is a scary M-Fuker.
If LTG(R) Flynn scares you there is a good chance he also scares the rest of this nation's enemies.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:46 PM
US submarines could launch trident missiles at Iran from 12,000 KM away.
To what end? Why not use the far less expensive B2s?

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 06:49 PM
Where've you been the last 8 years?

Happily from the start?

NOT in the wheelhouse that anointed Junior's War about Lies that has cost us 3-4 TRILLION and counting.

Tough concept huh?

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 06:49 PM
To what end?

The obliteration of Iran.


Why not use the far less expensive B2s?

I'm not sure, but they might be susceptible to Iran's anti-aircraft systems.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:53 PM
The obliteration of Iran.
Why would that be a war winning goal for the US?

Would you unload multiple boats? How many D5s do you believe it would take to "obliterate" Iran? Do we have that many?

I'm not sure, but they might be susceptible to Iran's anti-aircraft systems.
B2s? Maybe. Iran does have some countering systems.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 06:54 PM
If LTG(R) Flynn scares you there is a good chance he also scares the rest of this nation's enemies.

Out for the night MV .. but I've had about enuf of your International Stupidity and talk of winnable strategic nukes.

And as Dirty Dick once said? GO FUCK YOURSELF!! :evil:

https://blogscanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/images7.jpg

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 06:58 PM
Out for the night MV .. but I've had about enuf of your International Stupidity and talk of winnable strategic nukes.
And as Dirty Dick once said? GO FUCK YOURSELF!! :evil:

You are a very peculiar guy. You have my pity.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 07:02 PM
You are a very peculiar guy. You have my pity.

And YOU my friend?

BEYOND Pitiable

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 07:08 PM
Why would that be a war winning goal for the US?

You said the US navy could not obliterate Iran. I proved they could. I don't know what else there is to say.


Would you unload multiple boats?

Not sure what you're asking.


How many D5s do you believe it would take to "obliterate" Iran? Do we have that many?

One D5 can be fitted with twelve MIRVs, each with the destructive force of eight Hiroshimas. That means one D5 could destroy Iran's twelve largest cities, which contains roughly 28% of Iran's total population. An Ohio class submarine can be fitted with twenty-four D5s. And we have fourteen Ohio class submarines. You do the math.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 07:10 PM
True. I am just one smart guy.

So you say..... Hehehe.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 07:14 PM
You said that the US navy could not obliterate Iran. I proved that they could. I don't know what else there is to say.



Not sure what you're asking.



One D5 can be fitted with twelve MIRVs, each with the destructive force of eight Hiroshimas. That means one D5 could destroy Iran's twelve largest cities. An Ohio class submarine can be fitted with twenty-four D5s. And we have fourteen Ohio class submarines. You do the math.

I don't believe that we could obliterate Iran with only Naval forces. In order to obliterate an enemy, one is going to be required to employ ground forces to close with and destroy an enemy. You can't defeat an enemy if you are not willing to occupy their land.

However, I do believe that if we employed a coordinated combined arms effort in a serious manner, we could defeat Iran in very short order. I do not know if we have the will to do that any longer.

Bo-4
02-01-2017, 07:17 PM
YoYO @MisterVeritis (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1287) .. defend you against this ^^^ particular AssClown every day and THRICE on Sunday!

;-)

Private Pickle
02-01-2017, 07:20 PM
Happily from the start?

NOT in the wheelhouse that anointed Junior's War about Lies that has cost us 3-4 TRILLION and counting.

Tough concept huh?
And there you have it ladies and gents! Obama's killings weren't his fault because Bush! Ironically Trump's killings are Trumps.

Called it!!!

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 07:21 PM
:-)This restates my argument. Begin with a war-wining strategy. Then build the force structure to win.I think we should already have the structure in place to meet any imaginable contingency. That ensures our security and survival.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 07:23 PM
And there you have it ladies and gents! Obama's killings weren't his fault because Bush! Ironically Trump's killings are Trumps.

Called it!!!

Bo-4 is a partisan hack. He should be summarily dismissed.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 07:26 PM
I don't believe that we could obliterate Iran with only Naval forces. In order to obliterate an enemy, one is going to be required to employ ground forces to close with and destroy an enemy. However, I do believe that if we employed a coordinated combined arms effort in a serious manner, we could defeat Iran in very short order.
One trident missile could wipe out around 28% of Iran's population. One Ohio class submarine can carry up to twenty-four trident missiles. I would daresay that one US submarine could obliterate Iran in short order.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 07:33 PM
One trident missile could wipe out around 28% of Iran's population. One Ohio class submarine can carry up to twenty-four trident missiles. I would daresay that one US submarine could obliterate Iran in short order.


You can't defeat an enemy if you are not willing to employ ground troops and occupy their land. You eventually need soldiers on the ground closing with and killing the enemy. Period. This is is not an opinion. It's a fact.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 07:38 PM
You can't defeat an enemy if you are not willing to employ ground troops and occupy their land. You eventually need soldiers on the ground closing with and killing the enemy. Period. This is is not an opinion. It's a fact.
Five trident missiles could destroy Iran's sixty largest cities. Ten trident missiles could destroy their 120 largest cities. What do you suppose would be left to occupy after that?

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 07:45 PM
Five trident missiles could destroy Iran's sixty largest cities. Ten trident missiles could destroy their 120 largest cities. What do you suppose would be left to occupy after that?

You must not have any real world experience.

You can't expect someone with a closed mind to accept facts and reason.

What kind of idiot thinks nuclear war is the answer to every military problem?

I'll tell you what kind of idiot thinks that. The same ones who believe every dispute will result in a nuclear war.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 07:50 PM
You must not have any real world experience.

You would be wrong.


You can't expect someone with a closed mind to accept facts and reason.

Talking about yourself again?


What kind of idiot thinks nuclear war is the answer to every military problem?

Way to move the goalposts. You claimed the US navy could not obliterate Iran. I proved that they could easily do it. But you are simply too stubborn and prideful to admit the obvious, as usual.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 07:54 PM
I'll make this simple for you, Tahu. This would be the effect of one trident missile launch on Iran:

https://goo.gl/XxyrZY

Each red dot is a nuclear warhead detonating on a city. Now multiply that effect by twenty-four.

Please, tell me, what would be left to occupy except a nuclear wasteland?

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 07:59 PM
You would be wrong.



Talking about yourself again?

Way to move the goalposts. You claimed the US navy could not obliterate Iran. I proved that they can easily do it. But you are simply too stubborn and prideful to admit the obvious, as usual.

I Don't want you call you an idiot, but you are making it very difficult to resist the urge.

Seriously, only a raving moron would think that initiating a massive nuclear attack against a nation which can be quickly defeated though conventional means is a solution.

Once a closed minded dolt is stuck on stupid, there's nowhere to go from there. I'm glad serious people dismiss these dolts.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:00 PM
I Don't want you call you an idiot, but you are making it very difficult to resist the urge.

Seriously, only a raving moron would think that initiating a massive nuclear attack against a nation which can be quickly defeated though conventional means is a solution.

Once a closed minded dolt is stuck on stupid, there's nowhere to go from there. I'm glad serious people dismiss these dolts.
You claimed the US Navy could not obliterate Iran. I proved they could do it easily. But instead of admitting you were wrong, you're trying to move the goalposts like you always do.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 08:08 PM
You claimed the US Navy could not obliterate Iran. I proved they could do it easily. But instead of admitting you were wrong, you're trying to move the goalposts like you always do.


You're wrong. Your knowledge of war fighting would fit into a thimble if could be converted into mass.

your position is based on pure ignorance. It's beyond being stupid. Calling it stupid would be giving you more credit than you deserve.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:18 PM
You're wrong. Your knowledge of war fighting would fit into a thimble if could be converted into mass.

your position is based on pure ignorance. It's beyond being stupid. Calling it stupid would be giving you more credit than you deserve.

One Ohio class submarine can be fitted with twenty-four trident missiles. Each trident missile can be fitted with twelve MIRVs. That's 288 nuclear warheads, each with a yield of 475 kilotons. By comparison, the yield of Fatman (which was dropped on Hiroshima) was only twenty-one kilotons.

Such a strike would result in the utter obliteration of Iranian civilization. The only thing left would be an irradiated pile of rubble.

So not only are you wrong, you are fantastically, astonishingly, demonstrably wrong.

Bethere
02-01-2017, 08:20 PM
I'll make this simple for you, Tahu. This would be the effect of one trident missile launch on Iran:

https://goo.gl/XxyrZY

Each red dot is a nuclear warhead detonating on a city. Now multiply that effect by twenty-four.

Please, tell me, what would be left to occupy except a nuclear wasteland?

We are just as vulnerable as they.
17100

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:21 PM
We are just as vulnerable as they.
17100
Your point being?

Bethere
02-01-2017, 08:22 PM
Your point being?

We don't have the ability to defend against either an ICBM or a cruise missile. The only such objects we've ever shot down? We knew their 4 dimensional coordinates in advance.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:23 PM
We don't have the ability to defend against either an ICBM or a cruise missile.
Where did I claim otherwise?

Bethere
02-01-2017, 08:27 PM
Where did I claim otherwise?

Where did I claim that you did?

Chris
02-01-2017, 08:29 PM
You're wrong. Your knowledge of war fighting would fit into a thimble if could be converted into mass.

your position is based on pure ignorance. It's beyond being stupid. Calling it stupid would be giving you more credit than you deserve.


Insulting.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:33 PM
Where did I claim that you did?
So you admit I did not take issue with the US's vulnerability to nuclear strikes, yet you chose to point it out to me anyway. Care to explain why?

Bethere
02-01-2017, 08:35 PM
So you admit I did not take issue with the US's vulnerability to nuclear strikes, yet you chose to point it out to me anyway. Care to explain why?

It should be self evident.


There's no chance we could convert Iran into a sheet of glass without paying a price.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:37 PM
It should be self evident.
I was already well aware of the fact that the US is vulnerable to a nuclear strike. I never said anything to indicate otherwise. So why you felt the need to point that out in the context of this thread is a mystery.

Bethere
02-01-2017, 08:38 PM
i was already well aware of the fact that the us is vulnerable to a nuclear strike. I never said anything to indicate otherwise. So why you felt the need to point that out in the context of this thread is a mystery.

Glossary: MAD.

Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction(MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction&ved=0ahUKEwjq_KnCpPDRAhUK5iYKHcqxDuUQFggmMAI&usg=AFQjCNGyZFloBeOj6pbis2MAL1MVu8Pnfw

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:39 PM
mad.
What about it?

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:42 PM
I'll make this very simple for you Bethere.

Tahu claimed that the US Navy could not obliterate Iran on its own. I claimed they could. I proved him wrong. Whether such a policy would be prudent or wise was never at issue.

Does that help to clear things up? Or do you need me to break out the crayons?

Bethere
02-01-2017, 08:43 PM
What about it?

Speculation about how easy it would be to nuke iran is dangerous and irresponsible without acknowledging that we are just as vulnerable as they.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:46 PM
Speculation about how easy it would be to nuke iran is dangerous and irresponsible without acknowledging that we are just as vulnerable as they.
Again, the only thing that was at issue was the feasibility of such a policy, not its wisdom. Obviously, a preemptive and catastrophic nuclear strike against Iran would be morally and practically insane. I am merely arguing that we possess the capability, not that we should actually use it.

Bethere
02-01-2017, 08:47 PM
I'll make this very simple for you Bethere.

Tahu claimed that the US Navy could not obliterate Iran on its own. I claimed they could. I proved him wrong. Whether such a policy would be prudent or wise was never at issue.

Does that help to clear things up? Or do you need me to break out the crayons?

The navy can't obliterate iran as you say without hundreds of millions of Americans dying.

So no, you are in error. Such an attack is not feasible.

Stick your crayons in your ear.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:49 PM
The navy can't obliterate iran as you say without hundreds of millions of Americans dying.

As I've already explained to you, the only thing that was at issue was the feasibility of such, not its wisdom. In any case, Iran doesn't possess any nuclear weapons, so I'm not sure how MAD would apply to such a scenario.


So no, you are in error.

Stick your crayons in your ear.

I would only be in error if the US Navy did not possess such a capability, yet I have proven that they do. Whether or not they should utilize those capabilities is another matter entirely.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 08:53 PM
One Ohio class submarine can be fitted with twenty-four trident missiles. Each trident missile can be fitted with twelve MIRVs. That's 288 nuclear warheads, each with a yield of 475 kilotons. By comparison, the yield of Fatman (which was dropped on Hiroshima) was only twenty-one kilotons.

Such a strike would result in the utter obliteration of Iranian civilization. The only thing left would be an irradiated pile of rubble.

So not only are you wrong, you are fantastically, astonishingly, demonstrably wrong.

I'm not telling you that you can't hang on to your idea, no matter how misguided it may be.

Bethere
02-01-2017, 08:53 PM
As I've already explained to you, the only thing that was at issue was the feasibility of such, not its wisdom. In any case, Iran doesn't possess any nuclear weapons, so I'm not sure how MAD would apply to such a scenario.



I would only be in error if the US Navy did not possess such a capability, yet I have proven that they do. Whether or not they should utilize those capabilities is another matter entirely.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.638028&ved=0ahUKEwifoNj-pvDRAhVD4iYKHdfPCuAQFggmMAE&usg=AFQjCNE6ffYOVQa2N3-DRJdiNuTI25c-ew

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:55 PM
I'm not telling you that you can't hang on to your idea, no matter how misguided it may be.
My idea is supported by evidence, logic, and common sense, as I've amply demonstrated.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 08:57 PM
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.638028&ved=0ahUKEwifoNj-pvDRAhVD4iYKHdfPCuAQFggmMAE&usg=AFQjCNE6ffYOVQa2N3-DRJdiNuTI25c-ew
That's just a cooperation agreement, not a mutual defense pact. Try harder.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 08:57 PM
The navy can't obliterate iran as you say without hundreds of millions of Americans dying...


I agree that our Navy alone could not obliterate Iran.

Just for the sake of discussion, tell me how hundreds of millions of Americans would die if we followed @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870)'s ill advised method? Who knows, I might agree with you.

Bethere
02-01-2017, 08:59 PM
I agree that our Navy alone could not obliterate Iran.

Just for the sake of discussion, tell me how hundreds of millions of Americans would die if we followed @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870)'s ill advised method? Who knows, I might agree with you.

It's self evident.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 09:00 PM
I agree that our Navy alone could not obliterate Iran.

288 nuclear warheads would easily obliterate Iran. There would be nothing left but a glowing pile of rubble.


Just for the sake of discussion, tell me how hundreds of millions of Americans would die if we followed @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870)'s ill advised method? Who knows, I might agree with you.

Now you're just lying, because I never said that such a policy was advisable, only that it was feasible.

As usual, you cannot debate honestly.

Bethere
02-01-2017, 09:01 PM
288 nuclear warheads would easily obliterate Iran. There would be nothing left but a glowing pile of rubble.



Now you're just lying, because I never said that such a policy was advisable, only that it was feasible.

As usual, you cannot debate honestly.
Lol.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 09:01 PM
It's self evident.
In other words, you have nothing. You and Tahu have a lot in common.

Bethere
02-01-2017, 09:02 PM
In other words, you have nothing. You and Tahu have a lot in common.

Tahu has a name. Tahu isn't it.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 09:02 PM
Lol.

You've reached the limit of your scant abilities. It didn't take very long.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 09:04 PM
Tahu has a name. Tahu isn't it.
It's shorthand and is standard practice on this forum. You're still relatively new here, so you can be forgiven.

Bethere
02-01-2017, 09:06 PM
It's shorthand and is standard practice on this forum. You're still relatively new here, so you can be forgiven.

No, actually this particular poster's name has been defended by moderators as recently as yesterday.

You are lucky no one has seen your efforts.


signed,
The new guy.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 09:08 PM
No, actually this particular poster's name has been defended by moderators as recently as yesterday.

You are lucky no one has seen your efforts.

Somehow I doubt that you are describing the situation honestly, because posters have been using abbreviated versions of each other's handles for years without an issue. It only becomes a problem when someone alters another poster's handle in an insulting way and that is not what I did.

Ethereal
02-01-2017, 09:11 PM
So after losing the debate miserably, Bethere has resorted to nitpicking my abbreviation of another poster's handle. What's next? Second guessing my formatting of posts?

Mister D
02-01-2017, 09:20 PM
lol I love when bethere leads with his chin like that. :laugh:

Peter1469
02-01-2017, 09:51 PM
I know we have explored techniques in the past. I had not heard the expression Rods of God before.

Bush the Younger said something strange in a press conference once in answer to a question about his plans to reduce our nuclear arsenal. He said we have better stuff now.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 09:54 PM
My idea is supported by evidence, logic, and common sense, as I've amply demonstrated.
Show me the evidence that a massive nuclear attack solves the problem.

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 09:55 PM
I agree that our Navy alone could not obliterate Iran.

Just for the sake of discussion, tell me how hundreds of millions of Americans would die if we followed @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870)'s ill advised method? Who knows, I might agree with you.


It's self evident.

Brilliant!

Tahuyaman
02-01-2017, 09:58 PM
The idea that you are going to defeat an enemy by only launching a nuclear attack is insane.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 10:50 PM
You said the US navy could not obliterate Iran. I proved they could. I don't know what else there is to say.
Of course you didn't. You did not even come close.

Would you unload multiple boats?

Not sure what you're asking.
Would you use every weapon aboard the ballistic missile submarine?

One D5 can be fitted with twelve MIRVs, each with the destructive force of eight Hiroshimas. That means one D5 could destroy Iran's twelve largest cities, which contains roughly 28% of Iran's total population. An Ohio class submarine can be fitted with twenty-four D5s. And we have fourteen Ohio class submarines. You do the math.
Do you have any idea how many reentry bodies the typical D5 actually carries? It is not 12. The US has about 1400 warheads total spread among less than 700 vehicles. Plan on a D5 having from one warhead to maybe three. Let's pretend we really have 14 subs fully loaded with 24 D5s. How many would you think would be within range if Iranian targets on any given day? None? Possibly one?

Why would the US use a premier, survivable weapon like the D5 against Iran? This is simply dumb. The D5 is a prompt hard target kill system. Scratch the D5 from your thinking with the possible exception when a boat is within range, there is an urgent need to fire and absolutely no ICBMs are available.

Back to the real world. The US Navy does not have the means to obliterate Iran. Not even close.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 11:05 PM
I don't believe that we could obliterate Iran with only Naval forces. In order to obliterate an enemy, one is going to be required to employ ground forces to close with and destroy an enemy. You can't defeat an enemy if you are not willing to occupy their land.

However, I do believe that if we employed a coordinated combined arms effort in a serious manner, we could defeat Iran in very short order. I do not know if we have the will to do that any longer.
Everyone who has made this sort of prediction has led us into unwinnable wars. Do you believe the US has the forces sufficient to defeat the American Southeast in short order? Iran is a very large country.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 11:06 PM
YoYO @MisterVeritis (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1287) .. defend you against this ^^^ particular AssClown every day and THRICE on Sunday!

;-)
I have no objections to your participation in our little exercise. But if you must participate can you learn something first? And try not to be so childish. It detracts.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 11:08 PM
I think we should already have the structure in place to meet any imaginable contingency. That ensures our security and survival.
But, we don't. We could. But we do not.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 11:12 PM
One trident missile could wipe out around 28% of Iran's population. One Ohio class submarine can carry up to twenty-four trident missiles. I would daresay that one US submarine could obliterate Iran in short order.
This is an interesting fiction. Never mind it would be a tremendous waste of a precious asset. Why would you target Iran's population? Their population is in no position to prosecute a war. If your goal is mass murder I suppose you could burn their larger towns and cities. But to what end?

What do you think you mean when you say obliterate?

obliterate


[uh-blit-uh-reyt]
Spell Syllables


Synonyms (http://thepoliticalforums.com/source-synonyms)
Examples (http://thepoliticalforums.com/source-example-sentences)
Word Origin (http://thepoliticalforums.com/source-word-origin)

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/obliterate)
verb (used with object), obliterated, obliterating.1.to remove or destroy all traces of; do away with; destroy completely.

2.to blot out or render undecipherable (writing, marks, etc.); efface.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 11:18 PM
One trident missile could wipe out around 28% of Iran's population. One Ohio class submarine can carry up to twenty-four trident missiles. I would daresay that one US submarine could obliterate Iran in short order.
I suppose if you asked a quarter of Iranians to all stand in one place this might be true.

I go back to the better question. If your goal is just to murder civilians why would you use a very expensive, very capable weapon system to do it? And why would the US have the murder of civilians as a war goal to begin with?

If you were going to waste them why not just use ICBMs?

Bethere
02-01-2017, 11:40 PM
Brilliant!

It's not brilliant, rather it is obvious.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 11:46 PM
Five trident missiles could destroy Iran's sixty largest cities. Ten trident missiles could destroy their 120 largest cities. What do you suppose would be left to occupy after that?
This is untrue. Five D5s will have between 5 and 15 reentry bodies total. You are drinking the kool-aid. Come back to earth.

By treaty, the D5 can carry up to 8 reentry bodies. By treaty, we are allowed about 300 slbm (missiles) total. If all of the allowed warheads were evenly distributed across all of the missiles the average missile may carry four warheads.


Let's assume every warhead is the largest we have for the D5 at 475KT. A single airburst over Tehran could, on a perfect day, severely damage around 80 square miles. Imagine a circle with a radius of about 6 miles. Most cities cover far more area. The good news is that you could murder a couple of million noncombatants that way. On a perfect day.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 11:48 PM
You would be wrong.
Talking about yourself again?
Way to move the goalposts. You claimed the US navy could not obliterate Iran. I proved that they could easily do it. But you are simply too stubborn and prideful to admit the obvious, as usual.
I know you believe you have made a compelling case. It is not.

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 11:53 PM
I'll make this simple for you, Tahu. This would be the effect of one trident missile launch on Iran:
Each red dot is a nuclear warhead detonating on a city. Now multiply that effect by twenty-four.
Please, tell me, what would be left to occupy except a nuclear wasteland?
Your analysis is flawed. Plan on from one to three warheads per D5. We are allowed about 300 missiles by treaty. The D5 was designed to destroy hard targets. Think command and control bunkers, large airfields with revetments, shallow underground facilities (including ballistic missile silos) and the like. Assuming you did use them against cities plan on about 80 square miles of damaged area per burst. You would need four or five or six to destroy Tehran, for example.

So if you plan to waste such a precious resource why wouldn't you use ICBMs?

MisterVeritis
02-01-2017, 11:58 PM
One Ohio class submarine can be fitted with twenty-four trident missiles. Each trident missile can be fitted with twelve MIRVs. That's 288 nuclear warheads, each with a yield of 475 kilotons. By comparison, the yield of Fatman (which was dropped on Hiroshima) was only twenty-one kilotons.
By treaty, we have less than 300 missiles with about 1400 warheads.

Such a strike would result in the utter obliteration of Iranian civilization. The only thing left would be an irradiated pile of rubble.
This has never been true, even when we had ten thousand weapons.

So not only are you wrong, you are fantastically, astonishingly, demonstrably wrong.
This was a fun exercise. You have made the point that most people know very little about nuclear weapons and platforms. And that is okay.

In the real world the navy does not have the ability to obliterate (once you define what you mean) Iran.

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 12:01 AM
I agree that our Navy alone could not obliterate Iran.

Just for the sake of discussion, tell me how hundreds of millions of Americans would die if we followed @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870)'s ill advised method? Who knows, I might agree with you.
Certainly no more than three.

But that is not the point.

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 12:02 AM
288 nuclear warheads would easily obliterate Iran. There would be nothing left but a glowing pile of rubble.
This is incorrect.

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 12:04 AM
Bush the Younger said something strange in a press conference once in answer to a question about his plans to reduce our nuclear arsenal. He said we have better stuff now.
We worked very hard on accuracy so we could reduce the yield of each weapon. I believe we have also reached the point where conventional weapons are accurate enough we can use them instead of nuclear warhead for most targets.

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 12:06 AM
Show me the evidence that a massive nuclear attack solves the problem.
That was not the exercise. Nor was fighting a nuclear war. It is clear the Navy lacks the conventional ability to destroy Iran. So Ethereal went nuclear. He is still wrong. It does not matter.

Bethere
02-02-2017, 12:06 AM
This is incorrect.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads&ved=0ahUKEwiY-pO60vDRAhUI1CYKHXLzDIUQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNE_fpbJqQRwHiP4sgtriyq5V9fa4w

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 12:07 AM
The idea that you are going to defeat an enemy by only launching a nuclear attack is insane.
We have difficulty with our terms. What do we mean by defeat? What do we mean by obliterate?

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 12:13 AM
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads&ved=0ahUKEwiY-pO60vDRAhUI1CYKHXLzDIUQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNE_fpbJqQRwHiP4sgtriyq5V9fa4w
Was there some point you are pretending to make?

KathyS
02-02-2017, 12:14 AM
I think Iran is seeing how far they can push this administration. After all, they observed Obama's spineless leadership, was gifted a nuclear agreement and received $400 million in taxpayer funds, right? IMO, when Iran challenges us again, go in to win. ROE be damned (my cousin is dead b/c of them), and get out. The rest of the world will think twice before testing the U.S..
Disclaimer: I am not military and have never played a soldier on T.V., but I love this country and would die for it if asked.

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 12:18 AM
I think Iran is seeing how far they can push this administration. After all, they observed Obama's spineless leadership, was gifted a nuclear agreement and received $400 million in taxpayer funds, right? IMO, when Iran challenges us again, go in to win. ROE be damned (my cousin is dead b/c of them), and get out. The rest of the world will think twice before testing the U.S..
Disclaimer: I am not military and have never played a soldier on T.V., but I love this country and would die for it if asked.
We prefer not to die for our country. We would rather help the patriot on the other side die for his country.

Bethere
02-02-2017, 12:19 AM
Was there some point you are pretending to make?

Gosh, I was just agreeing with you. It's easier to kill people than it is to blow stuff up.

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 12:22 AM
Gosh, I was just agreeing with you. It's easier to kill people than it is to blow stuff up.
I can never tell. I am very familiar with the Pacific tests. A link to the series was not helpful.

Thanks.

Bethere
02-02-2017, 12:44 AM
17104
In operation crossroads most of these ships took a direct hit from a 23 kiloton warhead (600 feet above) and survived.

Then they survived a second 23 kiloton warhead (90 feet below).

Ibid.

Adelaide
02-02-2017, 07:23 AM
General warning for all posters: Do not personally insult other members.

Ethereal
02-02-2017, 07:28 AM
This is untrue. Five D5s will have between 5 and 15 reentry bodies total. You are drinking the kool-aid. Come back to earth.

By treaty, the D5 can carry up to 8 reentry bodies. By treaty, we are allowed about 300 slbm (missiles) total. If all of the allowed warheads were evenly distributed across all of the missiles the average missile may carry four warheads.


Let's assume every warhead is the largest we have for the D5 at 475KT. A single airburst over Tehran could, on a perfect day, severely damage around 80 square miles. Imagine a circle with a radius of about 6 miles. Most cities cover far more area. The good news is that you could murder a couple of million noncombatants that way. On a perfect day.
I'm aware of the treaties. They do not change the physical capabilities of trident missiles or the effect they would have in the event they were launched. You are desperately grasping at straws in attempt to argue that nuclear weaponry is not sufficient to obliterate a country. I will leave you to your embarrassing folly.

Ethereal
02-02-2017, 07:29 AM
This is incorrect.
Laughable.

Peter1469
02-02-2017, 07:34 AM
5 ships sunk from the airburst and at least one in the underwater detonation. The USS Arkansas yard darted into the floor of the lagoon.
17104
In operation crossroads most of these ships took a direct hit from a 23 kiloton warhead (600 feet above) and survived.

Then they survived a second 23 kiloton warhead (90 feet below).

Ibid.

Crepitus
02-02-2017, 07:47 AM
It is a very big country. Experts told us Iraq would be easy.

Taking Iraq was easy.

Trying to run it? Not so much.

MMC
02-02-2017, 07:51 AM
I agree. I heard less than a minute. But it looks like a reasonable approach. We need to substantially rebuild the military before we fight Iran.

What Red line was drawn? Most others report Flynn issued only a warning.....the usual.

Crepitus
02-02-2017, 07:52 AM
The deep underground facilities are difficult targets. I believe we will need wholly new deep penetrating munitions to destroy them. They might be nuclear. They might be hypersonic. Imagine a one ton very dense long rod slamming into the ground at 25,000 miles per hour. It may cause discomfort for those in the facility.

See project thor (http://https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment)

Crepitus
02-02-2017, 07:54 AM
You're going to impeach him, right. :shocked:

Well, not me personally but somebody will.

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 08:58 AM
I'm aware of the treaties. They do not change the physical capabilities of trident missiles or the effect they would have in the event they were launched. You are desperately grasping at straws in attempt to argue that nuclear weaponry is not sufficient to obliterate a country. I will leave you to your embarrassing folly.
Iran is a very big country. It is not flat. It is mountainous and rolling. The numbers I gave you are real numbers. Even using nuclear weapons solely from naval ships, including cruise missiles and bombs we could not obliterate Iran.

How much experience do you have with nuclear weapons effects and targeting? I have nearly five years with deep expertise. I did not comment on anything I could not easily find on the Internet. I realize you believe your day's worth of investigation trumps my actual experience and knowledge. That is fine with me.

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 09:01 AM
Taking Iraq was easy.
Trying to run it? Not so much.
This goes to defining defeat and obliterate. Given the political situation in Iraq today did we win? If not why did we fight?

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 09:04 AM
5 ships sunk from the airburst and at least one in the underwater detonation. The USS Arkansas yard darted into the floor of the lagoon.
The ships were very close together. We know from the test results it takes a hit or a near miss with a small nuclear weapon to badly damage or sink a ship.

Tahuyaman
02-02-2017, 09:50 AM
Everyone who has made this sort of prediction has led us into unwinnable wars. Do you believe the US has the forces sufficient to defeat the American Southeast in short order? Iran is a very large country.


I do believe that we could defeat Iran militarily in short order, but I don't know that we have the will to do that.

Tahuyaman
02-02-2017, 09:52 AM
But, we don't. We could. But we do not.


We did at one time, but we have allowed ourselves to decline.

Tahuyaman
02-02-2017, 09:53 AM
It's not brilliant, rather it is obvious.


Again, just for the sake of furthering the discussion, explain how.

Mini Me
02-02-2017, 10:52 AM
I agree. I heard less than a minute. But it looks like a reasonable approach. We need to substantially rebuild the military before we fight Iran.

NO! Our military is already powerfull!
This is what makes this so terrifyingly real--when poll numbers drop, launch a war! It's what





Republicans always do because they know it's the ONLY thing that can get the country to back them and have their numbers rise. G.W. Bush and President Cheney knew this, too. In the end, they left office with a 24% approval rating, but that doesn't matter to them. They live in the here and now.

Congressional Republicans love war for profit for their benefactors (and themselves), but it's a twofold strategy: they get to starve our social programs "in the name of war" and tell people that they need to the money to "protect the United States" and any 'naysayers are the enemy'.

The American people have seen this play out over and over again, yet they continue to have faith that the Republican Party of today is the same as their grandfather's, in a Party where Republicans actually loathed to launch war if we're not directly attacked. They don't know--or don't want to know--that their grandfather's Republican Party is long dead and gone. In its place have come autocrats hellbent on taking from the people and to give to themselves in every which way possible, even at the expense of destroying our country and our world.

Until and unless these pathetically willful ignorant R-voters can see today's Republicans Party for what they really are, we'll continue to see types like Duhbya and Trumputin installed in the White House, and we'll continue to see Congress dominated by RW, pro-corporate ideologues who will harm this country again and again in order to enrich themselves.

Mini Me
02-02-2017, 10:59 AM
All of your points are good ones. When the war comes, as I know it must, we will be ready to fight it. Defense includes taking our wars to enemy countries. It is far better to fight them there than it is to fight them here.

Things take time. Candidate Trump promised a strong military. I believed him then. I believe him now. Recreating a strong military will take years. We can begin there.

We have a choice to make! GUNS or BUTTER! I'll chose butter!

Mini Me
02-02-2017, 11:04 AM
I know we have explored techniques in the past. I had not heard the expression Rods of God before.
Rods of God? Does God have a hardon for Iran?

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 11:30 AM
Rods of God? Does God have a hardon for Iran?

Regrets. I cannot get past all the bold text.