Force Against Iran

[ZEB]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Let’s see… the US goes around tossing bombs at Arabic countries in a willy-nilly fashion.[/quote]

Willy-nilly? Not at all! These would be very precise strikes at specific targets. If you develop nukes and you are an extremist country who has in the past (or currently does) harbor terrorists you will get hit. Very simple…

I wonder if anybody over there might get pissed off at the US for that?

Yes, I’m sure they will, just as they are now. However, the alternative is not acceptable.

If, and perhaps you’ll recognize that word and not presume I’m saying something without it, there are alternatives to throwing bombs at things, they should be explored.

I am all for alternatives as long as they lead to extremist countries not having nukes.

The road to peace through war is a long one…

And the road to avoidance is a road to catastrophe.

Anyway, that is what everybody wants right? Peace? The ability to not huddle in fear at home waiting for the terrorists to sneak a bomb across a border and vaporize a city?

True.

If you want peace, you may want to think about the fact that it isn’t really brought about by force. Throwing bombs left and right may make you feel secure, but it isn’t likely to bring anything approaching peace.

Gee vroom it always has in the past. Shall we talk previous wars?

And no, all you retards can kiss my ass, I’m not talking apologism or appeasement. I’m talking about getting to a peaceful coexistence.

Your streak of name calling lives on!

Oh well, the world has serious issues, and I’m sure throwing bombs at everyone and preemptively invading countries under false pretenses will calm things down a lot.

Spoken like a true liberal!

[WMD]

[quote]doogie wrote:
iscariot wrote:

…and don’t answer this in terms of ‘you’re attacking the US etc’ b/s - simple question. Similarly dn’t bring the UN into this, or the AEC, along the lines of the US enforcing their will, because the US ignores international bodies whenever it wants…so…under what legislative framework does the US have the right to tell a sovereign country what it can or can’t develop…

For good or bad, might makes right in the real world. [/quote]

Well might doesn’t really make you right, it just means everybody else is scared of you. Fear is a long way from right. But that’s okay if you want to be the world’s bully instead of the world’s greatest country.

WMD

[vroom]

Gee vroom it always has in the past. Shall we talk previous wars?

Zeb, ignoring the rest of your nonsense, lets take a peek at this.

In some cases, yes, a lasting peace has been brought about after a war. However, it is not “always” the case, as you seem to think.

Many wars end up with a victor and a loser, and a peace will appear to be in place as long as control is kept. However, over time, things eventually come to boil again.

This has been happening around the world for ages.

I think whether or not peace follows war has a lot to do with the people involved in the war. In this case, terrorists, are not the same as countries.

You will have to annex the entire Middle East in order to achieve peace through the regular means.

So, go for it…

[hspder]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
unlike windmills, which actually cost more to make than they will ever produce in their lifetimes[/quote]

That is blatantly false nowadays. Modern wind turbines (don’t call them windmills, that’s retarded) pay for themselves in 10-15 years easily.

Now to the regularly scheduled program:

Time to slay another monster we helped create, huh?

There are only two ways to deal with Iran.

Either we bite the bullet, count our blessings, go all the way and blow up large parts of Iran (preferably the ones that contain mostly military or nuclear facilities – no point in killing civilians on purpose) with our own tactical nukes (we do have them, remember?), basically to make a point, one by one, until they surrender. Modern nukes are very clean in the sense you can blow a gigantic hole in the middle of the desert, e.g. where a nuclear installation is, with very little radiation remaining after it. The B61 mark 11s would be especially adequate to the task, since they are peneration bombs with a relatively large yield (it’s an H-bomb) that can be delivered by just about any mothern aircraft, including the B-2 and the F-117. It would definitely destroy the targets with little or no collateral damage – and send a powerful message.

… or we go the diplomatic route and try to convince Europe and the rest of the World to take an actual stand, and bite Iran where it hurts – its economy. Unfortunately GW doesn’t have the balls for the former and the smarts for the latter. Because yes, Europeans, Russians and even the Chinese can be convinced if you know how to talk to them, and give them a couple of carrots to aspire to. It’s not like e.g., Russia digs muslim theocracies these days. Diplomacy is an art, one that Republicans never mastered. Those countries are basically entertaining Iran because they hate our guts even more than they hate Iran’s, and GWB is fully responsible for that. So have the balls to either fix it or own up to it.

I, for one, am sick of middle of the road “solutions”. Either we care about the rest of the world and work with them or we don’t and blow up what needs to be blown up, no matter what the consequences. Simple as that.

And you can quote me on that.

[ZEB]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Zeb, ignoring the rest of your nonsense, lets take a peek at this.[/quote]

Point out in my last post what exactly the “nonsense” is. Otherwise, you are simply avoiding the argument.

In some cases, yes, a lasting peace has been brought about after a war. However, it is not “always” the case, as you seem to think.

Lasting peace after a war, such as: Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW I, WW II. You get the idea?

Many wars end up with a victor and a loser, and a peace will appear to be in place as long as control is kept. However, over time, things eventually come to boil again.

Not when one side is clearly superior militarily. If I am wrong please give examples.

I think whether or not peace follows war has a lot to do with the people involved in the war. In this case, terrorists, are not the same as countries.

I think you have a valid point here. However, as my President stated: “If you harbor terrorists you are going to be considered a terrorist.” I think that’s pretty clear.

[quote]You will have to annex the entire Middle East in order to achieve peace through the regular means.

So, go for it…[/quote]

If you are stating that every country in the Middle East is an enemy of the US I disagree. However, those who are and attempt to build nukes must be stopped. I think the best way is to destroy their capability to build those nukes and then monitor them after that date. I am not advocating occupation.

[doogie]

[quote]WMD wrote:

Well might doesn’t really make you right, it just means everybody else is scared of you. Fear is a long way from right. But that’s okay if you want to be the world’s bully instead of the world’s greatest country.

WMD[/quote]

We can be both.

[orion]

Zeb,

lasting peace after WWI ? Treaty of Versailles and St Germain ? Growing tensions only 10 years later, even bigger war after 20? Not a good example.

[ZEB]

[quote]orion wrote:
Zeb,

lasting peace after WWI ? Treaty of Versailles and St Germain ? Growing tensions only 10 years later, even bigger war after 20? Not a good example.

[/quote]

Wow you are exactly right! Why didn’t I think of that? War is always wrong and those countries who are more powerful than others never prevail. I get it now…

Thank you.

[orion]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:
Zeb,

lasting peace after WWI ? Treaty of Versailles and St Germain ? Growing tensions only 10 years later, even bigger war after 20? Not a good example.

Wow you are exactly right! Why didn’t I think of that? War is always wrong and those countries who are more powerful than others never prevail. I get it now…

Thank you.[/quote]

I didn?t say you were wrong per se, I just think WWI was a bad example. Since the Austro-hungarian empire was destroyed in that conflict it?s an important part of my country?s history, I happen to know a thing or two about it.

It is however an excellent example of how to “win” a war and then fuck up the “peace” that follows it so badly, that after a short while you have more problems than when you started. That is why the US did it differently after WWII. Marshal- plan, Nato, etc.

Apparently that lesson has been forgotten by the US administration.

[vroom]

If you are stating that every country in the Middle East is an enemy of the US I disagree. However, those who are and attempt to build nukes must be stopped. I think the best way is to destroy their capability to build those nukes and then monitor them after that date. I am not advocating occupation.

Zeb, perhaps you missed my original posts which state my opinion that Iran needs action to be taken against it? You are preaching to the choir.

Why is that? Do you even notice when I take a stand that isn’t in line with so called liberal viewpoints?

Also, as was pointed out to you, WWI was a completely horrible example of peace resulting from war. The way things are shaping up in Iraq right now, there is a big danger that it will be a poor example of peace after a war. I truly hope it succeeds, but it is sadly in the process of being badly handled.

I know you must reject that because perhaps it could reflect badly on your right wing idol and his administration, but the potential is now there for widespread internal conflict in Iraq due to problems in adopting a constitution. Honestly, if it falls, I hope the Sunni’s will vote in a new election after seeing what happens to your representation when you do not. If that happens, instead of a simple rejection of the process, then there will at least be another chance.

You also missed the point about the terrorists. Whether or not a country “harbors” them, they are present in just about every country in the Middle East. I’m suggesting that peace through force with respect to terrorism must address this problem. If you won’t use force on every country, you won’t root out all the terrorists. Hmmm. That would mean the problem won’t be solved.

Which will it be, force everywhere, or ongoing terrorism? Wow. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m afraid I’m not.

However, as with your illustrious leader, you seem unable to see past Iraq, to see the bigger picture. Pity.

[vroom]

So tuffloud, what is your solution, nuke the Middle East?

It’s funny, since the right won’t seem to acknowledge that the behavior of the US could have an impact on public perception in the region, they have no real solutions to offer.

Ignoring this, it’s always, if you harbor terrorists we’ll come get you. That’s all well and good, but it isn’t a solution either – because terrorism exists without actively being harbored by a nation.

Solutions? Anyone?

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s funny, since the right won’t seem to acknowledge that the behavior of the US could have an impact on public perception in the region, they have no real solutions to offer.
[/quote]

The mistake you keep making is that you think “public perception” matters. I think there is a huge difference in doing the right thing and being popular.

The right thing for us may not make everyone on the globe happy - but is that our problem?

[orion]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
It’s funny, since the right won’t seem to acknowledge that the behavior of the US could have an impact on public perception in the region, they have no real solutions to offer.

The mistake you keep making is that you think “public perception” matters. I think there is a huge difference in doing the right thing and being popular.

The right thing for us may not make everyone on the globe happy - but is that our problem?
[/quote]

What if the “right” thing was not to be entirely “unpopular” in the region? I agree that they are not necessarily the same, but that doesn?t mean the never-ever are.

[rainjack]

[quote]orion wrote:
What if the “right” thing was not to be entirely “unpopular” in the region? I agree that they are not necessarily the same, but that doesn?t mean the never-ever are.[/quote]

I think you should look at what is right first. That may sound horribly selfish, but whether anyone wants to believe it, or not - the U.S. has funded that region since the discovery of oil over there. We have interests that should be protected at any cost.

If that happens to dovetail with making folks happy over there - then so be it. I think a pretty good example of this would be the push for self governance in Iraq. They are arguing over a constitution. They have given themselves the right to vote. That is a very, very good thing that just so happens to be the right thing.

But I could be wrong.

[orion]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
What if the “right” thing was not to be entirely “unpopular” in the region? I agree that they are not necessarily the same, but that doesn?t mean the never-ever are.

I think you should look at what is right first. That may sound horribly selfish, but whether anyone wants to believe it, or not - the U.S. has funded that region since the discovery of oil over there. We have interests that should be protected at any cost.

If that happens to dovetail with making folks happy over there - then so be it. I think a pretty good example of this would be the push for self governance in Iraq. They are arguing over a constitution. They have given themselves the right to vote. That is a very, very good thing that just so happens to be the right thing.

But I could be wrong. [/quote]

Again, if you are talking “morally right” I would understand. Not necessarily agree, but understand.

However, you seem to talk about Americas interests that need to be protected. I would argue that it is much easier to get what you want if you are not hated by the people you want something from. In such a situation the “right” move would be, to try to became more popular.

[vroom]

[quote]The mistake you keep making is that you think “public perception” matters. I think there is a huge difference in doing the right thing and being popular.

The right thing for us may not make everyone on the globe happy - but is that our problem? [/quote]

Rainjack,

I think you are opening up a real can of worms in one sense. However, on the face of it, not an overly arguable stance. Let me ask though – what is the right thing with respect to terrorism?

Obviously, I believe that combat won’t completely eliminate it, unless you nuke the entire region. I doubt that is the right thing. So, unfortunately, with respect to use of force, I feel we are left without a real solution.

However, when you say “the right thing”, there is another issue. Right in which sense? You’ll be able to shave yourself with the very thin line between this statement and moral relativism, which those on the left are often accused of.

Which “right” is more absolute? The teachings of your particular religion? Patriotism for your own country? Does what is “right” change because someone else hates you or does something to you or your country? Does what is “right” change because a region has resources vital to your national interests?

Unless you want to be a moral relativist, the answer to what is right has to be based in absolutes, right?

[Aside: I’m guessing some people believe moving to an economy not based on oil is right… and if we had done this, or would do this, we might be able to coexist better with the Middle East and reduce pollution levels - even though it may cost a lot of money.]

Finally, in another sense, if what you are doing makes people unhappy, and that promotes terrorism, which costs American lives, how is that “right”?

Anyway, I’m not blind to different interpretations of these issues. I do feel there are some tough issues hidden in the statement you made though.

For example, is it right to ignore the depravities committed by dictators for decades as long as they are friendly to us and sell us their oil? Would it be right to pay a small bonus on price for appropriate human rights activities in those countries instead.

If only you hadn’t use the word “right”… things would be a lot simpler.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
A bunch of pretty good stuff[/quote]

I think history will be the judge. Not us. Not the immediate gratification of everyone getting along right now.

I think whatever we do to keep angry Islamofacists from hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, or placing explosives on trains and subways, is the right thing.

It is only my opinion, but to have both sides sit and talk about why they are fighting is not going to work. Finding out what WE should do differently to make the middle east happy is tantamount to paying off kidnappers. It never works.

Killing the bad guys, and giving people over there a taste of self determination will go much much farther to ending interneational terrorism than all of the “I’m sorry’s” ever will.

But I could be wrong.

[rangertab75]

If he gives the word, I’m there; locked and fucking loaded. RLTW

rangertab75

[Goku_SS4]

now this is the kind of thing i have been talking about in my WAR IN IRAQ THREAD.

this is why we have to scale back the forces in iraq and worry about this issue.

we cant fight 2 countries at once. it cant be done. well, i guess it could but we wouldnt be very effective.

this is why iraq needs to start taking action and do something for themselves.

useing force to eliminate a nuclear weopon is something i find very necessary. if they refuse to give it up.

[Goku_SS4]

[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
If he gives the word, I’m there; locked and fucking loaded. RLTW

rangertab75[/quote]

hell fuckn yea rangertab. im righ behind u.