NationStates Jolt Archive

He's wrong.

There we go.

*Woohoo for the OP steal!*

I think McCain lost his mind a while ago and has just been digging himself a deeper hole...

'Bomb Iran' McCain sings (http://www.thestar.com/article/205477)

McCain, campaigning Wednesday in South Carolina, answered a question about military action against Iran with the chorus of the surf-rocker classic Barbara Ann.

What do you think? Is McCain serious?

Should the US take on Iran?

MoveOn.org thinks if he were elected he may too be a wreckless president...

America can win a war against Iran no sweat. Well it would take a little more intense fighten then the 1st gulf war against Iraq, but nothing to big. But then you get what we see today in Iraq, so my advice. If you must attack Iran, do it Clinton style.

Asked if his joke was insensitive, McCain said: "Insensitive to what? The Iranians?'' -LOL

America can win a war against Iran no sweat. Well it would take a little more intense fighten then the 1st gulf war against Iraq, but nothing to big. But then you get what we see today in Iraq, so my advice. If you must attack Iran, do it Clinton style.
Err...

What do you mean "Clinton style"?

Clinton didn't really fight any major wars other than Somalia, which went horribly wrong.



The Persian public, by the way, is going to fight just as hard, if not harder, than the Iraqi public against US forces if there was an invasion.

Keep in mind that it's also far bigger than Iraq and that the US is already stretched woefully thin.

America can win a war against Iran no sweat. Well it would take a little more intense fighten then the 1st gulf war against Iraq, but nothing to big. But then you get what we see today in Iraq, so my advice. If you must attack Iran, do it Clinton style.

Kick the door down and flip on the light switch. The cockroaches will scurry for cover. Then maybe we can see a more moderate regime take hold.

Should the US take on Iran?
No.

Ok, let's ignore the legal and moral implications of bombing a country which hasn't been shown to be breaking international law, let's ignore the effect that such an attack would have on the whole of the Middle East, and let's ignore the fact that the few remnants of stability left in Iraq will swiftly vanish as Iran retaliates.

A bombing campaign will not stop the Iranians if they want to make a nuclear bomb, it might even speed up the process. Even if we could take out all of their nuclear facilities, it isn't so easy to take out the scientists and the knowledge accumulated by those scientists. After an attack, the attempt to build a nuclear bomb would acquire a new urgency, and once it had the bomb Iran would be less likely to negotiate.

No, attacking Iran is the worst idea in the history of international conflict since Napoleon thought it'd be jolly to lead his army into Russia without any cold-weather gear just before the onset of winter. Let's not.

Asked if his joke was insensitive, McCain said: "Insensitive to what? The Iranians?'' -LOL

What happened to you McCain? You used to be cool.

Politicians, like stage actors, play to their audience. Oftentimes they say something incredibly stupid. John McCain did precisely that.

Besides the fact that he was not serious, and he will not be President, so it doesn't matter anyways.

Kick the door down and flip on the light switch. The cockroaches will scurry for cover. Then maybe we can see a more moderate regime take hold.
Wasn't that supposed to happen in Iraq years ago?

Kick the door down and flip on the light switch. The cockroaches will scurry for cover.
Meaning.....?


Then maybe we can see a more moderate regime take hold, when we've installed them.
Fixed. :)

Err...

What do you mean "Clinton style"?

Clinton didn't really fight any major wars other than Somalia, which went horribly wrong.

Correct, although he did have battleplans to Invade Afghanistan and go after Bin Laden but the Republicans sayed (NOTE! Bush was one of those republicans that sayed the following: ) Dont go after Bin Laden he's a small player, why are you so obsessed with him?

The Persian public, by the way, is going to fight just as hard, if not harder, than the Iraqi public against US forces if there was an invasion.

Keep in mind that it's also far bigger than Iraq and that the US is already stretched woefully thin.

What I sayed, the USA is capable of winning the conventional war, you know Jet versus jet, tank versus tank. But I also sayed that after the conventional war you will get what Iraq is today.

So what I sayed, is if America just can't withstand the urge to attack Iran (which I fear it can't, seems like its compulsory) then dont invade, just slash cruise missles at everything and anything.

Kick the door down and flip on the light switch. The cockroaches will scurry for cover. Then maybe we can see a more moderate regime take hold.
Yes, exactly... see South America / the Caribbean / most of the Middle East and Africa / anywhere else that the US has fucked about with.

We do NOT have the military resources for a war with Iran at this point in time. Hell, we can barely hold down Iraq, and Iran would be much, much harder to defeat and to occupy.

Now I'm waiting for the trolls to come and accuse me of treason. Go ahead, trolls, do it!

:rolleyes:

Just goes to show you that Washington rots your brain. You could end up like McCain folks! Avoid the political game or you could start wanting to bomb various countries and turn that wish into song!

Is McCain really just speaking for himself?

You know the worst part for the USA of all this is: You can't fight Terrorist insurgancy in Iraq with Abrams tanks or F/A-22 fighters. So you know what happens is, the USA canibalises the Air Force and the Navy on Finances (in otherwords, the pentagon takes money away from the Air Froce and Navy budget) to be able to finance the infantry and mercaneries.

What this leads to is: When the USA pulls out of Iraq, it will find that it's military has been unable to follow its modernisation programs and keep the military well maintained. In otherwords not only is this war costing the USA a shitload directly, its also going to cost the USA a whole shitload to catch up to Europe and China in terms of modern well maintained militaries.

Just look at it: The F/A-22 program is gowing threw budget cut after budget cut, Ditto for the F-35 progam Ditto for the F-16/F-15 upgrade program. The new Leopard 2 surpassed the M1A2 (SEP) because the Army didnt have enough funds to upgrade. And the US navy still uses the Phalanx missile defence system while Europe developed the far better Goalkeeper and the USA doesnt have the finances to buy or copy the Goalkeeper.

You know the worst part for the USA of all this is: You can't fight Terrorist insurgancy in Iraq with Abrams tanks or F/A-22 fighters. So you know what happens is, the USA canibalises the Air Force and the Navy on Finances (in otherwords, the pentagon takes money away from the Air Froce and Navy budget) to be able to finance the infantry and mercaneries.

What this leads to is: When the USA pulls out of Iraq, it will find that it's military has been unable to follow its modernisation programs and keep the military well maintained. In otherwords not only is this war costing the USA a shitload directly, its also going to cost the USA a whole shitload to catch up to Europe and China in terms of modern well maintained militaries.

Just look at it: The F/A-22 program is gowing threw budget cut after budget cut, Ditto for the F-35 progam Ditto for the F-16/F-15 upgrade program. The new Leopard 2 surpassed the M1A2 (SEP) because the Army didnt have enough funds to upgrade. And the US navy still uses the Phalanx missile defence system while Europe developed the far better Goalkeeper and the USA doesnt have the finances to buy or copy the Goalkeeper.You know, if the US weren't messing with other countries so much and getting into "preemptive" wars they wouldn't need such an extensive military. How about just improving the quality of US foreign policies?

I heard on ABC radio that after this gaff, McCain told his critics that they need to, and I quote, "Get a life"

:rolleyes:

We're not the ones who brought our own competence into question...what is this, John Ashcroft singing "When the Eagles Soar"?

Way to court undecided centrists, BTW...the only support he can count on now is the minority of his own party that supports the current course in Iraq.

I can't say I'm disappointed...I highly doubt he'll even survive the primaries now, much less win the Presidential election.

Shit...it's not even May. :p

Nuke 'em All!

So...when a democrat botches a joke, it's grounds to destroy his presidential race...


But when a republican tells a bad joke-doesn't botch it, just tells a joke that's stupid in the first place-it's okay?


Media-wise, that sounds about right.

Nuke 'em All!Yes, all the McCains.

Wasn't there already a thread on this?

Seriously though, does anyone buy his excuse that it was just a joke? I mean the guy is running for President, and around this time what potential nominees say for policy and the like is very important. Mixing a potentially full scale war and pop music is rather irresponsible in any way.

Err...

What do you mean "Clinton style"?"Clinton style" is to send in a few bombers to hit a select target that is associated with (or is percieved to be asscociated with) the offense or policy that country is being acused of.

Basically you give 'em a smack and say 'knock it off, don't make me come down there!'

Clinton didn't really fight any major wars other than Somalia, which went horribly wrong.:rolleyes: Uh... Somalia wasn't a war. We went over there to give humanitarian aide, the troops were there to provide security for that aide.

Yeah it went wrong, that's why we pulled out. The US basically decided it wasn't worth trying to help the starving with the warlords wanting to kill us rather than back off enough to allow the aforementioned aide.

Could have been worse.

Clinton could have embroiled us in a unwinable war. One where no matter what we did we only would have made more enemies faster than we could kill them.

He at least was smart enough to not get caught in the type of trap that his successor blustered into...

So...when a democrat botches a joke, it's grounds to destroy his presidential race...


But when a republican tells a bad joke-doesn't botch it, just tells a joke that's stupid in the first place-it's okay?


Media-wise, that sounds about right.Don't be to sure that this will blow over for McCain.

I'm pretty sure he just about sealed the Republic nod for Gulliani with that gaffe.

The Persian public, by the way, is going to fight just as hard, if not harder, than the Iraqi public against US forces if there was an invasion.


Right now Ahmadinejad is very unpopular among the majority of the Iranian people. He's been openly criticised by many, including by the Iranian media. He will almost certainly not be re-elected.

If the US wants to turn an unpopular politician into a national hero, sure, attack Iran, and watch as all his opponents flock behind him against the common American enemy...

You know, if the US weren't messing with other countries so much and getting into "preemptive" wars they wouldn't need such an extensive military. How about just improving the quality of US foreign policies?

You radical, you. :p

...sayed... ...sayed... ...sayed... ...sayed... ...sayed...

I went quite insane after this!

You shall now have no more excuse to write sayed, since I will now correct you: It's spelled said.

There we go, no more insanity for anyone! :D

(remember, said! not sayed, said!)

What's happened to the Republicans?

Cheney rapped, McCain sang on radio, wtf is the rest of the administration going to do.

The next repub election campaign, "American President Idol"

I went quite insane after this!

You shall now have no more excuse to write sayed, since I will now correct you: It's spelled said.

There we go, no more insanity for anyone! :D

(remember, said! not sayed, said!)Well, at least sayed and said sound almost the same, unlike teached and taught... ;)

America can win a war against Iran no sweat. Well it would take a little more intense fighten then the 1st gulf war against Iraq, but nothing to big. But then you get what we see today in Iraq, so my advice. If you must attack Iran, do it Clinton style.

Everytime something like this gets mentioned I put on the broken record that repeats: depends on the objectives, depends on the objectives, depends on the objectives...

Clinton didn't really fight any major wars other than Somalia, which went horribly wrong.

The Balkans and Haiti were more of Clinton's doing than Somalia. Poppy had commited US forces to Somalia before Billy was in office.

The Persian public, by the way, is going to fight just as hard, if not harder, than the Iraqi public against US forces if there was an invasion.

Keep in mind that it's also far bigger than Iraq and that the US is already stretched woefully thin.

Indeed. But again, it depends on the objectives.

Speaking simply from the facts, if the US adopted a "Don't Fuck With Us or Else!" foreign policy, and saw the wrecking and non-reconstruction of Iran as an acceptable goal, it'd be no problem to achieve that goal a la a modern application of the "Mongol Method".

(NOTE: That's not an advocation of said ideas. It's simply a statementy of fact.)

Yes, exactly... see South America / the Caribbean / most of the Middle East and Africa / anywhere else that the US has fucked about with.

Really, the US hasn't screwed around in Africa all that much. Some for sure, but see the Euro types to find who fucked Africa over (and who're continuing to do so today...)

You know the worst part for the USA of all this is: You can't fight Terrorist insurgancy in Iraq with Abrams tanks or F/A-22 fighters. So you know what happens is, the USA canibalises the Air Force and the Navy on Finances (in otherwords, the pentagon takes money away from the Air Froce and Navy budget) to be able to finance the infantry and mercaneries.

What this leads to is: When the USA pulls out of Iraq, it will find that it's military has been unable to follow its modernisation programs and keep the military well maintained. In otherwords not only is this war costing the USA a shitload directly, its also going to cost the USA a whole shitload to catch up to Europe and China in terms of modern well maintained militaries.

Just look at it: The F/A-22 program is gowing threw budget cut after budget cut, Ditto for the F-35 progam Ditto for the F-16/F-15 upgrade program. The new Leopard 2 surpassed the M1A2 (SEP) because the Army didnt have enough funds to upgrade. And the US navy still uses the Phalanx missile defence system while Europe developed the far better Goalkeeper and the USA doesnt have the finances to buy or copy the Goalkeeper.

You've got half of it there. Modern militaries like the US has built are notr designed for winning the sorts of wars we can expect to be involved in anytime soon. Concentrating on forces designed to deal with 3rd world nations is much more important than keeping up with the Jones in Europe or China, especially when the real national threats are based in the 3rd world.

"Clinton style" is to send in a few bombers to hit a select target that is associated with (or is percieved to be asscociated with) the offense or policy that country is being acused of.

Basically you give 'em a smack and say 'knock it off, don't make me come down there!'

:rolleyes: Uh... Somalia wasn't a war. We went over there to give humanitarian aide, the troops were there to provide security for that aide.

Yeah it went wrong, that's why we pulled out. The US basically decided it wasn't worth trying to help the starving with the warlords wanting to kill us rather than back off enough to allow the aforementioned aide.

Could have been worse.

Clinton could have embroiled us in a unwinable war. One where no matter what we did we only would have made more enemies faster than we could kill them.

He at least was smart enough to not get caught in the type of trap that his successor blustered into...

More like he was smart enough to make his mistake first and learn from it. What happened in Somalia was a mistake, but Haiti and the Balkans built on the lessons learned there.

Meh. One scumbag says something stupid and gives an advantage to another scumbag. Not surprised, and finding it very difficult to care. I find McCain almost as distasteful as the old Fuhrer of NYC. And the democrats aren't looking too good either. What else is new?

You know the worst part for the USA of all this is: You can't fight Terrorist insurgancy in Iraq with Abrams tanks or F/A-22 fighters. So you know what happens is, the USA canibalises the Air Force and the Navy on Finances (in otherwords, the pentagon takes money away from the Air Froce and Navy budget) to be able to finance the infantry and mercaneries.

What this leads to is: When the USA pulls out of Iraq, it will find that it's military has been unable to follow its modernisation programs and keep the military well maintained. In otherwords not only is this war costing the USA a shitload directly, its also going to cost the USA a whole shitload to catch up to Europe and China in terms of modern well maintained militaries.

Just look at it: The F/A-22 program is gowing threw budget cut after budget cut, Ditto for the F-35 progam Ditto for the F-16/F-15 upgrade program. The new Leopard 2 surpassed the M1A2 (SEP) because the Army didnt have enough funds to upgrade. And the US navy still uses the Phalanx missile defence system while Europe developed the far better Goalkeeper and the USA doesnt have the finances to buy or copy the Goalkeeper.

You've got half of it there. Modern militaries like the US has built are notr designed for winning the sorts of wars we can expect to be involved in anytime soon. Concentrating on forces designed to deal with 3rd world nations is much more important than keeping up with the Jones in Europe or China, especially when the real national threats are based in the 3rd world.

Im not certain you see the full extent of all this: let's just take 1 things of what I sayed and look at it in detail. The F-16/F-15 upgrade progam. Both jets are old, and both are designed for MUCH shorter lifespans then they are actually used for. The F-16 for example shouldn't be used for more then 3.000 flying hours, if you upgrade it you can get it up to 8.000 hours but then you really need to throw it away as it would cost you 24 man hours of maintanance per flight hour at that point, which I think you know, is impossible to win any war with. Currently the F-16 and F-15 fleet is BEYOND its max of 3.000 hours and is in DIRE need of upgrades, these upgrades however are not arriving. The F-15 for example is at a point that its tail fins often rip off if you go beyond supersonic speeds, it's happening alot in the USA, F-16s are chrashing faster then you can count.

If the US air Force doesnt get it's act together the USAF will be as usefull as trying to blow up a meteorite the size of texas with a WWI bomb.

Now I am fully aware of the fact that conventional warfare is not the main focus point, but ignoring it all together is just... stupid and suicidal. The USA should learn from Europe, Europe seems to be more succesfull in retaining peace in it's regions in Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time when the Americans take over, those regions suddenly become violent. Again the USA should learn from Europe, it has proven capable of building an effecitve anti-terror army whilst still retaining it's high-tech airforce/navy.

'Bomb Iran' McCain sings (http://www.thestar.com/article/205477)MoveOn.org thinks if he were elected he may too be a wreckless president...

Compared to the current one, you mean?

The next repub election campaign, "American President Idol"

The next campaign regardless of camp: President Evil. :D

Im not certain you see the full extent of all this: let's just take 1 things of what I sayed and look at it in detail. The F-16/F-15 upgrade progam. Both jets are old, and both are designed for MUCH shorter lifespans then they are actually used for. The F-16 for example shouldn't be used for more then 3.000 flying hours, if you upgrade it you can get it up to 8.000 hours but then you really need to throw it away as it would cost you 24 man hours of maintanance per flight hour at that point, which I think you know, is impossible to win any war with. Currently the F-16 and F-15 fleet is BEYOND its max of 3.000 hours and is in DIRE need of upgrades, these upgrades however are not arriving. The F-15 for example is at a point that its tail fins often rip off if you go beyond supersonic speeds, it's happening alot in the USA, F-16s are chrashing faster then you can count.

If the US air Force doesnt get it's act together the USAF will be as usefull as trying to blow up a meteorite the size of texas with a WWI bomb.

Now I am fully aware of the fact that conventional warfare is not the main focus point, but ignoring it all together is just... stupid and suicidal. The USA should learn from Europe, Europe seems to be more succesfull in retaining peace in it's regions in Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time when the Americans take over, those regions suddenly become violent. Again the USA should learn from Europe, it has proven capable of building an effecitve anti-terror army whilst still retaining it's high-tech airforce/navy.


Actually no nation in Europe has much of a Navy. The once mighty Royal Navy is being scrapped, and if the plans go through it will rival the *mighty* Dutch navy.

Asked if his joke was insensitive, McCain said: "Insensitive to what? The Iranians?'' -LOL

Thats my boy! John McCain FTW!

I don't support him winning, but that is a statement against political correctness. I HATE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!

Im not certain you see the full extent of all this: let's just take 1 things of what I sayed and look at it in detail. The F-16/F-15 upgrade progam. Both jets are old, and both are designed for MUCH shorter lifespans then they are actually used for. The F-16 for example shouldn't be used for more then 3.000 flying hours, if you upgrade it you can get it up to 8.000 hours but then you really need to throw it away as it would cost you 24 man hours of maintanance per flight hour at that point, which I think you know, is impossible to win any war with. Currently the F-16 and F-15 fleet is BEYOND its max of 3.000 hours and is in DIRE need of upgrades, these upgrades however are not arriving. The F-15 for example is at a point that its tail fins often rip off if you go beyond supersonic speeds, it's happening alot in the USA, F-16s are chrashing faster then you can count.

If the US air Force doesnt get it's act together the USAF will be as usefull as trying to blow up a meteorite the size of texas with a WWI bomb.

Now I am fully aware of the fact that conventional warfare is not the main focus point, but ignoring it all together is just... stupid and suicidal. The USA should learn from Europe, Europe seems to be more succesfull in retaining peace in it's regions in Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time when the Americans take over, those regions suddenly become violent. Again the USA should learn from Europe, it has proven capable of building an effecitve anti-terror army whilst still retaining it's high-tech airforce/navy.

It's that sort of "Jedi Knight" thinking that got the US into the problems of Iraq. The "Heavy Metal" crowd lost out in that debate, and we ended up lots of tech goodies that aren't useful in the sorts of wars we face now, and insufficient real forces to deal with places like Iraq.

Actually no nation in Europe has much of a Navy. The once mighty Royal Navy is being scrapped, and if the plans go through it will rival the *mighty* Dutch navy.

How un-expected that I would hear this :P. There still are othe navy's then that of Britain, Besides the Dutch Navy is the only one that has ships above the level of corvette with high grade stealth capabilities, also the German/Swedish/Dannish/Dutch navy's have extremely quite long range diesel/hydrogen subs a level of silence nuclear subs can't even dream about.

Indeed European navy's on their own dont meen much, but the navy of just one American coastal state is worthless too. Combined the European navy ain't half bad and it's still modern, hardly something you can say about any US military branch these days.

It's that sort of "Jedi Knight" thinking that got the US into the problems of Iraq. The "Heavy Metal" crowd lost out in that debate, and we ended up lots of tech goodies that aren't useful in the sorts of wars we face now, and insufficient real forces to deal with places like Iraq.

Actually that kind of thinking that you're showing is the stuff that got the USA in trouble in Iraq. After vietnam nobody in the USA immagined any similar war would ever take place again and TADAA there you have Iraq. Many people today think conventional war is done for, and it is but not forever, you're going to have to go both ways. Because ignoring one type of warfare to focus on the other is fatal.

Just like the USA totally focussed on conventional warfare, they now totally focus on Iraq type wars. And they will be caught again with the fact that they were unprepared for conventional warfare. I just can't understand why a nation is so blind to change and that change is never permanent.

Actually that kind of thinking that you're showing is the stuff that got the USA in trouble in Iraq. After vietnam nobody in the USA immagined any similar war would ever take place again and TADAA there you have Iraq. Many people today think conventional war is done for, and it is but not forever, you're going to have to go both ways. Because ignoring one type of warfare to focus on the other is fatal.

Just like the USA totally focussed on conventional warfare, they now totally focus on Iraq type wars. And they will be caught again with the fact that they were unprepared for conventional warfare. I just can't understand why a nation is so blind to change and that change is never permanent.

Err... no.

Suggesting that the US military focus on realistic future forms of warfare rather than focusing on perfecting the ability to fight against the predicted abilities of former cold war enemies is what got us into Iraq. Yes, the Pentagon's thinking needed some fixing, but "techno goodies at the expense of needed training" was quite possibly the worst possible answer.

So we're back were we started and you agreed with me: The USA should learn from European Militaries.