Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Nah, we don't need the keystone pipeline.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/13/iranian-official-threatens-military-drill-sealing-off-strait-hormuz/

There is some serious doo-doo about to go down in the Middle East. Now would be a good time to check the tires on your bicycle.

widefat wrote:Nah, we don't need the keystone pipeline.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/13/iranian-official-threatens-military-drill-sealing-off-strait-hormuz/

Its funny, I always knew that was their real power. Nukes be damned, that pass is arguably the most important maritime zone in the world.

And -if an Iranian sailor so much as farts, the price of oil will start to rise.

Kreutz wrote:

widefat wrote:Nah, we don't need the keystone pipeline.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/13/iranian-official-threatens-military-drill-sealing-off-strait-hormuz/

Its funny, I always knew that was their real power. Nukes be damned, that pass is arguably the most important maritime zone in the world.

No one wins in a nuclear exchange...the right loves to spout off nonsense about how tough they are and would turn sand into glass and the like if they were dictator for a day, but it's all showmanship. Ironically, much like Iran's games and the "Death to America" pop culture. Nuclear weapons have their place, but with the notable exception of tactical nukes, as offensive weapon they are practically useless.

Wait! I've got a brilliant idea! Let's turn one of the most critical oil producing regions in the world into a radioactive wasteland so no one can get the oil...that's sure solve the worlds energy issues and makes drill baby, drill look like a green peace proposal.

Remember the "Neutron Bomb"?

widefat wrote:Remember the "Neutron Bomb"?

Yes, but

1. We don't have any...they've been dismantled because they lost their value as weapons.

2. Large bombs are infeasible and never worked due to the physics involved.

3. Even the smaller bombs are still equivalent to what we dropped on Japan and we all know those didn't do any damage to the infrastructure at all so...(i.e. kiloton range)

4. And most importantly, are you really ready to kill thousands or even millions of Iranians just because their government is blocking your access to oil? I suspect that despite the big talk, most people are not.

SHMIV wrote:What we dropped on Japan worked, though. The Allied forces won.

Ten years ago, we should have made and dropped those same bombs. Diplomatically speaking, though, it's a bit late for that.

Yes, after Japan started the war in the pacific by attacking Pearl Harbor because we were blocking their access to oil and they felt they had no choice...

Unintended consequences are a b*tch.

The world seems to forget the war machine we were, you know the one that's not been started since Korea. Since Vietnam was not a war, neither were any that followed. If we actually mobilized the country, by that I mean if you ain't fighting you're working to support the fighting iran would stand a snowballs chance in hell!

But it would be over oil so the whiners...er I mean the left wing puss....er I mean the democrats would be what they are.

So the solution is we get our top scientists to create a new fuel and then tell the middle east to go **** themselves, sit back and watch the east go to hell!

SHMIV wrote:More importantly, our citizens and leaders have forgotten. We keep getting involved in wars at a really half-assed level. If we are going to go to war, which is inevitable, we should get in it, win it, then go home. cat-footing around a battlefield does us no good.

Wrong. Real empires win, eliminate or enslave the populace, colonize, and drain the resources.

We bomb third worlders $10.00 tents with $10,000,000 bombs...then build them hospitals. WTF?!

Illogical. Since our military apparently serves no purpose, it should be eliminated and replace with a small defensive force and keep a check on our own borders. Thats it.

Oh, and on the subject of a citizenry fighting spirit, look up how Iranian civilian draftees tackled Iraqi minefields and machine gun nests. Its really quite fascinating!

Yeah, I wouldn't swing at Iran with anything less than a few hundred nukes. Which as Gunderwood pointed out is stupid and illogical, so its best we don't pick a fight we won't win.

gunderwood wrote:Yes, after Japan started the war in the pacific by attacking Pearl Harbor because we were blocking their access to oil and they felt they had no choice...

You are not allowed to know about that, citizen.

Please report to the nearest reeducation camp immediately.

SHMIV wrote:Well, hold on Kreutz. What part of what I said was wrong? You said that I was wrong, but nothing in that post contradicted any of my four sentences.

More importantly, our citizens and leaders have forgotten. We keep getting involved in wars at a really half-assed level. If we are going to go to war, which is inevitable, we should get in it, win it, then go home. cat-footing around a battlefield does us no good.

No point in spending all that time, money, and blood to "win" then leave. I am an isolationist, but if we're going to be an Empire, may as well do it right.

After Rome took Egypt it plundered its huge grain harvest. It was said (an exaggeration obviously) one could walk across the Mediterranean on the barges since so many were going back and forth constantly.

Guess they've got us over a barrel!

Kreutz wrote:Yeah, I wouldn't swing at Iran with anything less than a few hundred nukes. Which as Gunderwood pointed out is stupid and illogical, so its best we don't pick a fight we won't win.

Won't win is kind of a bit strong, but is technically correct. As of now, winning with Iran is probably something like this in most Americans minds:

1. Iran doesn't get nukes.

2. The Iranian government is replaced with a "democracy" like we have/are trying to do with Iraq/Afghanistan.

3. If 1 & 2 are accomplished than there isn't any problem with them closing the shipping lanes and jacking up the price of oil, etc.

The problem is, that #1 would basically require a war right now and even then it may be too late. During that war you would have to kill all the scientists who worked on the program and confiscate or destroy all facilities, documents, etc.; in short, anything and everything with their nuclear development must be destroyed. Otherwise, at best you're simply delaying the inevitable by a few years...even if you did destroy their program, it would only set them back a decade or two unless #2 succeeded. Furthermore, we've seen how expensive and time consuming #2 is twice and the results are anything but certain at this point. Ironically, during the Muslim Spring it's arguable that the Iranian resistance was about to do #2 for free until Obama cut the legs out from under them.

I have no doubt that we could "win," but winning wouldn't look anything like what most people are assuming today. Kind of like Iraq and Afghanistan, if we want to win we probably have the capability and resources to do so for now, but what is it going to cost us and will we achieve anything like the goals the war would likely start with...that I'm not so sure about.

Acccording to Obama ,,He wants to wait until after the 2012 election to rule? on the pipeline thing,,But he will currently support another Unemployment Money appropiation because he says it will create jobs, HMMMM that pipeline is capable of creating 20,000+ or more jobs in its lifetime.. and to our Chief Knucklehead UE is better?? Man does not know his ass from his elbow and in that order for sure. But coming from a man? that has never had to actually work I'm not surprised