They may want to this "misunderstanding" sorted right quick.

Tolerance for Iran is running a little short these days.

The story COULD be as described, but remember the SAS commandos dressed in Arab clothing and black wigs? Dig beyond my Establishment link, and you'll find they were driving a car bomb. Delivery intercepted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/20/wirq20.xml

Fark off, bryanD. Let the rational people mull over an act of war by Iran, tinfoil is not required at the moment.

bryanDirtbag you are dumber they people give you credit for. You are getting worst then those that go by the name moose-lums. Scumbag.

Iran has been emboldened by the Bush Doctrine. The British have already announced their bug-out, and every day our capacity to respond is diminished by attrition and poor planning in Iraq.

Our only hope, is the Democrats.

JI: Can you "mull" on the way to a recruitment office. The S/sgt on duty will be happy to buck you up when you get there. They'll by you lunch and put you on a plane and you can be bending over by this time tomorrow.

Barney, if the democraps are our only hope, then we're in deep shit.

BarneyG2000:

Iran has been emboldened by the Bush Doctrine. The British have already announced their bug-out, and every day our capacity to respond is diminished by attrition and poor planning in Iraq.

Our only hope, is the Democrats.

If I didn't know you better, so to speak, I'd think that post was meant as parody. Would that it were!

Iran has been emboldened by the Bush Doctrine.

In english please.

The British have already announced their bug-out, and every day our capacity to respond is diminished by attrition and poor planning in Iraq.

That would explain the surge. And that it's working.

And contrary to popular belief, our capacity to respond is alive, well, and deadly.

Our only hope, is the Democrats.

Our only hope, perhaps. For what? I have no idea.

Iran has been emboldened by the Bush Doctrine.

Yet voting on timetables, denouncing the war, revealing secret programs, bashing the military in the press, calling the President "Hitler", calling for the closing of Gitmo, all of that and much, much more does NOT embolden terrorists? Yep, makes perfect sense.

Our only hope, is the Democrats.

Ah, and all finished off by eviscerating a perfectly good sentence with a comma splice.

"..calling for the closing of Gitmo,.." funny you should write that Peter. Here is what Sec Gates has to say on that:

Mr. Gates urged that trials of terrorism suspects be moved to the United States, both to make them more credible and because Guantánamo's continued existence hampered the broader war effort, administration officials said.

Mr. Gates's arguments were rejected after Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and some other government lawyers expressed strong objections to moving detainees to the United States, a stance that was backed by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, administration officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/washington/23gitmo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Incase you missed it; here is the money quote:
Guantánamo's continued existence hampered the broader war effort,

Barney: "Iran has been emboldened by the Bush Doctrine."

Well, gee, that certainly explains the Iranian seizure of the American Embassy in 1979....Wait... maybe it's just a tad more complicated than that.......nah, that was the fault of the Bush Doctrine.

Barney: "The British have already announced their bug-out, and every day our capacity to respond is diminished by attrition and poor planning in Iraq."

Uh, yeah, right. Our "capacity to respond is diminished by attrition and poor planning in Iraq".

Absolutely correct. It would be so much easier to respond if we "redeployed" all of our troops back to America (or, even better, Okinawa!!)

Of course, none of this is true, but isn't playing fun?

"And contrary to popular belief, our capacity to respond is alive, well, and deadly." Herald

You want to explain that to us?

What is going to happen to the 150K soldiers in Iraq, when Iran invades with 500K soldiers? What do think the Shiia in Iraq are going to do when Bush attacks Iran?

Do you think that we can conquer Iran by dropping bombs and sending cruise missiles?

Barney: "You want to explain that to us?"

Well, it can be "explained" to you, but I doubt that he can "comprehend it" for you.

Barney: "What is going to happen to the 150K soldiers in Iraq, when Iran invades with 500K soldiers?"

Well then, we would have to surge about another 100k grounpounders along with no less than 3 CSG's (that's Carrier Strike Groups for guys like you who've never served their country.) You have apparently no understanding of the actual firepower and force-multiplying power the US Military can bring to bear against an untrained, seriously underequipped Iranian force. They are even more of a paper tiger than the formal forces of the former Iraqi Army (including Republican Guards.)

Barney: "What do think the Shiia in Iraq are going to do when Bush attacks Iran?"

"when Bush attacks Iran"?? I thought you just wrote that Iran was going to invade with 500k troops. Can't you keep your ridiculous, contradictory hypotheticals straight?

Barney: "Do you think that we can conquer Iran by dropping bombs and sending cruise missiles?"

Is your scenario now that we are "invading Iran", or that Iran is sending 500k troops into Iraq?

I think people assume when Barney says "our," he means the U.S.

A carefully analysis of his original statement does not show that in the slightest. . .

Conquer - no. But there's no real reason to CONQUER Iran.

Obliterate? Definitely. And the Brits have nuclear subs with MIRVs too.

However - I find it difficult to believe that Iran would try to invade Iraq at this point. They've seen what we can do - and so far we really haven't broken out the big stuff.

Barney,

You want to explain that to us?

Yes.

If Iran were to invade Iraq, what do you think would happen to Iran? How much enriched uranium blown into the air does it take to make the place unlivable? Not much.

Do you think that we can conquer Iran by dropping bombs and sending cruise missiles?

I never said to 'conquer', I said to respond, and quite frankly Barney, our capacity for response is far greater than theirs in both power and severity.

Barney: Per usual, and none to my surprise, you missed the point of my sarcastic post.

You didn't really think barneygoogle was smart enough did you? LOL

I think you guys better study-up on Iran's military capabilities. Iran is not going to sit by and do nothing if Georgie-Boy launches an attack. Iran has a very sophisticated military.

Is it as good as ours? Of course not, but we are not talking Saddam level either.

We have 150M US service men and women that would need protecting. The Persian gulf is not that wide, and Iran could shut it down.

Check out their missiles (ground to air and ground to sea), and attack sub capability.

How in the hell are we going to supply our forces in Iraq with the Gulf shut down? Are we going to fly it all in? Drive in from Saudi Arabia?

Y'know, Barney, people made similar arguments as to how we could not defeat Saddam's military. They also misunderestimated our capabilities, much as you are doing here.

Barney,

The issue is this: Iran cannot stand militarily to the U.S. and they damn well know it.

Shut down the Persian Gulf and you've managed to get every country that gets oil from the middle east on the wrong side of the conflict.

Not to mention how to keep it shut down without shattering under the pressure of repeated Coaltion strikes.

They can choose when they want to start the war, but they cannot choose when to end it.

One last thing,

Remember Barney, we were talking response as per your original post, not "Georgie-Boy" launching an attack.

Everyone have a good weekend.

" 'Our only hope, is the Democrats.'

Ah, and all finished off by eviscerating a perfectly good sentence with a comma splice."

Peter F:

Comma splices join two complete sentences with a comma. Removing the comma, in this case, would not leave you with two complete sentences.

Conclusion: You are a fool, who should not lecture people about their puncuation.

Barney, people made similar arguments as to how we could not defeat Saddam's military. JI

O-Really! Who would that be? I seem to recall that most people thought we would finish off the Iraq army in weeks (not even months).

Iran has effectively built up their defenses. Saddam's military was seriously eroded by the first Gulf war and ten years of sanctions.

" 'Our only hope, is the Democrats.'

Ah, and all finished off by eviscerating a perfectly good sentence with a comma splice."

Peter F:

Comma splices join two complete sentences with a comma. Removing the comma, in this case, would not leave you with two complete sentences.

Conclusion: You are a fool, who should not lecture people about their puncuation.

Barneygoogle sounds like Alan "eyebrow" Combs. Excuses excuses. When did you get back from Iran barneypoo?

I don't think the question is whether the U.S. can win a war with Iran. The question is, is such a war good for America?

Our military is engaged in protecting the new Afghan goverment, and trying to promote stability in Iraq. Those goals would surely be interupted if war with Iran broke out. While I have no doubt we would win, the 400K troops iran has would infelct pretty severe causties before we re-grouped and retaliated.

The damge of that retaliation, would of course be massive, I'm pretty sure would leave Iran in ruins. This would probably further fuel mideast anger at The U.S. and encourage terroist attacks against the U.S. Many radical groups concluding that terroist attacks are the only way possible to strike at America. Our prestige in the world would further diminish as most of the world (Whether it is right or not) would look at the U.S. as the aggressor. This thing would just bad all around.

Barney, Barney, Barney, you're parrotting the same cold war talking points that Libs made during the cold war. The enemy is too strong for us..

Interesting, too that you should bring up Iranian Attack Submarines. Do they posess any Nuclear Attack Subs. I don't wanna hear about any Diesel Power attack Subs. That's so 1940's. Tell us about the successes and failure rates of the missles and rockets. Firing weapons for television cameras is one thing... it impresses people like yourself who are easily impressed by America's enemys.

Comma splices join two complete sentences with a comma. Removing the comma, in this case, would not leave you with two complete sentences.

No, moron, that's the function of comma; not what a comma splice is.

Our only hope, is the Democrats.'

This is a complete sentence; this is not two independent clauses joined together. For dramatic effect, if he wanted to put a comma in, then he would need to insert a conjunction. The comma is unnecesary and an structural error.

Conclusion: You are a fool, who should not lecture people about their puncuation.

You are an asshat who knows squat.

" 'Comma splices join two complete sentences with a comma. Removing the comma, in this case, would not leave you with two complete sentences.'

You are truly a fucking idiot. Is this the problem with other Republicans, An inability to learn?

Here are some links to help you out.

http://depts.dyc.edu/learningcenter/owl/comma_splices.htm

From that link:

Grammatical Error: This comma splice has two independent clauses or complete sentences joined incorrectly by only a comma.

Reasoning: The first part of the sentence ("Today I am tired") is an independent clause or complete sentence, and the second phrase ("I will take a nap later") is also an independent clause or complete sentence. The two sentences need to be joined by more than just a comma.

A second site:

http://ace.acadiau.ca/english/grammar/comma.htm

From that site:

The grammar crime: Comma splices join two complete sentences with a comma.

Question: How do we know we have a comma splice?

Outlaw
Joey went to the grocery store, he needed to buy eggs for supper.

This sentence is incorrect because "Joey went to the grocery store" and "he needed to buy eggs for supper" are both complete sentences. A comma alone cannot join two sentences.

Your mother was an asshat and you still are a fool who needs to shutup about puntucation.

Peter that's likely to leave a nasty bruise

Comma Abuse
Commas in the wrong places can break a sentence into illogical segments or confuse readers with unnecessary and unexpected pauses.

12. Don't use a comma to separate the subject from the verb.

An eighteen-year old in California, is now considered an adult. (incorrect)
The most important attribute of a ball player, is quick reflex actions. (incorrect)
13. Don't put a comma between the two verbs or verb phrases in a compound predicate.

We laid out our music and snacks, and began to study. (incorrect)
I turned the corner, and ran smack into a patrol car. (incorrect)
14. Don't put a comma between the two nouns, noun phrases, or noun clauses in a compound subject or compound object.

The music teacher from your high school, and the football coach from mine are married. (incorrect: compound subject)
Jeff told me that the job was still available, and that the manager wanted to interview me. (incorrect: compound object)

15. Don't put a comma after the main clause when a dependent (subordinate) clause follows it (except for cases of extreme contrast).

1. She was late for class, because her alarm clock was broken. (incorrect)
2. The cat scratched at the door, while I was eating. (incorrect)
3. She was still quite upset, although she had won the Oscar. (correct: extreme contrast)

There are five interactive exercises on using commas that you can try:

Wow, so much discussion about grammar and dramatic pauses. There was an error in my sentence. I used the singular "is" with the plural "Democrats".

Also, a diesel/electric attack sub would be very effective against oil tankers.

Also, a diesel/electric attack sub would be very effective against oil tankers.

Not quite so much as a nuclear attack sub is against diesel/electric.

barneyRUBBLE

I think you guys better study-up on Iran's military capabilities. Iran is not going to sit by and do nothing if Georgie-Boy launches an attack. Iran has a very sophisticated military.
****
We have 150M US service men and women that would need protecting. The Persian gulf is not that wide, and Iran could shut it down.

First of all RUBBLE, heed your own advice. You "better study-up on Iran's military capabilities" because it's plain to the most casual observer you're clueless and have pulled a few more dingleberries from the area of your sphincter.

Check out their missiles (ground to air and ground to sea), and attack sub capability.

You've been very impressed by the Iranian press releases showing film clips of their "war games" haven't you RUBBLE?

First of all forget any delusions about their missle capability. The two carrier battle groups negates that threat via the four Aegis Cruisers who can detect, track, classify and shootdown any airborne threat to an unclassified range of 250 miles. And BTW their system can do all this "hands off," if need be. Very few or no humans needed when the system is on full auto mode. (although that would never happen)

Secondly... their "attack subs?!!!! Buwahhhhhahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!

Here asshat, this is their sub inventory. They have a "fleet" of three Russian-built Kilo class boats?

They are not, I repeat for possible cranial penetration into your thick, partisan and delusional skull, they are not "attack subs." In fact when any of the three leave their base in the Straits of Hormuz they are under surviellence immediately and continually.

In the event of hostilities their lifespan would be about 10 minutes, or less due to being decades old technology and being so noisy when underway they can be heard hundreds of miles away via sonar the second they turn a screw.

How in the hell are we going to supply our forces in Iraq with the Gulf shut down? Are we going to fly it all in? Drive in from Saudi Arabia?

Shut it down with what RUBBLE?
They attempted the same during the Iraq/Iraq war they failed in the long term. Moreover a shutdown hurts them more than anyone else.

Their "war machine" would grind to a halt because the they have a near zero capability to refine all the oil they possess. They have to import gas and diesel fuel.

A Gulf shutdown is only purposed by clueless idiots such as yourself RUBBLE, and not so incidentally the Mullahs.

Go about other business RUBBLE, this subject is obviously WAY over your head.