[HoosierDaddy]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;341799 said:

Bush Sr. could have gotten Hussein, knew it, but chose not to. I wish I had the quote on hand, but he basically said he didn't remove him from power becasue it would create a power vacuum, chaos in Iraq, and suck the USA into a horrible situation of trying to occupy and govern a very hostile country. Hmmmm, someone should have listened to daddy.

Yes, I didn't mean he didn't have the capability to remove him. I believe that had the political will been there to do so they would have taken him out. But I see what you are saying and I believe that is a solid reason as well.

[HoosierDaddy]

Obdigore;341800 said:

Well Corn-boy , I do like McCain's view on the economy over Obama's.

But then I like that Obama will get out of Iraq and stay out of Iran.

To each their own! I live in Indiana. I am surrounded by conservatives so I'm used to being an isolated liberal. Polite disagreement has become necessary. I do, however, from time to time love to rant.

BTW, I think even bombing Iran would be devastating. Do we really want to give nut-jobs any reason to poor over the Iran-Iraq border to start attacking our soldiers there? In my opinion, that would be, well, um, BAD.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Here, I found the actual quote, snopes-verified.

[Obdigore]

HoosierDaddy;341832 said:

To each their own! I live in Indiana. I am surrounded by conservatives so I'm used to being an isolated liberal. Polite disagreement has become necessary. I do, however, from time to time love to rant.

BTW, I think even bombing Iran would be devastating. Do we really want to give nut-jobs any reason to poor over the Iran-Iraq border to start attacking our soldiers there? In my opinion, that would be, well, um, BAD.

Yes. The congress has approved 200mil for 'operations' in Iran as it is. Go read the President Vote Thread, I linked it in there, about 3-4 posts from the last.

[HoosierDaddy]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;341836 said:

Here, I found the actual quote, snopes-verified.

Okay. Agreed. I think, however, that political will had something to do with it as well. They weren't prepared to spend as much political capital as was necessary to do it. Collapsed alliances, foreign occupation in a hostile area. You know, all those things that Jr. went and didn't give a crap about

I swear. Can we just start calling the Middle East "Assail"? They both are hospitable and the fun-loving Americans are the stubborn T'lan Imass that won't "withdraw" from what Cotillion called the "game".

[amphibian]

Obdigore;341837 said:

Yes. The congress has approved 200mil for 'operations' in Iran as it is. Go read the President Vote Thread, I linked it in there, about 3-4 posts from the last.

There's been black operations inside the Iranian border for the last year or so - mostly grabbing of Al Quds people and non-lethal stuff. This Congressional thing is about expanding those operations to include intelligence gathering and potentially allowing lethal force to be used in defensive situations. Quite a few people have problems with the language being used to define things by the White House.

Here's a Seymour Hersh article (really respected journalist who specializes in geopolitics and war) about it.

Hersh quotes a "senior intelligence official" as saying this kind of stuff works in Pakistan (specifically Waziristan, where Al Qaeda has linked up with many Pashtun groups), but it won't work as well in Iran for a number of reasons. I agree with that assessment.

[paladin]

keep in mind the iranians have been fooling(attacking, kidnapping, etc) with foreign nationals/military in the persian gulf since the latest iraq war started anyways. they've earned it

[HoosierDaddy]

paladin;341882 said:

keep in mind the iranians have been fooling(attacking, kidnapping, etc) with foreign nationals/military in the persian gulf since the latest iraq war started anyways. they've earned it

Whether or not an attack is merited, do the costs outweigh the benefits?

[paladin]

the benefits of good intelligence are very clear. unfortunately, we've had poor execution on the overt actions on intelligence gathered rather than the covert actions, starting with clinton screwing up killing/capturing osama

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

HoosierDaddy;341892 said:

Whether or not an attack is merited, do the costs outweigh the benefits?

In this case, no they do not.

[HoosierDaddy]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;341900 said:

In this case, no they do not.

My initial reaction as well.

Paladin:

I'm not refering to cover intelligence gathering. You are correct in that has taken place for frickin eons over there. I was more concerned on what the effects of bombing Iran would be and whether the affects of that are merited with the information we KNOW and not just suspect.

[Cold Iron]

paladin;341689 said:

throughout history you have various examples of people doing this CI. some burn their crops so invaders cant forage. some blow up bridges/destroy airports/destroy rail so the invaders are slowed down. some poison wells so the invaders dont have water(and that is duplicated in the chain of dogs as well, to quote relevant literature). i believe the typical feeling would be if we cant beat them, lets not make it easy for them to rule.

This is not a medieval invasion. The US were not going to drill and use the oil as they went as a medieval army would use farms and wells.

They set fire to them because they knew it was why they were there. No oil, no invasion. Get rid of the oil.

ETA: As for Iran, the one thing it shows me is that the American people have no idea what their leaders are doing or why.

[HoosierDaddy]

Cold Iron;341915 said:

This is not a medieval invasion. The US were not going to drill and use the oil as they went as a medieval army would use farms and wells.

They set fire to them because they knew it was why they were there. No oil, no invasion. Get rid of the oil.

Well, they could have done it out of sheer spite as well. Defeat doesn't normally equate to happy productive thoughts

On a side note, I would never burn my precious corn fields to help defeat an enemy. Before harvest they create fantastic cover for ambushes! But after harvest... well, um, don't try to hide in them. It wouldn't work so well.

[Cold Iron]

HoosierDaddy;341920 said:

Well, they could have done it out of sheer spite as well. Defeat doesn't normally equate to happy productive thoughts

On a side note, I would never burn my precious corn fields to help defeat an enemy. Before harvest they create fantastic cover for ambushes! But after harvest... well, um, don't try to hide in them. It wouldn't work so well.

Either way, there is no plausible alternate motive to securing the oilfields than wanting to secure the oil.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

HoosierDaddy;341920 said:

On a side note, I would never burn my precious corn fields to help defeat an enemy. Before harvest they are fantastic to run naked through backwards!

Fixed for "Wat" appeal

[HoosierDaddy]

Cold Iron;341295 said:

Yeah, good thing they were there to prevent that from happening.

Ah, now I see what you are saying. While securing the oil fields should have at some point been a priority, having them as priority #1 at the outset of invasion, instead of say, securing Baghdad as #1 priority, that oil was the reason for the war. I don't necessarily agree that it was the primary reason, but I do believe that it was in fact a major reason.

[HoosierDaddy]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;341933 said:

Fixed for "Wat" appeal

Damn. That as well. I am evidently most translucent.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I grew up in Missouri. I know all about you Indiana boys and cornfields.

[HoosierDaddy]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;341949 said:

I grew up in Missouri. I know all about you Indiana boys and cornfields.

Yes, but what do you know about Indiana girls and their cornfields? The stories I could tell!

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

No, I actually don't. You should tell them, for the entertainment of all.