Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I did agree with tom on "why wait for them to become such a threat ?" That can mean anything

---

Anything? Not waiting for them to become such a threat sounds a lot like preemption to me. What else could it mean in the context of his statement that he's "suggesting preemption"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

As to the rest of it I've been entirely consistent, I made it clear from the beginning that to me it it looks as if preemption is off the table

---

Yes, that's what you said first. Then you said,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

with the regime that's in charge now preemption is the best option.

---

I still can't tell whether you favor preemption or not, or what you even mean by the term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I'd rather have a guy in the White House that's willing to do what it takes

---

So we come back to my original question: What does it take, exactly? Are you willing to "obliterate" large numbers of civilians in an attempt to stop their current enrichment activities?

Sorry it took so long to reply. I was checking with some people I know about the General Petraeu promotion to CentCom. And the promotion of Gen. Odierno to command Iraq operations.

My take on this move is that Steve is right and a direct strike against Iran is off the table but General P. will hammer hard on Iranian assets in Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears that the Pentagon has concluded that unless Iran does something remarkably dumb in the next year that there is no way the countries political leadership would be convinced to take on Iranian nuclear threat militarily. Actually I had come to that conclusion after the White House released the phony NIE in December that clearly understated Iran's progress towards becoming a nuclear power.

Given the fact that preemption is off the table and we have no guarantee that regime change is going to happen any time soon then the best other action remaining is containment of Iran . By keeping up the pressure on them with our presence in Iraq ;Afghanistan ;the Persian Gulf;the Indian Ocean ,they have to calculate the expenditure devoted to their own defense forces . That leaves them less resources to export their terrorist revolution and to devote to the expensive pursuit of nuclear weapons. Then perhaps we can try to find a way to get the world wide collapse of the price of oil so they would have difficulty funding all these projects.

Of course if the Democrats get in you will see a massive retreat of US assets .

So what are we left with then?. short of regime change... a deterence based on the sane decisions of homacidal ,messianic ,holocaust threatening ,terror exporting ,hostage taking leaders of Persia . Sure makes me sleep well at night .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Anything? Not waiting for them to become such a threat sounds a lot like preemption to me. What else could it mean in the context of his statement that he's "suggesting preemption"?

---

OG, it's simple, I don't like my words being applied to something entirely different. Anyway, let's try again.

Do I support preemption before they "become too big a threat?" Absolutely. But, would I prefer this be resolved peacefully if at all possible? Again, absolutely. So how are we going to do that before they "become too big a threat?" I'm open to options, but not unconditional negotiations as Obama previously indicated. It would be a silly, stupid mistake to trust Ahmadinejad in any way and so the only way to negotiate with this regime is from a position of unflinching power. You want to be a part of the community of nations? Give up your nuclear goals, stop funding terrorists, quit interfering in Iraq, stop threatening to destroy Israel, liberate your own people, etc. - no ifs, ands or buts about it because we have both the will and the capability to destroy you and it's parked just beyond your shores with dedicated men, hands on trigger.

Quote:

---

Yes, that's what you said first. Then you said,

---

Since it appears preemption is off the table we go with the best of the rest. I believe this is the fourth time I've said this. One's preference isn't always included in available options - what's not to understand? If I go out to eat and want the prime rib but they're out, I reckon I have to choose something else don't I?

Quote:

---

I still can't tell whether you favor preemption or not, or what you even mean by the term.

---

LOL, two posts ago I said "since you keep pressing I'll make it very clear, with the regime that's in charge now preemption is the best option." It ain't my fault if you tried to apply "regime" to Bush on a post about Iran. I also said I do agree with tom in the last post, and in case you missed it again I just said "Do I support preemption before they "become too big a threat?" Absolutely."

Quote:

---

So we come back to my original question: What does it take, exactly? Are you willing to "obliterate" large numbers of civilians in an attempt to stop their current enrichment activities?

---

Have you ever seen the Natanz site? Take a look, I think it can be destroyed without much concern over obliterating large numbers of civilians.

Update :

Quote:

---

I would just remind everyone that Israel whacked the Iraqi development plan and probably recently did the same to Syria (the facts are being covered up about the Sept attack last year ),and everyone secretly rejoiced that they took the initiative.

---

It is now confirmed that the Syrians and the NORKS were collaborating on building a plutonium reactor in Syria .


CIA to describe North Korea-Syria nuclear ties - Los Angeles Times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

So what are we left with then?. short of regime change... a deterence based on the sane decisions of homacidal ,messianic ,holocaust threatening ,terror exporting ,hostage taking leaders of Persia . Sure makes me sleep well at night .

---

That homicidal, messianic, holocaust threatening, terror exporting, glowing at the UN guy is not the guy the left wants us to see. In fact, did you read or hear anything about the last two paragraphs of his supernatural speech at the UN in the media?

Quote:

---

I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.

---

I don't think he means this is optional...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

My take on this move is that Steve is right and a direct strike against Iran is off the table but General P. will hammer hard on Iranian assets in Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears that the Pentagon has concluded that unless Iran does something remarkably dumb in the next year that there is no way the countries political leadership would be convinced to take on Iranian nuclear threat militarily.

---

I hope you're right about this, but I wasn't so much interested in your assessment of what the Pentagon and the White House have concluded, I was trying to understand what YOU meant by "suggesting preemption". If you really think a bombing campaign and/or a land invasion is the best course of action, I would think you'd be willing to advocate for it regardless of what those lily-livered wusses in the Government want to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the best other action remaining is containment of Iran .
....

So what are we left with then ? .......short of regime change .... a deterence based on the sane decisions of homacidal ,messianic ,holocaust threatening ,terror exporting ,hostage taking leaders of Persia . Sure makes me sleep well at night .

---

I agree that containment and deterrence (and I would add diplomacy) are less than perfect options, but I'll sure sleep better than I would if we started yet another war at this point.

Yup ;"peace for our time" .

Quote:

---

I was trying to understand what YOU meant by "suggesting preemption".

---

I think I was very clear that I thought preventing them from getting nukes by any means necessary is the preferred option. But that isn't going to happen short of some stupid move by the nut job running their country. ( I cannot vouch for what Israel would do... to them this is more of an existential threat)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I think I was very clear that I thought preventing them from getting nukes by any means necessary is the preferred option. But that aint going to happen short of some stupid move by the nut job running their country. ( I cannot vouch for what Israel would do .....to them this is more of an existential threat)

---

Yep, I agree. Is that clear enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Since it appears preemption is off the table

---

So who took it off the table? Not you or Tom, as far as I can tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

One's preference isn't always included in available options - what's not to understand?

---

What I don't understand is why you guys are backpedaling on advocating your first choice just because the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House don't have the balls to act on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I said "since you keep pressing I'll make it very clear, with the regime that's in charge now preemption is the best option."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I also said I do agree with tom in the last post, and in case you missed it again I just said "Do I support preemption before they "become too big a threat?" Absolutely."

---

And yet, you STILL complain that I misapplied your words by saying that you agreed with Tom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Have you ever seen the Natanz site? I think it can be destroyed without much concern over obliterating large numbers of civilians.

---

Is that all you mean by "preemption"? Sure, Natanz could be bombed without killing a lot of civilians, but can you find ANYBODY who believes that doing so would effectively destroy their nuclear capability? Bombing Natanz is one thing. EFFECTIVE preemption is something else altogether.

Based on statements like this:

Quote:

---

we have both the will and the capability to destroy you and it's parked just beyond your shores with dedicated men, hands on trigger.

---

I though maybe you had something more in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I think I was very clear that I thought preventing them from getting nukes by any means necessary is the preferred option.

---

And I was trying to determine what means you think would be necessary. Steve says bomb Natanz. Do you think that would do the trick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

So who took it off the table? Not you or Tom, as far as I can tell.

---

OG, work with me here, I never said it was off the table but that it "appears" to be off the table, which suggests that's an opinion.

Quote:

---

What I don't understand is why you guys are backpedaling on advocating your first choice just because the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House don't have the balls to act on it.

---

What I don't understand is what you don't understand, I have been entirely consistent. There is no "backpedaling" in saying "since I can't have what I want I'll take that instead."

Quote:

---

And yet, you STILL complain that I misapplied your words by saying that you agreed with Tom.

---

Sigh... agreeing with tom is beside the point. If I'm speaking of something entirely different from what my words are tied to I'd like the courtesy of acknowledging what I actually WAS talking about. I would offer that same courtesy in return. Can we move on now?

Quote:

---

Is that all you mean by "preemption"? Sure, Natanz could be bombed without killing a lot of civilians, but can you find ANYBODY who believes that doing so would effectively destroy their nuclear capability? Bombing Natanz is one thing. EFFECTIVE preemption is something else altogether.

---

Whatever it takes is my definition. You are the one that keeps talking about obliterating large numbers of civilians and offering a satellite image of Natanz helps put that in perspective. No it isn't the only facility of concern, but if you destroy their capability that sounds pretty EFFECTIVE to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

There is no "backpedaling" in saying "since I can't have what I want I'll take that instead."

---

I'm still waiting for an answer to my very first question. What DO you want, exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

preventing them from getting nukes by any means necessary is the preferred option.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Whatever it takes is my definition.

---

"Whatever it takes" and "any means necessary" may be kick-a$s slogans, but they're not meaningful options, military or otherwise.

Obviously I am in no position to outline the minutia but I did lay out a series of policy options .

Quote:

---

First I have advocated the support of anti-regime forces in Iran for many years now . I would step up efforts in that area immediately . The populace can't stand the ruling Mullahs because they hijacked the revolution .Their economy is in shambles under the leadership of the Mahdi-Hatter Ahamadjihad.

I have supported efforts to isolate the country from doing business with the world until they open up their all program to real inspection(not the phony ones the IAEA does under Mohamed ElBaradei) .I would ramp up the pressure if necessary by having a blockade to prevent refined petroleum and nuclear parts from entering the country .

I would if necessary resort to surgical strikes against their known and suspected nuclear facilities although I doubt we can completely destroy their program that way .

I am in favor right now in attacking known training camps of Iranian supported Iraqi "insurgents " ;and their IED making plants . If more pressure is needed I would disable their shore defenses ;their missile bases and Qod and IRG camps ,disabling their navy.

---

The carrier strike forces to use are out of my control . I'm not the Presidential candidate but I believe I have pesented more detail than Hillary Rotten at this point.

Hello tom:

I hate the leadership of Iran - but the people aren't with 'em. Iran is NOT Nazi Germany or an Empire like Japan.

The people are pro-west. Their country has been hijacked. She's not going to nuke them. She's a liar, and will say anything to steal the election.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

And I was trying to determine what means you think would be necessary. Steve says bomb Natanz. Do you think that would do the trick?

---

All right OG, there you go again. It's simple, stop misquoting me. I did not say bomb Natanz. This is what I did say:

Quote:

---

Have you ever seen the Natanz site? Take a look, I think it can be destroyed without much concern over obliterating large numbers of civilians.

---

Quote:

---

You are the one that keeps talking about obliterating large numbers of civilians and offering a satellite image of Natanz helps put that in perspective.

---

That is my point. The Natanz site is in a remote enough location to avoid massive civilian casualties, as are many other sites such as the site north of Ardekan, the Arak site and the Esfahan site. Would it be easy? No, and a sad truth of war is civilians get killed, but the U.S. does all it reasonably can to avoid civilian casualties and you know that. A worse prospect is a nuclear armed Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I'm still waiting for an answer to my very first question. What DO you want, exactly?

---

I want to prevent Iran from getting nukes 'by any means necessary'... by 'doing whatever it takes.' :D

Quote:

---

"Whatever it takes" and "any means necessary" may be kick-a$s slogans, but they're not meaningful options, military or otherwise.

---

Eliminating the threat of a nuclear armed Mahdi Hatter not meaningful? LOL, that's funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I want to prevent Iran from getting nukes 'by any means necessary' ... by 'doing whatever it takes.' :D



Eliminating the threat of a nuclear armed Mahdi Hatter not meaningful? LOL, that's funny.

---

Uh, can't we refer this to the United Nations? Can't the Security Council approve some kind of sanctions? And that way we can kind of 'shame' them? And 'world opinion' will point out the futility of their ways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I want to prevent Iran from getting nukes 'by any means necessary' ... by 'doing whatever it takes.'

---

I love it when you talk tough. It makes you seem so manly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Eliminating the threat of a nuclear armed Mahdi Hatter not meaningful? LOL, that's funny.

---

To actually achieve that goal would be meaningful. But your slogans provide no meaningful options for doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I love it when you talk tough. It makes you seem so manly.
To actually achieve that goal would be meaningful. But your slogans provide no meaningful options for doing that.

---

Dude, I don't know what else I can say other than Iran must NOT acquire nuclear weapons and we must prevent that by any means necessary. Options for doing that are many, and I'll leave the details to the experts. 'Slogan' or not, I'm right... the alternative is too ugly. These apocalyptic Muslim nut jobs intend to carry out their plan to kill or convert ALL OF US by any means necessary and we MUST be prepared to eliminate that threat. But go ahead, don't believe me...