Re: Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

[[email protected]]

Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:

Reality Check about Israeli 'denials':

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=320113#320113



Additional at the following URLs:

Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=65753

Charlie Reese: Israel's Bad Influence

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10276

Israel Divulges Plan to Nuke Iran

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=711

PS: US airpower could conduct the attacks on Iran or Israel could
initiate the attack knowing that the US would come to Israel's
'defense' as Dick Cheney and President Bush have already assured... The
AIPAC hacked Congress would support the attack all the way as well...


Israel's influence of US policy & the Israeli lobby:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O125hGt9qt4&NR

AIPAC and NeoCon Policy
on bombing Iran for Israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rf16XjbOUs


AIPAC Trying to Get US to Attack Iran for Israel


http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800




Bombing Iran for Israel:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=65628

Matt Wiser wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> Why don't you change your handle to "Chicken Little?" You've been shreiking about someone
> (whether it's the U.S. or Israel) launching nukes on Iran for what, two years now? And if by
> some reason either party decides to nuke Iran, they sure won't announce it ahead of time
> to a newspaper that's anxious to boost its circulation. The correspondents in Baghdad will
> be able to see the instant sunshine off to the east and know what just went down (or up)....
> Neither the U.S. or Israel will pop nukes without a very good reason. But with a nut like
> Ahmendijad running around, who knows? You really need a stay in a rubber room and to get
> back on your meds.
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
> he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
> in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
> quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:

If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.

>
> Reality Check about Israeli 'denials':
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=320113#320113
>
>
>
> Additional at the following URLs:
>
> Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=65753
>
> Charlie Reese: Israel's Bad Influence
>
> http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10276
>
> Israel Divulges Plan to Nuke Iran
>
> http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=711
>
> PS: US airpower could conduct the attacks on Iran or Israel could
> initiate the attack knowing that the US would come to Israel's
> 'defense' as Dick Cheney and President Bush have already assured... The
> AIPAC hacked Congress would support the attack all the way as well...
>
>
> Israel's influence of US policy & the Israeli lobby:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O125hGt9qt4&NR
>
> AIPAC and NeoCon Policy
> on bombing Iran for Israel
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rf16XjbOUs
>
>
> AIPAC Trying to Get US to Attack Iran for Israel
>
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800
>
>
>
>
> Bombing Iran for Israel:
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=65628
>
> Matt Wiser wrote:
> > wrote:
> > >
> > Why don't you change your handle to "Chicken Little?" You've been shreiking about someone
> > (whether it's the U.S. or Israel) launching nukes on Iran for what, two years now? And if by
> > some reason either party decides to nuke Iran, they sure won't announce it ahead of time
> > to a newspaper that's anxious to boost its circulation. The correspondents in Baghdad will
> > be able to see the instant sunshine off to the east and know what just went down (or up)....
> > Neither the U.S. or Israel will pop nukes without a very good reason. But with a nut like
> > Ahmendijad running around, who knows? You really need a stay in a rubber room and to get
> > back on your meds.
> >
> > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Dan[_2_]]

wrote:
> Another <snip> a shovel load of manure.

You have been shrieking about imminent war with Iran for over two
years base on the same sites. You have even given us months and dates it
was sure to occur. The citations you have been giving us have been wrong
every single time. That's a 100% failure rate. A sane person would stop
believing those sites.

Please seek immediate help.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jeroen Wenting]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Another <snip> a shovel load of manure.
>
> You have been shrieking about imminent war with Iran for over two years
> base on the same sites. You have even given us months and dates it was
> sure to occur. The citations you have been giving us have been wrong every
> single time. That's a 100% failure rate. A sane person would stop
> believing those sites.
>
> Please seek immediate help.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

He seeks help at Al Jazeera (aka the Osama News Network) and with the
Islamic Council of Iran I guess.

[Matt Giwer]

wrote:
> wrote:
>> Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
>> he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
>> in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
>> quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
>
> If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.

All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.

Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.

Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.

--
Tony Blair says the war on the Taliban will take decades. That is the same
as saying the war on Southern Baptists will take decades. Or perhaps in the
British sense, the war on Roman Catholics will take decades.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3728
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

[Matt Giwer]

Dan wrote:
> wrote:
>> Another <snip> a shovel load of manure.

> You have been shrieking about imminent war with Iran for over two
> years base on the same sites. You have even given us months and dates it
> was sure to occur. The citations you have been giving us have been wrong
> every single time. That's a 100% failure rate. A sane person would stop
> believing those sites.

> Please seek immediate help.

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I remember people warning about a disastrous coming war with Iraq for a year
with people like you equally skeptical.

The same lies told about Iraq are being told about Iran. The Neocons are
building up the same hysteria.

Is your memory really so short?

--
If Israel is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East then the old Union of
South Africa was an identical beacon of democracy in Africa.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3712
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5

[Dan[_2_]]

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Another <snip> a shovel load of manure.
>
>> You have been shrieking about imminent war with Iran for over two
>> years base on the same sites. You have even given us months and dates
>> it was sure to occur. The citations you have been giving us have been
>> wrong every single time. That's a 100% failure rate. A sane person
>> would stop believing those sites.
>
>> Please seek immediate help.
>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> I remember people warning about a disastrous coming war with Iraq
> for a year with people like you equally skeptical.
>
> The same lies told about Iraq are being told about Iran. The Neocons
> are building up the same hysteria.
>
> Is your memory really so short?
>
Well, I wasn't skeptical about war with Iraq for the simple reason
Saddam never lived up to his agreements made after GW1 and kept making
hostile gestures towards U.S. forces. You have me mistaken for someone else.

As for my post it was directed at the original poster who has been
giving us time frames of imminent war with Iran for over 2 years. A year
ago he went so far as to tell us there would be a nuclear war with Iran
"in 10 days." He always cites the same sources and is always wrong.

He either needs to find believable sources or stop his shrill
predictions of imminent doom based solely on his anti Semitic / Israel /
U.S. bias.

Iran's bragging about their uranium enrichment and stated intentions
to "wipe Israel" of the map are "neocon" lies?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

Matt Giwer wrote:
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
> >> he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
> >> in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
> >> quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
> >
> > If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
>
> All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
> is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
>
> Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
> Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
>
> Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
> larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
> world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
> first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
> have managed to hold out that long.

Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?

>
> --
> Tony Blair says the war on the Taliban will take decades. That is the same
> as saying the war on Southern Baptists will take decades. Or perhaps in the
> British sense, the war on Roman Catholics will take decades.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3728
> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

[Matt Giwer]

wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
>>>> he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
>>>> in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
>>>> quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
>>> If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
>> All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
>> is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
>> Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
>> Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
>> Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
>> larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
>> world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
>> first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
>> have managed to hold out that long.

> Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
> be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?

How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?

Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.

--
If Americans knew about Israel's treatment of non-Jews they would turn
against Israel as fast as they did against apartheid South Africa.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3737
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

[Matt Giwer]

Dan wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> Another <snip> a shovel load of manure.
>>> You have been shrieking about imminent war with Iran for over two
>>> years base on the same sites. You have even given us months and dates
>>> it was sure to occur. The citations you have been giving us have been
>>> wrong every single time. That's a 100% failure rate. A sane person
>>> would stop believing those sites.
>>> Please seek immediate help.
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>> I remember people warning about a disastrous coming war with Iraq
>> for a year with people like you equally skeptical.
>> The same lies told about Iraq are being told about Iran. The
>> Neocons are building up the same hysteria.
>> Is your memory really so short?

> Well, I wasn't skeptical about war with Iraq for the simple reason
> Saddam never lived up to his agreements made after GW1 and kept making
> hostile gestures towards U.S. forces. You have me mistaken for someone
> else.

I do not see your point? Iraq's agreements were with the UN not the US. The US
had no standing in enforcing them. The UN did not find Iraq in violation of
those agreements. Why did you expect the US to use lies as a pretext for a
criminal war of aggression against the people of Iraq? You didn't really believe
Iraq had a nuclear weapons program did you? Were you that gullible?

> As for my post it was directed at the original poster who has been
> giving us time frames of imminent war with Iran for over 2 years. A year
> ago he went so far as to tell us there would be a nuclear war with Iran
> "in 10 days." He always cites the same sources and is always wrong.

Remember the axis of evil? Both Neocons and the Israelis have been demanding
Iran be next after Iraq. It is only a matter of time unless something serious
stops Bush even if it takes a Pentagon mutiny or a coup.

> He either needs to find believable sources or stop his shrill
> predictions of imminent doom based solely on his anti Semitic / Israel /
> U.S. bias.

Anti-zionism is a moral imperative as by definition they are all thieves and
murderers so anti-Israel is equally moral. As I spent 20 working for the US Navy
I agree with every person in every Navy in the world. http://www.ussliberty.org
The attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate. It is impossible to have been an
accident.

As for what Israel calls terror attacks
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml they are not only lawful but
specifically approved by international law. All members of the military, on or
off duty, active or reserve are lawful targets and anyone else is collateral
damage. Also military assets are lawful targets. The buses are a military asset,
the non-military passengers mere collateral damage. Israel has claimed 20
collateral to 1 real target is legitimate and the Palestinians have yet to get
those kind of odds.

Because of the facts of the reality of Israel it is in fact the new blood libel
to blame all Jews for the actions of Israel. But as it is still acceptable to
say true things about rednecks, Christian Zionists support theft and murder in
Palestine.

> Iran's bragging about their uranium enrichment and stated intentions
> to "wipe Israel" of the map are "neocon" lies?

Uranium enrichment is referred to as an inalienable right for all signatories
of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and Iran is a signatory. Iran also has
reactors nearly completed which need enriched uranium. Claims that Iran is doing
other than exercising its inalienable right under the NPT is a lie, period.
There is ZERO evidence of any weapons intentions or anything else in violation
of the NPT. Frankly I think they are fools not to being going after nukes as
nuclear armed Israel has been threatening to attack Iran with nukes for decades.
Israel also threatened to nuke Iraq in 1990.

Have you been off-planet for so long?

It is true that neither Iran nor Ahmadinejad ever threatened to wipe Israel off
the map yet the neocons have been repeating the lie since the original statement
about the Zionist regime soon ending.

Even if he did, Palestine was wiped off of the map after 2500 years of
existence and no one misses it. Why would it be any different if Israel is wiped
off the map after only 60 years existence? No loss to the world I can see and
rather a net benefit to justice and peace in the middle east.

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

--
Bush proves humans did not evolve from apes.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3717
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4

[[email protected]]

Matt Giwer wrote:
> wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
> >>>> he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
> >>>> in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
> >>>> quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
> >>> If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
> >> All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
> >> is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
> >> Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
> >> Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
> >> Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
> >> larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
> >> world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
> >> first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
> >> have managed to hold out that long.
>
> > Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
> > be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
>
> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
> civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
> downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
> the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?

Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.

>
> Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
> entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
> total nuclear exchange.

I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.
Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.


>
> --
> If Americans knew about Israel's treatment of non-Jews they would turn
> against Israel as fast as they did against apartheid South Africa.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3737
> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

[Dan[_2_]]

Matt Giwer wrote:

Nothing coherent.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

[Robert Kolker]

Matt Giwer wrote:


> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
> thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
> even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
> destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What other
> than slaughter prisoners?

Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
defeat the army, defeat the civillians.

Bob Kolker

[Matt Giwer]

wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
>>>>>> he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
>>>>>> in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
>>>>>> quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
>>>>> If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
>>>> All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
>>>> is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
>>>> Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
>>>> Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
>>>> Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
>>>> larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
>>>> world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
>>>> first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
>>>> have managed to hold out that long.
>>> Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
>>> be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
>> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
>> civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
>> downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
>> the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?

> Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
> fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
> forward.

I can see that right now. DC is nuked by Iran and the troops in Iraq and around
the gulf lose interest in Iran. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
The fantasy is Iranians are not human. Only Americans are human.

As to tactical nukes, do not move troops in large groups. That has been known
since August 1945. Keep the all spread out until massing for an engagement. Or
just move in for a guerrilla war.

>> Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
>> entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
>> total nuclear exchange.

> I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
> to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
> that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
> the initial post.

And my point is nukes are not a viable option in the real world. In 1945 Japan
had been suing for peace for nearly a year and only arguing conditions when the
bomb removed the last condition. In the real world nukes are only valuable as
either a threat or total destruction. There really no intermediate use for them.

In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed the
resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned in WWII but
those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they get involved they
want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to resist" which has NEVER
happened.

> Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
> US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
> troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
> moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
> Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
> less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.

Some 8 million Shia Iraqis in the south all along those supply lines would be
the first to cut it. By the last poll 61% of Iraqis approve of attacking
Americans but they are not doing it in the south. We are talking 400 miles of
two highways for 800 miles to guard and keep open. How many troops per mile
would be needed just to keep them open and uncratered? The latter meaning the
road itself is not subjected to mortar attack.

--
American troops in Iraq have to know they are risking their lives for people
who hate them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3727
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

[Matt Giwer]

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
>> thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
>> even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
>> destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What
>> other than slaughter prisoners?

> Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
> resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
> defeat the army, defeat the civillians.

That is what they said would happen in WWII but it did not happen. Sherman in
fact did nothing to end the war. It was Grant willing to throw men to the
slaughter to get a 1:5 exchange ratio with Lee eventually depleting his forces.
Recognizing what kind of sub-human was Grant he surrendered for lack of
replacement troops. But Grant was sending new immigrants to be slaughter. It was
not like he was sending real Americans.

--
If the Iraqi army were running loose in the US I would kill them just for
the fun of it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3719
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

[Matt Giwer]

Dan wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> Nothing coherent.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Nothing you can answer.

There was no lawful basis for the war on Iraq. Therefore all the Iraqi soldiers
who did their patriotic duty in defending their country from foreign aggression
were murdered by Americans.

Israelis are in fact a lawful target under international law.

Since the early 1920s Zionists did go to Palestine with the openly stated
intention to kill or drive off the Palestinians and steal their land.

Those are all facts. That the facts do not agree with your fantasy life is no
interest of mine.

--
Whatever happened in the holy holocaust, ending it was never important
enough to generate the least bit of gratitude.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3726
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

[[email protected]]

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Robert Kolker wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> >> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
> >> thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
> >> even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
> >> destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What
> >> other than slaughter prisoners?
>
> > Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
> > resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
> > defeat the army, defeat the civillians.
>
> That is what they said would happen in WWII but it did not happen. Sherman in
> fact did nothing to end the war.

Wrong.

It was Grant willing to throw men to the
> slaughter to get a 1:5 exchange ratio

Where was this 1:5 exchange ratio?

with Lee eventually depleting his forces.
> Recognizing what kind of sub-human was Grant he surrendered for lack of
> replacement troops.

Oh, I see...you really don't know what you're talking about.

But Grant was sending new immigrants to be slaughter. It was
> not like he was sending real Americans.

Wrong again. You should really read some history on the Overland
Campaign....it was, overall, a masterful campaign. (Now's your chance
to say "Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor!")
>
> --
> If the Iraqi army were running loose in the US I would kill them just for
> the fun of it.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3719
> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

[[email protected]]

Matt Giwer wrote:
> wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
> >>>>>> he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
> >>>>>> in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
> >>>>>> quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
> >>>>> If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
> >>>> All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
> >>>> is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
> >>>> Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
> >>>> Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
> >>>> Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
> >>>> larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
> >>>> world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
> >>>> first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
> >>>> have managed to hold out that long.
> >>> Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
> >>> be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
> >> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
> >> civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
> >> downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
> >> the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?
>
> > Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
> > fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
> > forward.
>
> I can see that right now. DC is nuked by Iran and the troops in Iraq and around
> the gulf lose interest in Iran. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
> The fantasy is Iranians are not human. Only Americans are human.

Wow, what a stretch. The Iranian govt is much more centralized.
Removing the top along with strikes on troop concentrations...combined
with the threat of more strikes...is quite different than a single
blow.

>
> As to tactical nukes, do not move troops in large groups. That has been known
> since August 1945. Keep the all spread out until massing for an engagement. Or
> just move in for a guerrilla war.


Dispersion creates its own problems. The small units are very
vulnerable to being destroyed piecemeal. Command, control, and
coordination are very difficult. US recon can spot concentrations and
destroy them.

>
> >> Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
> >> entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
> >> total nuclear exchange.
>
> > I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
> > to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
> > that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
> > the initial post.
>
> And my point is nukes are not a viable option in the real world.

Why? Because they're morally reprehensible? Please.

In 1945 Japan
> had been suing for peace for nearly a year and only arguing conditions when the
> bomb removed the last condition. In the real world nukes are only valuable as
> either a threat or total destruction.

Bull. You're stuck in the Cold War. MAD only works if both sides can
destroy the other...when one side has all of the cards, nukes can be
very useful.


There really no intermediate use for them.

Of course there is. This is a totally absurd argument.

>
> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed the
> resolution to fight has increased.

Yep, Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure galvanized the Japanese.

That should have been learned in WWII but
> those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they get involved they
> want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to resist" which has NEVER
> happened.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>
> > Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
> > US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
> > troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
> > moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
> > Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
> > less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.
>
> Some 8 million Shia Iraqis in the south all along those supply lines would be
> the first to cut it. By the last poll 61% of Iraqis approve of attacking
> Americans but they are not doing it in the south. We are talking 400 miles of
> two highways for 800 miles to guard and keep open. How many troops per mile
> would be needed just to keep them open and uncratered? The latter meaning the
> road itself is not subjected to mortar attack.

Did you read my post? Why are you assuming the US forces will just
sit there and starve? What is to stop them from heading south? Have you
ever read about Chosin?

>
> --
> American troops in Iraq have to know they are risking their lives for people
> who hate them.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3727
> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

[Robert Kolker]

Matt Giwer wrote:

>
> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
> the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned in
> WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they
> get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to
> resist" which has NEVER happened.

Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.

Bob Kolker

[Ken Chaddock]

wrote:

> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
>>>>he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
>>>>in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
>>>>quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
>>>
>>> If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
>>
>> All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
>>is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
>>
>> Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
>>Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
>>
>> Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
>>larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
>>world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
>>first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
>>have managed to hold out that long.
>
>
> Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
> be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?

This guy also seems to ignore the US's truly prodigious capability to
move people and goods by air...which the Iranians would have virtually
no ability to block...also the US's ability to rain destruction onto
Iran from above...even without going nuclear...which, if "properly"
implemented (don't hit civilian targets at all and stay away from
military targets that have a higher probability of collateral damage)
against the Iranian military only...would tend to destabilize the
mullahs and either destroy Iran's ability to make war OR bottle the
Iranian armed forces up in their cities...
If the mullahs could be shown to be ineffective against the US while at
the same time being hammered relentlessly militarily and causing "a
little" discomfort to the Iranian people only, the mullahs will lose
credibility with their own people and would likely be overthrown...from
within.
Remember, the only place in the Muslim world where there were
spontaneous demonstrations of SORROW and SADNESS and in SUPPORT of the
US after 9/11 was in IRANIAN cities...for God sake, built of that, don't
squander it like Bush senior and Bush junior did in Iraq...

....Ken

[Matt Giwer]

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
>> the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
>> in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
>> they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
>> to resist" which has NEVER happened.

> Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.

Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.

--
A cakewalk to a death march in three easy neocon steps.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3722
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4

[Matt Giwer]

Ken Chaddock wrote:
....
> This guy also seems to ignore

As preamble I have a practical understanding of it and its limitations.

> the US's truly prodigious capability to move people and goods by air...

And if you look it you will discover it is all shock force troops to hold an
area until the bulk of the troops arrive by conventional means. You will also
learn it is a fair weather capability and anyone can download satellite images
and predict the weather.

> which the Iranians would have
> virtually no ability to block...also the US's ability to rain
> destruction onto Iran from above...even without going nuclear...which,
> if "properly" implemented (don't hit civilian targets at all and stay
> away from military targets that have a higher probability of collateral
> damage) against the Iranian military only...would tend to destabilize
> the mullahs and either destroy Iran's ability to make war OR bottle the
> Iranian armed forces up in their cities...

The destruction from above would play well at home and it might even be true
that no civilians were harmed. But in the middle east it will be portrayed as
targeting civilians and everyone there will believe it. Look at what Americans
still believe about WWII if you don't think that will happen.

As for aerial bombing I repeat, it failed in Germany during WWII. It increased
not decreased the will to resist. It has increased the will to resist every time
it has been tried. Both Vietnams, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Serbia you name it. It
has always been troops on the ground that have been the deciding factor. For the
US in Afghanistan it was the alliance with the drug lords and their mercenaries
that provided the troops.

Why in the world would you talk about bottling up Iranian troops in the cities
as troops are not stationed in cities in the first place? In any confrontation
they would be augmenting the Shia in the south and east of Iraq cutting off the
land resupply from Kuwait. There is no way the US has the ability to air supply
what is brought in from Kuwait. And if that is tried ****loads of shoulder fired
AA rockets are going to find their way into Iraq to bring them down.

Am I pessimistic? The last I heard planes landing at Baghdad airport still
spiral in to avoid fire from the ground. Last I heard which was only six months
ago the FIVE MILES of city street from the airport to the Green Zone still is
NOT secured.

Please tell me how all this is suddenly going to turn around.

> If the mullahs could be shown to be ineffective against the US while
> at the same time being hammered relentlessly militarily and causing "a
> little" discomfort to the Iranian people only, the mullahs will lose
> credibility with their own people and would likely be overthrown...from
> within.

And that is on the assumption that Iranians are really Americans trying to get
out from under the religious leadership. If they are overthrown they will be
replaced by some group that is more effective against the American attacks. That
is exactly what Americans would do if this country were under attack and losing
because of incompetent leadership. Why do you assume Iranians would do
differently from Americans?

> Remember, the only place in the Muslim world where there were
> spontaneous demonstrations of SORROW and SADNESS and in SUPPORT of the
> US after 9/11 was in IRANIAN cities...for God sake, built of that, don't
> squander it like Bush senior and Bush junior did in Iraq...

It was squandered on Iran when the US attacked Afghanistan three months after
9/11 without justification and based upon a war announced in MARCH 2001.

It was not the only place. Despite the Zionists lies the Palestinians also
expressed sympathy while Netanyahu said 9/11 was a good thing for Israel.

--
Before the Iraq war Brad Pitt was ridiculed for filming kite flying in
Baghdad. Looks like he was right.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3730
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11

[Matt Giwer]

Ken Chaddock wrote:

When considering US superior technology here is a question that a far from a
trick question.

The US constantly boasts of its night vision technology as a decisive
superiority capability.

What is the cheapest and easiest method to nullify that advantage that requires
no extra effort or expenditure?

I have had lots of guesses on that from bonfires to flares but none have gotten
it right the first time. Care to make a guess?

--
The WWII holocaust is the only one which the victims do not want
investigated. It is also the only one where reparations are being paid. That
is an odd combination.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3736
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

[Robert Kolker]

Matt Giwer wrote:

>
> What is the cheapest and easiest method to nullify that advantage
> that requires no extra effort or expenditure?

Attack by day? I can't think of any practical way of preventing heat
emission except by insulation.

Bob Kolker

[george]

Matt Giwer wrote:

> Robert Kolker wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> >> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
> >> the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
> >> in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
> >> they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
> >> to resist" which has NEVER happened.
>
> > Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.
>
> Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.

Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with

[Matt Giwer]

george wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Robert Kolker wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
>>>> the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
>>>> in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
>>>> they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
>>>> to resist" which has NEVER happened.
>>> Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.
>> Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.

> Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with

And George is too stupid to know what a nazi is. What else is new?

--
We know Bush is serious on Iraq. He changed slogans.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3720
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

[Dan[_3_]]

george wrote:

> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> > Robert Kolker wrote:
> > > Matt Giwer wrote:
> > >> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
> > >> the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
> > >> in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
> > >> they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
> > >> to resist" which has NEVER happened.
> >
> > > Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.
> >
> > Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.
>
> Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with

Giwer may or may not be a Nazi but he on this one he is also right, (a
stopped clock is right twice a day).

Japan had did not only surrender because of THE BOMB.
US had total air superiority was bombing Japan on a daily basis with
conventional weapons,
more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo a few weeks before than
in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Japan was dependant on imports for Food and Fuel, and US Submarines had
sunk the vast majority of the Japanese Merchant Fleet and most of the
Japanese Navy was also at the bottom of the Pacific by this time. Total
Naval blockade was already condemning Japan to starvation and a
simultaneous Oil embargo.

On land Stalin's forces were taking Manchuria that week, heading into
Korea and before the end of the year would be preparing for invasion of
the Home Islands.

UK was moving forces freed up from Europe so was in the process of
taking back SE Asia, and had a Pacific Fleet again for the first time
in 4 years.

US had a real plan to invade and occupy the Home Islands and Japan knew
it. The UK and Empire by mid 46 would be in a position to provide
sufficient troops to be arguing for an occupation zone of Japan, the US
neither needed the troops nor wanted the future political complications
of a joint occupation and that's before you think about the Red Army.

Oh and of course in 1945 something like 90% plus of the nations on the
planet were in a declared state of War with Japan.

An unprovoked Nuclear attack on Iran by either the US or Israel with
the support of no other nation on the planet except each other would
provoke the reaction from Iran that 9/11 provoked in the US "how do we
hit back". The rest of the Muslim world would support Iran against what
would be seen as Genocidal monsters, most of the rest of the planet
would initially be sympathetic to Iran. 24/7 pictures on CNN,
Al-Jazeera, Star, Sky, etc etc pictures of Iranian corpses and
irradiated children.
Major risk is a coup in Pakistan which puts existing Nuclear weapons
into the hands of hard line Islamic regime.
Other risk is reaction in Iraq, last summer the elected Iraqi
government backed Hezbullah in the war with Lebanon much to the shock
of US politicians, it is possible that you would end up with direct
fighting between US and Iraqi Army as well as mass revolt in Shia
south, attacks from both major Shia militias Badr Brigades, and Mahdi
Army which at present are not attacking US troops.

[Matt Giwer]

Dan wrote:
> george wrote:
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> Robert Kolker wrote:
>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
>>>>> the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
>>>>> in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
>>>>> they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
>>>>> to resist" which has NEVER happened.
>>>> Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.
>>> Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.
>> Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with

> Giwer may or may not be a Nazi but he on this one he is also right, (a
> stopped clock is right twice a day).

Disagreeing with WWII propaganda is the easiest way to be right. If you
actually look at it when it is available without comment you have to ask why
your parents/grandparents were stupid enough to fight that war.

"Why we fight" couldn't sell air conditioning to Floridians it is so primitive
and stupid. And yet every reason today is based upon making that propaganda
sound sophisticated. No one today would fight WWII in Europe for any reason
given at the time. Of course we can assume our parents were idiots but that does
not explain how their children are suddenly so smart.

Would you join with the communists to fight the Nazis? Would you join with the
colonial masters of a billion people to fight the Nazis? A modern person would
join the Nazis to free a billion people from colonial domination and end communism.

Or at least stay out of it and let them destroy each other for the fun of it.

The US only got into the war in Europe because Germany declared war on the US
for legitimate cause according to international law at the time. That cause only
existed because the US was attacking German U-Boats as cited in Germany's DoW on
the US from an FDR fireside chat announcement.

--
Bush's reason for staying in Iraq is the disaster he caused by invading.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3715
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

[Matt Giwer]

wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Robert Kolker wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
>>>> thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
>>>> even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
>>>> destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What
>>>> other than slaughter prisoners?
>>> Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
>>> resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
>>> defeat the army, defeat the civillians.
>> That is what they said would happen in WWII but it did not happen. Sherman in
>> fact did nothing to end the war.

> Wrong.

And as the South never surrendered your position is what? Lee's surrender of
the Army of Virginia was not a surrender of the South. But you know that.

>> It was Grant willing to throw men to the
>> slaughter to get a 1:5 exchange ratio

> Where was this 1:5 exchange ratio?

The Irish Grant was throwing at Lee.

>> with Lee eventually depleting his forces.
>> Recognizing what kind of sub-human was Grant he surrendered for lack of
>> replacement troops.

> Oh, I see...you really don't know what you're talking about.

Rather I do. What war are you talking about? Please cite the CSA surrender if
you think there was one. The Star Trek TNG writers adopted Johnson's
declaration, Further resistance is futile.

>> But Grant was sending new immigrants to be slaughter. It was
>> not like he was sending real Americans.
>
> Wrong again. You should really read some history on the Overland
> Campaign....it was, overall, a masterful campaign. (Now's your chance
> to say "Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor!")

Why? The South did not surrender. What is the point?

>> --
>> If the Iraqi army were running loose in the US I would kill them just for
>> the fun of it.
>> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3719
>> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
>> Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

--
The total failure in Iraq is not the execution of the post war strategy but
the war itself. There was never a way it could win. No people have ever
accepted foreigners ruling them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3718
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

[Matt Giwer]

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> What is the cheapest and easiest method to nullify that advantage
>> that requires no extra effort or expenditure?

> Attack by day? I can't think of any practical way of preventing heat
> emission except by insulation.

So now I have to say only one person got it right the first time.

That is precisely the point. Every strength is limited and can be negated as it
is predicated upon a specific tactic. Night fighting is predicated upon enemy
troops being massed at night instead of being at home in bed as in Iraq.

If you cannot stand and fight then kill without doing that. If you get perfect
armor they learn to spray poison gas.

If they cannot be defeated never fight them. Just cause enough trouble they get
called and then go away. Fake trouble calls. Let them kill the innocent as you
can recruit the survivors.

Attack 20 places and melt away but get calls as to where they do show up.
Re-attack where they do not show up. How hard is this? Think simple.

--
Whatever happened in the holy holocaust, ending it was never important
enough to generate the least bit of gratitude.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3726
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9

[Matt Giwer]

wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
>>>>>>>> he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
>>>>>>>> in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
>>>>>>>> quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
>>>>>>> If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
>>>>>> All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
>>>>>> is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
>>>>>> Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
>>>>>> Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
>>>>>> Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
>>>>>> larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
>>>>>> world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
>>>>>> first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
>>>>>> have managed to hold out that long.
>>>>> Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
>>>>> be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
>>>> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
>>>> civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
>>>> downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
>>>> the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?
>>> Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
>>> fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
>>> forward.
>> I can see that right now. DC is nuked by Iran and the troops in Iraq and around
>> the gulf lose interest in Iran. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
>> The fantasy is Iranians are not human. Only Americans are human.

> Wow, what a stretch. The Iranian govt is much more centralized.
> Removing the top along with strikes on troop concentrations...combined
> with the threat of more strikes...is quite different than a single
> blow.

So you are saying all the US government does not live in DC when Congress is in
session? There goes the top if nuking on a Wednesday.

Troop concentrations only work for the standing army, not reserves and only if
they are far from the blast radius of cities. Kill people in the cities nad you
motivate the troops who have lost family. Maybe you would not be motivated but I
would be.

>> As to tactical nukes, do not move troops in large groups. That has been known
>> since August 1945. Keep the all spread out until massing for an engagement. Or
>> just move in for a guerrilla war.

> Dispersion creates its own problems. The small units are very
> vulnerable to being destroyed piecemeal. Command, control, and
> coordination are very difficult. US recon can spot concentrations and
> destroy them.

There are always problems with any tactic but equally there is a problem with
matching attacks as US forces would have to be dispersed also. But Iran can
field a million against the US 140,000 so it would be difficult to find small
enough dispersed Iranian groups to win one on one. 7:1 sort of usually wins
regardless of firepower.

>>>> Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
>>>> entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
>>>> total nuclear exchange.
>>> I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
>>> to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
>>> that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
>>> the initial post.
>> And my point is nukes are not a viable option in the real world.

> Why? Because they're morally reprehensible? Please.

Because the real world since September 1945 has realized all the basic
ramifications of nukes and has worked to deal with them.

I know how to pacify Iraq. It is very simple. It has worked throughout all
history. Carry away all the able bodied people into slavery or decimate the
population. It has always worked. But it is a matter of what will sell these days.

And I can tell you how to make nukes work. Destroy civilian population centers
so all available manpower is engaged in returning life to normal. But if you do
not do that you only make enemies who are armed and trained and ready to fight.

>> In 1945 Japan
>> had been suing for peace for nearly a year and only arguing conditions when the
>> bomb removed the last condition. In the real world nukes are only valuable as
>> either a threat or total destruction.

> Bull. You're stuck in the Cold War. MAD only works if both sides can
> destroy the other...when one side has all of the cards, nukes can be
> very useful.

As this has NEVER been tried please tell me how you can predict the future so
confidently. "It stands to reason." is bull****. Please tell me exactly how it
works in terms of the US being the non-nuclear victim. Tell me how Americans
would respond.

>> There really no intermediate use for them.
>
> Of course there is. This is a totally absurd argument.

Please describe in detail the intermediate use of nukes.

>> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed the
>> resolution to fight has increased.

> Yep, Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure galvanized the Japanese.

Together they were less than the Tokyo firebombing in terms of immediate deaths
and square miles destroyed. Please explain the difference if it was not just one
plane doing it.

>> That should have been learned in WWII but
>> those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they get involved they
>> want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to resist" which has NEVER
>> happened.

> Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As anyone who has gone beyond what they were taught in gradeschool will tell
you there were many more reasons and the only thing that one plane bombing
accomplished was dropping the conditions of the surrender than had been on the
table for at least nine months before.

>>> Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
>>> US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
>>> troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
>>> moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
>>> Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
>>> less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.
>> Some 8 million Shia Iraqis in the south all along those supply lines would be
>> the first to cut it. By the last poll 61% of Iraqis approve of attacking
>> Americans but they are not doing it in the south. We are talking 400 miles of
>> two highways for 800 miles to guard and keep open. How many troops per mile
>> would be needed just to keep them open and uncratered? The latter meaning the
>> road itself is not subjected to mortar attack.

> Did you read my post? Why are you assuming the US forces will just
> sit there and starve? What is to stop them from heading south? Have you
> ever read about Chosin?

Let them head south through the Shia south supported by Shia Iran. But remember
they are doing it with the food and fuel they can bring with them. Can they
carry enough fuel to get everyone a minimum of 400 miles to Kuwait? You tell me
as you are the pretend expert. I recite my experience but then only ask
questions so lets stick to the issues.

So lets see 146,000 soon 21,500 more are going to be in Baghdad and point north
because the Shia region is by definition to the south of Baghdad. So tell me
where 167,500 troops have enough equipment to carry food and fuel to get to
Baghdad and then the additional 400 miles back to Kuwait. I am interested in
hearing all about these hidden assets in Iraq.

Please tell me how they would make the trip with no resistance at all.

Tell me how they are going to make it even if the only attacks are destroying
the pavement. The slower the travel the more food and water needed.

>> --
>> American troops in Iraq have to know they are risking their lives for people
>> who hate them.
>> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3727
>> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
>> flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

--
A certain thing in this world is if you say Jews are inconsequential then
Jews will start making claims of Jewish power they would call antisemitic if
a non-Jew had said them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3713
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

[Dan[_3_]]

wrote:

> Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
> fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
> forward.
>

So Nuke LA or New York and the US Armed Forces will simply lose
interest in fighting?
So Nuke Rome and Vatican and the Catholic population will simply accept
it?


> >
> > Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
> > entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
> > total nuclear exchange.
>
> I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
> to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
> that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
> the initial post.
> Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
> US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
> troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
> moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
> Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
> less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.

Cutting supply lines in the South would be relatively easy. Of course
US could take control back but it would put up the cost of the
operation and tie up large numbers of troops defending the length of
the supply lines.
For most of the time since the invasion in 2003 the supply lines from
the South have been relatively peaceful, they were defended by the non
US parts of the Coalition most of which have since gone home and handed
over to Iraqi troops. The South is full of Iraqi Army which may no
longer be reliable after a major strike, nuclear or otherwise on Iran,
it has 2 competing major Shiite Militias the Iranian aligned Badr
Brigades and the Iraqi nationalist Mahdi Army, neither are actively
attacking US forces now, they are attacking the Sunni population much
further North and have clashed with each other, a decision by them to
disrupt US supply lines would be initially successful and to reclaim
that territory and population you are talking about a need for at least
1 and maybe 2 additional Divisions, and that is before you factor in
active Iranian Invasion.

The US could do that if it was committed to but it may mean the end to
the concept of "tours in Iraq". The Army goes to War and gets to come
home when the War is won. The reason an army of 500,000 plus is
struggling to maintain 150,000 plus in Iraq at present is the
assumption you have a third recovering from deployment, 1/3 deployed
and 1/3 training for the next deployment with a deployment tour of 12
months. With in addition a rule that the National Guard can only be
mobilised for 1 year in any 5, and they have already done recent tours
in Iraq. So will not be available to return till 2009.

The US is the most powerful nation on the planet by a long way with the
worlds largest economy, a united US population to that makes a decision
to do something and is willing to accept casualties to do it can do it.
If that is invade and occupy Iran that is possible.

But that is not the point, the debate is the present position with a
politically dis-united US, a US population which thinks 3,000 fatal
casualties in 3 years is high, and US armed forces as of today.

[Robert Kolker]

Dan wrote:

>
> Japan had did not only surrender because of THE BOMB.
> US had total air superiority was bombing Japan on a daily basis with
> conventional weapons,
> more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo a few weeks before than
> in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

The BOMB got the Emporer's attention -- finally.

All of the conventional bombings did not compel the Emp to command a
surrender.

Even so, there was an attempted coup to prevent the Emporers surrender
order from being made public. It failed.

Bob Kolker

[Robert Kolker]

Dan wrote:>
> The US is the most powerful nation on the planet by a long way with the
> worlds largest economy, a united US population to that makes a decision
> to do something and is willing to accept casualties to do it can do it.
> If that is invade and occupy Iran that is possible.

How about killing all the Iranians with weapons of mass destruction.
Faster, better, cheaper, more thorough.

Anyone who sends a man to do a job that can be best done with a machine
is criminally mistaken.

Bob Kolker

[[email protected]]

Matt Giwer wrote:
> wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
> >>>>>>>> he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
> >>>>>>>> in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
> >>>>>>>> quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
> >>>>>>> If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
> >>>>>> All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
> >>>>>> is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
> >>>>>> Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
> >>>>>> Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
> >>>>>> Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
> >>>>>> larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
> >>>>>> world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
> >>>>>> first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
> >>>>>> have managed to hold out that long.
> >>>>> Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
> >>>>> be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
> >>>> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
> >>>> civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
> >>>> downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
> >>>> the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?
> >>> Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
> >>> fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
> >>> forward.
> >> I can see that right now. DC is nuked by Iran and the troops in Iraq and around
> >> the gulf lose interest in Iran. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
> >> The fantasy is Iranians are not human. Only Americans are human.
>
> > Wow, what a stretch. The Iranian govt is much more centralized.
> > Removing the top along with strikes on troop concentrations...combined
> > with the threat of more strikes...is quite different than a single
> > blow.
>
> So you are saying all the US government does not live in DC when Congress is in
> session? There goes the top if nuking on a Wednesday.

Where did I say that? I said the Iranian govt is more
centralized. A strike on DC would seriously hurt the uS, but DC is much
less important to the uS than Tehran is to Iran. Taking out Tehran
would be like taking out DC, NY, and probably LA.

>
> Troop concentrations only work for the standing army, not reserves and only if
> they are far from the blast radius of cities.

Reserves have to be brought up....they're going to be concentrated
when doing this.

Kill people in the cities nad you
> motivate the troops who have lost family.

There would be a lot of opportunities.


Maybe you would not be motivated but I
> would be.

Straw man.

>
> >> As to tactical nukes, do not move troops in large groups. That has been known
> >> since August 1945. Keep the all spread out until massing for an engagement. Or
> >> just move in for a guerrilla war.
>
> > Dispersion creates its own problems. The small units are very
> > vulnerable to being destroyed piecemeal. Command, control, and
> > coordination are very difficult. US recon can spot concentrations and
> > destroy them.
>
> There are always problems with any tactic but equally there is a problem with
> matching attacks as US forces would have to be dispersed also.

Why? If US troops are kept together, the Iranians couldn't seriously
threaten them. If the Iranians massed to be a threat, they'd become
vulnerable to superior firepower.

But Iran can
> field a million against the US 140,000 so it would be difficult to find small
> enough dispersed Iranian groups to win one on one. 7:1 sort of usually wins
> regardless of firepower.

The Iranians couldn't bring anywhere near 1 million. That number
would only come into play if the US invades Iran.

>
> >>>> Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
> >>>> entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
> >>>> total nuclear exchange.
> >>> I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
> >>> to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
> >>> that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
> >>> the initial post.
> >> And my point is nukes are not a viable option in the real world.
>
> > Why? Because they're morally reprehensible? Please.
>
> Because the real world since September 1945 has realized all the basic
> ramifications of nukes and has worked to deal with them.

Nukes have not been used because of the threat from nuclear armed
adversaries. The ramifications are that if one side uses them, the
other will retaliate and both will lose.

>
> I know how to pacify Iraq. It is very simple. It has worked throughout all
> history. Carry away all the able bodied people into slavery or decimate the
> population. It has always worked. But it is a matter of what will sell these days.
>
> And I can tell you how to make nukes work. Destroy civilian population centers
> so all available manpower is engaged in returning life to normal. But if you do
> not do that you only make enemies who are armed and trained and ready to fight.
>
> >> In 1945 Japan
> >> had been suing for peace for nearly a year and only arguing conditions when the
> >> bomb removed the last condition. In the real world nukes are only valuable as
> >> either a threat or total destruction.
>
> > Bull. You're stuck in the Cold War. MAD only works if both sides can
> > destroy the other...when one side has all of the cards, nukes can be
> > very useful.
>
> As this has NEVER been tried please tell me how you can predict the future so
> confidently.

Are you better at predicting the future? Your opinion is no better
than mine. And I have common sense on my side.

"It stands to reason." is bull****. Please tell me exactly how it
> works in terms of the US being the non-nuclear victim. Tell me how Americans
> would respond.

I'm not advocating the use of nukes. I'm disagreeing with your
blanket "nukes are useless".

>
> >> There really no intermediate use for them.
> >
> > Of course there is. This is a totally absurd argument.
>
> Please describe in detail the intermediate use of nukes.

Tactical nukes can be used to destroy troop concentrations, deny
supply lines, destroy infrastructure...their military use is not a lot
different from any other type of weapon.

>
> >> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed the
> >> resolution to fight has increased.
>
> > Yep, Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure galvanized the Japanese.
>
> Together they were less than the Tokyo firebombing in terms of immediate deaths
> and square miles destroyed. Please explain the difference if it was not just one
> plane doing it.

You have just stated a major difference and then tried to discount
it.

>
> >> That should have been learned in WWII but
> >> those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they get involved they
> >> want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to resist" which has NEVER
> >> happened.
>
> > Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>
> As anyone who has gone beyond what they were taught in gradeschool will tell
> you there were many more reasons and the only thing that one plane bombing
> accomplished was dropping the conditions of the surrender than had been on the
> table for at least nine months before.

Once again, you are contradicting your argument.

>
> >>> Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
> >>> US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
> >>> troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
> >>> moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
> >>> Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
> >>> less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.
> >> Some 8 million Shia Iraqis in the south all along those supply lines would be
> >> the first to cut it. By the last poll 61% of Iraqis approve of attacking
> >> Americans but they are not doing it in the south. We are talking 400 miles of
> >> two highways for 800 miles to guard and keep open. How many troops per mile
> >> would be needed just to keep them open and uncratered? The latter meaning the
> >> road itself is not subjected to mortar attack.
>
> > Did you read my post? Why are you assuming the US forces will just
> > sit there and starve? What is to stop them from heading south? Have you
> > ever read about Chosin?
>
> Let them head south through the Shia south supported by Shia Iran. But remember
> they are doing it with the food and fuel they can bring with them.

And what can be delivered by air....which is quite substantial.

Can they
> carry enough fuel to get everyone a minimum of 400 miles to Kuwait? You tell me
> as you are the pretend expert. I recite my experience but then only ask
> questions so lets stick to the issues.

I must've missed your experience. Please enlighten me.

>
> So lets see 146,000 soon 21,500 more are going to be in Baghdad and point north
> because the Shia region is by definition to the south of Baghdad. So tell me
> where 167,500 troops have enough equipment to carry food and fuel to get to
> Baghdad and then the additional 400 miles back to Kuwait. I am interested in
> hearing all about these hidden assets in Iraq.

You are the one saying they can't do it. I haven't seen any
evidence that you know what you're talking about.

>
> Please tell me how they would make the trip with no resistance at all.

Where did that come from?

>
> Tell me how they are going to make it even if the only attacks are destroying
> the pavement. The slower the travel the more food and water needed.

Why are you assuming they'll have no resupply?

>
> >> --
> >> American troops in Iraq have to know they are risking their lives for people
> >> who hate them.
> >> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3727
> >> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> >> flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
>
> --
> A certain thing in this world is if you say Jews are inconsequential then
> Jews will start making claims of Jewish power they would call antisemitic if
> a non-Jew had said them.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3713
> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

[[email protected]]

Dan wrote:
> george wrote:
>
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Kolker wrote:
> > > > Matt Giwer wrote:
> > > >> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
> > > >> the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
> > > >> in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
> > > >> they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
> > > >> to resist" which has NEVER happened.
> > >
> > > > Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.
> > >
> > > Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.
> >
> > Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with
>
> Giwer may or may not be a Nazi but he on this one he is also right, (a
> stopped clock is right twice a day).
>
> Japan had did not only surrender because of THE BOMB.

Where has anyone claimed that? The bombs brought about the immediate
surrender. Japan was going down one way or the other, but it was the
bombs which caused the surrender at that moment.
were the bombs the only reason? Of course not...they were the immediate
reason.

> US had total air superiority was bombing Japan on a daily basis with
> conventional weapons,
> more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo a few weeks before than
> in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
>
> Japan was dependant on imports for Food and Fuel, and US Submarines had
> sunk the vast majority of the Japanese Merchant Fleet and most of the
> Japanese Navy was also at the bottom of the Pacific by this time. Total
> Naval blockade was already condemning Japan to starvation and a
> simultaneous Oil embargo.
>
> On land Stalin's forces were taking Manchuria that week, heading into
> Korea and before the end of the year would be preparing for invasion of
> the Home Islands.
>
> UK was moving forces freed up from Europe so was in the process of
> taking back SE Asia, and had a Pacific Fleet again for the first time
> in 4 years.
>
> US had a real plan to invade and occupy the Home Islands and Japan knew
> it. The UK and Empire by mid 46 would be in a position to provide
> sufficient troops to be arguing for an occupation zone of Japan, the US
> neither needed the troops nor wanted the future political complications
> of a joint occupation and that's before you think about the Red Army.
>
> Oh and of course in 1945 something like 90% plus of the nations on the
> planet were in a declared state of War with Japan.
>
> An unprovoked Nuclear attack on Iran by either the US or Israel with
> the support of no other nation on the planet except each other would
> provoke the reaction from Iran that 9/11 provoked in the US "how do we
> hit back". The rest of the Muslim world would support Iran against what
> would be seen as Genocidal monsters, most of the rest of the planet
> would initially be sympathetic to Iran. 24/7 pictures on CNN,
> Al-Jazeera, Star, Sky, etc etc pictures of Iranian corpses and
> irradiated children.
> Major risk is a coup in Pakistan which puts existing Nuclear weapons
> into the hands of hard line Islamic regime.
> Other risk is reaction in Iraq, last summer the elected Iraqi
> government backed Hezbullah in the war with Lebanon much to the shock
> of US politicians, it is possible that you would end up with direct
> fighting between US and Iraqi Army as well as mass revolt in Shia
> south, attacks from both major Shia militias Badr Brigades, and Mahdi
> Army which at present are not attacking US troops.

I've never claimed nuking Iran was a good idea. I'm only arguing
with Giver's bull**** that nukes are useless.

[[email protected]]

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > george wrote:
> >> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>> Robert Kolker wrote:
> >>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>>>> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
> >>>>> the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
> >>>>> in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
> >>>>> they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
> >>>>> to resist" which has NEVER happened.
> >>>> Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.
> >>> Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.
> >> Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with
>
> > Giwer may or may not be a Nazi but he on this one he is also right, (a
> > stopped clock is right twice a day).
>
> Disagreeing with WWII propaganda is the easiest way to be right. If you
> actually look at it when it is available without comment you have to ask why
> your parents/grandparents were stupid enough to fight that war.

Because the US was attacked.

>
> "Why we fight" couldn't sell air conditioning to Floridians it is so primitive
> and stupid. And yet every reason today is based upon making that propaganda
> sound sophisticated. No one today would fight WWII in Europe for any reason
> given at the time. Of course we can assume our parents were idiots but that does
> not explain how their children are suddenly so smart.
>
> Would you join with the communists to fight the Nazis? Would you join with the
> colonial masters of a billion people to fight the Nazis? A modern person would
> join the Nazis to free a billion people from colonial domination and end communism.

Good God, you are an idiot. No rational, modern person would join
the Nazis for anything.

>
> Or at least stay out of it and let them destroy each other for the fun of it.
>
> The US only got into the war in Europe because Germany declared war on the US
> for legitimate cause according to international law at the time. That cause only
> existed because the US was attacking German U-Boats as cited in Germany's DoW on
> the US from an FDR fireside chat announcement.

Germany declared war on the US to back up Japan. If Pearl Harbor
hadn't happened, do you think the germans would've declared war?

>
> --
> Bush's reason for staying in Iraq is the disaster he caused by invading.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3715
> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

[[email protected]]

Matt Giwer wrote:
> wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> >> Robert Kolker wrote:
> >>> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>>> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
> >>>> thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
> >>>> even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
> >>>> destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What
> >>>> other than slaughter prisoners?
> >>> Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
> >>> resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
> >>> defeat the army, defeat the civillians.
> >> That is what they said would happen in WWII but it did not happen. Sherman in
> >> fact did nothing to end the war.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> And as the South never surrendered your position is what?

I guess the CSA is alive and well. Damn, I live in it. Where do I
pay my taxes? I sure don't want the CSA revenuers coming after me.


Lee's surrender of
> the Army of Virginia was not a surrender of the South. But you know that.
>
> >> It was Grant willing to throw men to the
> >> slaughter to get a 1:5 exchange ratio
>
> > Where was this 1:5 exchange ratio?
>
> The Irish Grant was throwing at Lee.

Are you claiming that Grant sufferd 5 times the casualties that
Lee did, or are you claiming that Grant had 5 times the troops?

>
> >> with Lee eventually depleting his forces.
> >> Recognizing what kind of sub-human was Grant he surrendered for lack of
> >> replacement troops.
>
> > Oh, I see...you really don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Rather I do. What war are you talking about? Please cite the CSA surrender if
> you think there was one.

I see that you are delusional.


The Star Trek TNG writers adopted Johnson's
> declaration, Further resistance is futile.
>
> >> But Grant was sending new immigrants to be slaughter. It was
> >> not like he was sending real Americans.
> >
> > Wrong again. You should really read some history on the Overland
> > Campaign....it was, overall, a masterful campaign. (Now's your chance
> > to say "Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor!")
>
> Why? The South did not surrender. What is the point?

Since the South was never a real nation, any surrender was
meaningless. All that matters was that the rebel armies laid down their
arms. Do you want examples of that?

>
> >> --
> >> If the Iraqi army were running loose in the US I would kill them just for
> >> the fun of it.
> >> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3719
> >> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> >> Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12
>
> --
> The total failure in Iraq is not the execution of the post war strategy but
> the war itself. There was never a way it could win. No people have ever
> accepted foreigners ruling them.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3718
> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

[Matt Giwer]

wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> Robert Kolker wrote:
>>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>>> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
>>>>>> thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
>>>>>> even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
>>>>>> destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What
>>>>>> other than slaughter prisoners?
>>>>> Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
>>>>> resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
>>>>> defeat the army, defeat the civillians.
>>>> That is what they said would happen in WWII but it did not happen. Sherman in
>>>> fact did nothing to end the war.
>>> Wrong.
>> And as the South never surrendered your position is what?

> I guess the CSA is alive and well. Damn, I live in it. Where do I
> pay my taxes? I sure don't want the CSA revenuers coming after me.

I ask you for a URL to the surrender treaty of the CSA. You must have read it
in your studies of the war.

>> Lee's surrender of
>> the Army of Virginia was not a surrender of the South. But you know that.

>>>> It was Grant willing to throw men to the
>>>> slaughter to get a 1:5 exchange ratio
>>> Where was this 1:5 exchange ratio?
>> The Irish Grant was throwing at Lee.

> Are you claiming that Grant sufferd 5 times the casualties that
> Lee did, or are you claiming that Grant had 5 times the troops?

I am talking about the Irish and other immigrants who did not become citizens
of any state who were recruited right off the boats and sent into the army.
There were no states to include them among their dead.

>>>> with Lee eventually depleting his forces.
>>>> Recognizing what kind of sub-human was Grant he surrendered for lack of
>>>> replacement troops.
>>> Oh, I see...you really don't know what you're talking about.
>> Rather I do. What war are you talking about? Please cite the CSA surrender if
>> you think there was one.

> I see that you are delusional.

Please cite the surrender treaty.

>> The Star Trek TNG writers adopted Johnson's
>> declaration, Further resistance is futile.

>>>> But Grant was sending new immigrants to be slaughter. It was
>>>> not like he was sending real Americans.
>>> Wrong again. You should really read some history on the Overland
>>> Campaign....it was, overall, a masterful campaign. (Now's your chance
>>> to say "Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor!")
>> Why? The South did not surrender. What is the point?

> Since the South was never a real nation, any surrender was
> meaningless. All that matters was that the rebel armies laid down their
> arms. Do you want examples of that?

Independence exists from the moment of declaration. See July 4, 1776 for
details on the precedent for independence from the moment of declaration or just
wait for the speeches on the 4th of July this year.

They formed a Confederation using some 95+% of the USA constitution and
voluntarily signed it. To me that says there was no difference.
http://www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/mgiwer5/confeder.html and
http://www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/mgiwer5/confcomm.html for details.

The USA constitution, unlike the CSA constitution was silent on secession.
However four states (New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the other) ratified
the USA constitution on condition of the right to secede. As those conditional
ratifications were accepted one has to conclude there was no objection to the
conditions.

What do you mean by not a real nation?

I am aware the armies trying to repel the Yankees and defend their independence
quit fighting. But there was no surrender. If you think there was you certainly
can provide a proper citation.

>>>> --
>>>> If the Iraqi army were running loose in the US I would kill them just for
>>>> the fun of it.
>>>> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3719
>>>> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
>>>> Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12
>> --
>> The total failure in Iraq is not the execution of the post war strategy but
>> the war itself. There was never a way it could win. No people have ever
>> accepted foreigners ruling them.
>> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3718
>> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
>> antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

--
The damage done by counterfeiting is negligible compared to inflation but
only the former is illegal.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3734
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8

[Matt Giwer]

wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> george wrote:
>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>> Robert Kolker wrote:
>>>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>>>> In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
>>>>>>> the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
>>>>>>> in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
>>>>>>> they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
>>>>>>> to resist" which has NEVER happened.
>>>>>> Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.
>>>>> Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.
>>>> Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with
>>> Giwer may or may not be a Nazi but he on this one he is also right, (a
>>> stopped clock is right twice a day).
>> Disagreeing with WWII propaganda is the easiest way to be right. If you
>> actually look at it when it is available without comment you have to ask why
>> your parents/grandparents were stupid enough to fight that war.

> Because the US was attacked.

"Why we Fight" had little to do with being attacked. Pearl Harbor was obvious
and that was war with Japan not Germany.

>> "Why we fight" couldn't sell air conditioning to Floridians it is so primitive
>> and stupid. And yet every reason today is based upon making that propaganda
>> sound sophisticated. No one today would fight WWII in Europe for any reason
>> given at the time. Of course we can assume our parents were idiots but that does
>> not explain how their children are suddenly so smart.

>> Would you join with the communists to fight the Nazis? Would you join with the
>> colonial masters of a billion people to fight the Nazis? A modern person would
>> join the Nazis to free a billion people from colonial domination and end communism.

> Good God, you are an idiot. No rational, modern person would join
> the Nazis for anything.

The communists were worse than the Nazis by every measure. At the time the US
joined the war against the Nazis they were accused of nothing Russia had not
done in invading Poland. Today Eastern European countries refuse to support EU
laws about Nazis unless the same laws apply to communists and communism in all
its forms.

Rational people would look at the greatest evil in 1941 and damn the Brits and
the French and the Communists and never support them.

You really have no grasp of the times.

>> Or at least stay out of it and let them destroy each other for the fun of it.

>> The US only got into the war in Europe because Germany declared war on the US
>> for legitimate cause according to international law at the time. That cause only
>> existed because the US was attacking German U-Boats as cited in Germany's DoW on
>> the US from an FDR fireside chat announcement.

> Germany declared war on the US to back up Japan. If Pearl Harbor
> hadn't happened, do you think the germans would've declared war?

I have no idea. I said Germany's DOW on the US was lawful under international
law at the time. There is really no escaping that. It is right in the Von
Ribbentrop DOW.

>> --
>> Bush's reason for staying in Iraq is the disaster he caused by invading.
>> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3715
>> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
>> Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

--
Senior military in Iraq against the troop increase are replaced. Consensus
building Neocon style.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3742
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8

[Matt Giwer]

Dan wrote:
....
> Cutting supply lines in the South would be relatively easy. Of course
> US could take control back but it would put up the cost of the
> operation and tie up large numbers of troops defending the length of
> the supply lines.

The only viable strategy would be to evacuate Iraq. To do that the reserve
troops in Kuwait have to move up the highways and be met by existing troops
heading down the highways to meet up with them. They have to completely secure
the highways so fuel, food and ammo can be taken all the way back into Iraq so
they has fight their way back down the highways into Kuwait.

If it is successful Bush can order then to stop and regroup maybe halfway back
to Kuwait and establish a frontier. More likely Bush would prohibit any retreat
and the officers in theater would have to order it despite Bush.

--
The war on terror can last for thirty years. Israel claims to have been
fighting terrorism for 58 years and there is no end in sight.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3729
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org

[Matt Giwer]

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Dan wrote:>
>> The US is the most powerful nation on the planet by a long way with the
>> worlds largest economy, a united US population to that makes a decision
>> to do something and is willing to accept casualties to do it can do it.
>> If that is invade and occupy Iran that is possible.

> How about killing all the Iranians with weapons of mass destruction.
> Faster, better, cheaper, more thorough.

Another admirer of Stalin and Hitler heard from.

> Anyone who sends a man to do a job that can be best done with a machine
> is criminally mistaken.

Or simply not attack Iran at all. MAD worked against Russia. It will certainly
work against Iran.

Then you say "they are insane" to salvage a very stupid idea.

--
Hodie duodevicesimo Kalendas Februarias MMVII est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

[[email protected]]

Matt Giwer wrote:
> wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>>> Robert Kolker wrote:
> >>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>>>>> How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
> >>>>>> thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
> >>>>>> even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
> >>>>>> destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What
> >>>>>> other than slaughter prisoners?
> >>>>> Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
> >>>>> resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
> >>>>> defeat the army, defeat the civillians.
> >>>> That is what they said would happen in WWII but it did not happen. Sherman in
> >>>> fact did nothing to end the war.
> >>> Wrong.
> >> And as the South never surrendered your position is what?
>
> > I guess the CSA is alive and well. Damn, I live in it. Where do I
> > pay my taxes? I sure don't want the CSA revenuers coming after me.
>
> I ask you for a URL to the surrender treaty of the CSA. You must have read it
> in your studies of the war.

Why? If the CSA still exists, I really need to know where to pay
my taxes. Please let me know.

>
> >> Lee's surrender of
> >> the Army of Virginia was not a surrender of the South. But you know that.
>
> >>>> It was Grant willing to throw men to the
> >>>> slaughter to get a 1:5 exchange ratio
> >>> Where was this 1:5 exchange ratio?
> >> The Irish Grant was throwing at Lee.
>
> > Are you claiming that Grant sufferd 5 times the casualties that
> > Lee did, or are you claiming that Grant had 5 times the troops?
>
> I am talking about the Irish and other immigrants who did not become citizens
> of any state who were recruited right off the boats and sent into the army.
> There were no states to include them among their dead.

They were recruited into state regiments. Please show me
documentation about these phantom troops.

>
> >>>> with Lee eventually depleting his forces.
> >>>> Recognizing what kind of sub-human was Grant he surrendered for lack of
> >>>> replacement troops.
> >>> Oh, I see...you really don't know what you're talking about.
> >> Rather I do. What war are you talking about? Please cite the CSA surrender if
> >> you think there was one.
>
> > I see that you are delusional.
>
> Please cite the surrender treaty.

Please give up this strawman.

>
> >> The Star Trek TNG writers adopted Johnson's
> >> declaration, Further resistance is futile.
>
> >>>> But Grant was sending new immigrants to be slaughter. It was
> >>>> not like he was sending real Americans.
> >>> Wrong again. You should really read some history on the Overland
> >>> Campaign....it was, overall, a masterful campaign. (Now's your chance
> >>> to say "Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor!")
> >> Why? The South did not surrender. What is the point?
>
> > Since the South was never a real nation, any surrender was
> > meaningless. All that matters was that the rebel armies laid down their
> > arms. Do you want examples of that?
>
> Independence exists from the moment of declaration. See July 4, 1776 for
> details on the precedent for independence from the moment of declaration or just
> wait for the speeches on the 4th of July this year.

July 4th is important because the rebels won. If the colonies
were defeated, they never would've been considered independent....and
July 4th would be nothing but a footnote about a failed rebellion.


>
> They formed a Confederation using some 95+% of the USA constitution and
> voluntarily signed it. To me that says there was no difference.
> http://www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/mgiwer5/confeder.html and
> http://www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/mgiwer5/confcomm.html for details.
>
> The USA constitution, unlike the CSA constitution was silent on secession.
> However four states (New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the other) ratified
> the USA constitution on condition of the right to secede. As those conditional
> ratifications were accepted one has to conclude there was no objection to the
> conditions.

Since the rest of the US objected, your argument is absurd.

>
> What do you mean by not a real nation?

The CSA was never a real nation. Real nations are recognized
by the international community.

>
> I am aware the armies trying to repel the Yankees and defend their independence
> quit fighting. But there was no surrender. If you think there was you certainly
> can provide a proper citation.

The armies surrendered. Since the govt was not legitimate, it
had no power to surrender.




>
> >>>> --
> >>>> If the Iraqi army were running loose in the US I would kill them just for
> >>>> the fun of it.
> >>>> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3719
> >>>> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> >>>> Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12
> >> --
> >> The total failure in Iraq is not the execution of the post war strategy but
> >> the war itself. There was never a way it could win. No people have ever
> >> accepted foreigners ruling them.
> >> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3718
> >> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> >> antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1
>
> --
> The damage done by counterfeiting is negligible compared to inflation but
> only the former is illegal.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3734
> nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
> Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8