Drudge: Hezbollah 'Ready to Attack U.S. Interests'

Bring it on beaches...

from JoeUser Forums
Please don't call me a war-monger (though supposedly all right leaning/conservative leading individuals are, at least that was hinted at by a recent poster in another thread that also tried to say that such individuals are absolutely against civil rights, etc.), but I must say that if the headline article that is blaring over at Drudge is true (see original article here: Hezbollah 'Ready to Attack U.S. Interests') then I do say BRING IT ON BITCHES.

Seriously, if Hezbollah wants to bring the U.S.A. into the fight, rather than picking at what they think is our proxy (Israel), then please do. While I don't want to see any innocent lives lost, and don't want to see even the destruction of U.S. inteterest property, I would love to see Hezbollah make the fatal mistake and give us (the U.S.A.) a free pass for taking any and all necessary action to wipe them out of existence.

So, while I don't want to see such provacative events happen, I say bring it on. Please do make the mistake. Try poking the big sleeping giant. That swift fighting that happened in Afghanistan could be just as easily pulled off in Syria or Lebanon. Yes, I know that we might also be pulled into a "quagmire" if we have to stay around forever to nation build or keep peace. But it's just as possible that we finally will show just how fed up with both Iran and Syria we really are, and we very well may decide that it's time to break out the very big toys and end all of the nonsense once and for all.

All life should be precious. Note I said should be. Unfortunately the scum that infest Syria, Lebanon and especially Iran have shown that they don't believe that is the case, and I think it's high time to take them up on their feelings. If they want to go see Allah so badly, then lets help get them there, several at a time.

For as badly as the world might look upon us for a while, I guarantee they'd also be looking on in fear. Even as lunatics like Kim Jong (mentally) Il(l) look upon such potential activities and say we are monsters and evil, they'd get the message not to mess with the U.S.A.

It's past time for such tactics in many ways, and Hezbollah may yet give us the ultimate justification for using such force.
politics
2,868 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
All I know is that the people living in Iran should be glad I'm not watching the buttons that would launch things toward them as I'd have no hesitation at all about hitting the button and letting the missiles launch or the bombs drop.

You want to tell me that I'm sick and twisted for having such thoughts, and you want to slow me down and tell me that there are many innocent individuals in Iran that are not our enemies? Then please stop before you do and tell me again why those individuals haven't revolted and tossed their lunactic leaders out of office. They've demonstrated that ability in the past (even if it was almost 30 years ago), and they could certainly do it again if they wanted. The problem is that they lack the will-power and drive to do it, and many of them have so long been indoctrinated by the hatred they have been taught that they are beyond hope anyway.

Again, I do feel for innocent people that may lose their lives if what I've said were to happen, but there were choices to be made a long time ago, the best of which would have been to toss out the radical Islamists a long time ago.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hezbollah is attacking the Jews, therefore they are already attacking "US interests."  If the nascent terrorist organizations in Iraq have given the American people pause in their march toward Empire, I wonder what the more highly trained, better equipped, and more highly motivated soldiers of Hezbollah will do.

 

Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think Iraq already showed the world that Israel, despite all their nice innovations, still have some things to learn.  So yea, bring them on!

Hezbollah is attacking the Jews, therefore they are already attacking "US interests." If the nascent terrorist organizations in Iraq have given the American people pause in their march toward Empire, I wonder what the more highly trained, better equipped, and more highly motivated soldiers of Hezbollah will do.

Pee in their pants and cry for mama.  At least the Iraqis had honor.  These slimes (that do not fit into our empire equation - since there is none) dont.

BMOC when it is helpless women and children.  Whinny babies (re-Gitmo) when real men confront them. 

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"That swift fighting that happened in Afghanistan could be just as easily pulled off in Syria or Lebanon."


lebanon, maybe, but not Syria. No offense to our great military intended, but invading Syria would be far, far more challenging than the original Gulf War, and we didn't really do much invading then. Syria has a STANDING military of four MILLION people, men and women. They spend almost a billion dollars a year on their military budget.

Add to that their chemical weapons capabilities that no one likes to talk about, and their ability to basically plunk missiles anywhere in Israel at will, well, invasion ain't anything we'd consider. On the bright side I don't think it would be on the table no matter what they do, rather we'd just 'shock and awe' them for months.

Imagine an entire nation with Fallujah's attitude bristling with modern, albeit less advanced, weapons. It's easy to get into a 'hell yeah' kind of mood about our military, but Afghanistan basically had nothing, and Hussein was washed up ten years before we invaded Iraq proper.

You can't underestimate the difficulties a nation like Syria or Iran would present, where the average person wouldn't be whacking the President's picture with shoes. That's why we'd be at war a LONG time before we invade, imho; it would be a lot more like a "real" war.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
lebanon, maybe, but not Syria. No offense to our great military intended, but invading Syria would be far, far more challenging than the original Gulf War, and we didn't really do much invading then. Syria has a STANDING military of four MILLION people, men and women. They spend almost a billion dollars a year on their military budget.

Add to that their chemical weapons capabilities that no one likes to talk about, and their ability to basically plunk missiles anywhere in Israel at will, well, invasion ain't anything we'd consider. On the bright side I don't think it would be on the table no matter what they do, rather we'd just 'shock and awe' them for months.


Just a quick reminder Baker -

In the NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) chain of command, I seem to recall that the N comes first. i.e., A fatman or littleboy trumps whatever toys Syria may want to break out if things start going badly.

In my view, it's time to send a message loudly and clearly that *all* options are on the table, including a pre-emptive Nuclear strike.

Would there be howling and would there be a bunch of bleeding hearts crying over the idea that we would use nuclear weapons against another nation? Sure, but perhaps that is the only answer that idiots like Syria and Iran really would understand. Surely Iran wants to join the Nuclear club so they can make use of such items themselves, or better yet for them, so that they can supply others (like Hezbollah) and let them do the dirty work for them. Dropping a very big boomer on top of Tehran or Damascus would make both very quiet places for many years to come. Whichever got hit first would surely be a message to the others to back off.

Would "whats left" perhaps circle the wagons and regroup for another strike against Israel or other U.S. interests? Perhaps, but as long as the threat remained over their heads, they'd have to (in my opinion) be far more deranged and have a much bigger death wish than I think many do. It's one thing to fight in a honorable war, it's another to see everyone you cared about charred and grossly disfigured thanks to radiation poisoning.

Finally, whatevers leftover once the big toys are used has to be able to find some semblance of chain of command, and has to find their supplies to be able to use them at all. The old cut off the head and the snake has no ability to move still applies...
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Get out a map and tell me how we could drop nuclear weapons on Syria, terp. We can't so much as use depleted uranium shells without causing a human rights event. You think we could strew fallout over Israel, the Mediterranean, etc? People need to get this nuke junk out of their heads.

It isn't going to happen unless the circumstances are so dire that it is worth killing millions in a single stroke. No offense, but even if Hezbollah nuked a US city, there's no way we'd nuke Syria or Iran. It's a nice thought, but it doesn't work in the real world.

People are living in a dream world where there's a nuclear stand-off. There isn't. Though no one admits it out loud, if China wanted to nuke a US coastal city they could at will, and there'd be no mutually-assured destruction involved. Sure, we'd nuke one of theirs maybe, but the "War Games" scenario is dead.

We aren't protected by a stalemate any more. No US administration would do what you describe in response to actions by Hezbollah, or even actions by Syria. The world is just too chaotic, and our place is the sun is just too fragile.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I say bring it on


you forgot 'let's roll'.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anyone who doesn't see that we are already at war with Hezbollah and or that matter, Syria and Iran has their head pretty deep in the sand. It's time we quit letting our "diplomats" use false terms like "proxy war" or say things like "may be giving support to..." and see make choices based on reality.

We made that mistake so many times I guess, we consider being blind to the reality of war the norm, I guess.