NationStates Jolt Archive

"Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-
range 'strategic missile' and delivered it to its armed forces,
saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even
the 'big powers.'"

"Iran's new missiles can reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern
Russia, according to weapons and intelligence analysts."

NOTE: A vote for "Yes, but only if they strike first" means it would not technically be a "preemptive" strike, but humor me. : ))

I'm pretty sure Isreal could do the same and they have actual nuclear weapons...

"No, not unless they launch first."

But then it wouldn't be a preemptive strike, because, well, they attacked first (therefore, no pre in pre-emptive).

I'm pretty sure Isreal could do the same and they have actual nuclear weapons...

Realistically, which of the two ( Iran and Israel ) do you think might actually use them against a Western city?

"No, not unless they launch first."

But then it wouldn't be a preemptive strike, because, well, they attacked first (therefore, no pre in pre-emptive).

Aren't the consequences of that rather dire? Where do you live?

Realistically, which of the two ( Iran and Israel ) do you think might actually use them against a Western city?

Am I to take it that nuking cities in Africa, the middle-east and Asia is acceptable, but nuking a 'western city' is not?

Aren't the consequences of that rather dire? Where do you live?

The United States. I think the consequences would be more dire for Iran, as seeing as how we have the capability of pounding their country back to the stone age.

Am I to take it that nuking cities in Africa, the middle-east and Asia is acceptable, but nuking a 'western city' is not?

Not at all. Where did I indicate that such was the case???

Well until they prove it, they can make all the claims they want.

Having them doesn't give you the power to use them.

If they decided to launch on say Israel, they would probably get vaporised by everyone else.

One of those, "if they so easily use them on Israel, what's to say they don't use them on us?" things.......

The United States. I think the consequences would be more dire for Iran, as seeing as how we have the capability of pounding their country back to the stone age.

True, but I seriously doubt that we would resort to that option unless they actually nuked an entire city. What do you think?

Ok?

How can this be pre-emptive?

"No, not unless they launch first."

;)

One of those, "if they so easily use them on Israel, what's to say they don't use them on us?" things.......

Good point.

Not at all. Where did I indicate that such was the case???

Realistically, which of the two ( Iran and Israel ) do you think might actually use them against a Western city?

Emphasis added. If it makes no difference then why specify it?

Ok?

How can this be pre-emptive?

"No, not unless they launch first."

;)

It can't. Did you read the "NOTE" at the bottom of the first post? :))

True, but I seriously doubt that we would resort to that option unless they actually nuked an entire city. What do you think?

True, but if they did attack us, they'd know that what happened to Japan and the Taliban would happen to them. A country must be damn crazy to attack the United States.

Emphasis added. If it makes no difference then why specify it?

Um ... because most of those who post on this board are FROM the Western European nations and the US. Is that ok with you?

True, but I seriously doubt that we would resort to that option unless they actually nuked an entire city. What do you think?

If a US city got nuked, I think the world would be wetting itself at the possible outcome.

Especially with Sheriff Shrub in charge! ;)

All the same, whether they have the capability or not - its inevitable that one day they and other pleasant nations will. Only a matter of time. Same goes for nuclear weapons and ICBMs. Tick tock, tick tock...

True, but if they did attack us, they'd know that what happened to Japan and the Taliban would happen to them. A country must be damn crazy to attack the United States.

By most Western standards of "sanity," most Islamist states ARE "crazy." Agree or disagree?

If a US city got nuked, I think the world would be wetting itself at the possible outcome.

Especially with Sheriff Shrub in charge! ;)

ROFLMAO! You may just be correct!

All the same, whether they have the capability or not - its inevitable that one day they and other pleasant nations will. Only a matter of time. Same goes for nuclear weapons and ICBMs. Tick tock, tick tock...

And your solution is???

Um ... because most of those who post on this board are FROM the Western European nations and the US. Is that ok with you?

You obviously don't mean "the retaliation to a nuclear strike should be dependent on the amount of NS posters resident in that nation", do you?

True, but if they did attack us, they'd know that what happened to Japan and the Taliban would happen to them. A country must be damn crazy to attack the United States.

True a country would be foolish.

However, what do you do when you have Abdul from Islamic JIhaad for the abused Kittens in the US shouting ALLAH ACKBAR and *POOF*?

Whom do you counter attack?

You obviously don't mean "the retaliation to a nuclear strike should be dependent on the amount of NS posters resident in that nation", do you?

Please stop putting words in my mouth. Of course not! DUH!

By most Western standards of "sanity," most Islamist states ARE "crazy." Agree or disagree?

Disagree; they're insane in some forms, but for the most part they all have something in common: they want to stay in power. Attacking the United States or another Western nation is the quickest way of having that goal destroyed.

Most global actors are logical in this sense. There is always the exception (some argue that Hitler didn't want any power if it meant him not taking over France and Russia), but most rulers, even Islamist extremists, want to stay in power. Thus, I can't see Iran attacking the US, knowing full well that doing so would lead to the end of their power in Iran.

True a country would be foolish.

However, what do you do when you have Abdul from Islamic JIhaad for the abused Kittens in the US shouting ALLAH ACKBAR and *POOF*?

Whom do you counter attack?

Almost all terrorists must have a base somewhere.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. Of course not! DUH!

If I was putting words in you mouth then I wouldn't be framing them as questions.

I just fail to see why you specified 'western city' - unless you are saying, its okay if the non-western countries fight amongst themselves.*






* I am aware that this one is not framed as a question.

why should iran not have long range missiles?

lot's of other countries have long range weapons so why should iran be forbidden to have the same. there is no list of countries who should be allowed to have weapons like this and those who should not.

either everyone should have long-range wepons or no-one should and it is not up to the USA to decide how different weapons systems should be distributed.

Disagree; they're insane in some forms, but for the most part they all have something in common: they want to stay in power. Attacking the United States or another Western nation is the quickest way of having that goal destroyed.

Most global actors are logical in this sense. There is always the exception (some argue that Hitler didn't want any power if it meant him not taking over France and Russia), but most rulers, even Islamist extremists, want to stay in power. Thus, I can't see Iran attacking the US, knowing full well that doing so would lead to the end of their power in Iran.

What if their particular version of "crazy" includes the belief that no one will take any action against them out of fear they would be next?

And your solution is???

Not all problems have solutions...

A good way to start includes me becoming Global Dictator. I'd get this world into shape!

True a country would be foolish.

However, what do you do when you have Abdul from Islamic JIhaad for the abused Kittens in the US shouting ALLAH ACKBAR and *POOF*?

Whom do you counter attack?

You tell the nation that is harboring the terrorists to hand them over or else we hold them as accountable for the attack as the terrorist organization. Again, though, this is after an attack.

You don't think we should attack Iran or another nation if they had nothing to do with the attack, do you?

why should iran not have long range missiles?

lot's of other countries have long range weapons so why should iran be forbidden to have the same. there is no list of countries who should be allowed to have weapons like this and those who should not.

either everyone should have long-range wepons or no-one should and it is not up to the USA to decide how different weapons systems should be distributed.

Hmmm. Perhaps you should tell that to all the signatories of the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

True, but if they did attack us, they'd know that what happened to Japan and the Taliban would happen to them. A country must be damn crazy to attack the United States.

Maybe not. If the "crazies" attack the U.S. with almost all our troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of two things are likely to happen.

1.) We pull out of Iraq (good thing for the crazies) and head over to Iran, making it look like we really do have it in for Arab states (another good thing for the crazies). This leaves Iraq to collapse into civil war (yet another good thing for the crazies) and it looks like the U.S. failed to keep the promise to rebuild Iraq.

2.) We let them take potshots at us (good thing for the crazies.)

Either way, they win.

You tell the nation that is harboring the terrorists to hand them over or else we hold them as accountable for the attack as the terrorist organization. Again, though, this is after an attack.

This assumes that they are being harboured by a government.

Hmmm. Perhaps you should tell that to all the signatories of the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Does said treaty cover the means to deliver as well as the nuclear warheads themselves?

You tell the nation that is harboring the terrorists to hand them over or else we hold them as accountable for the attack as the terrorist organization. Again, though, this is after an attack.

You don't think we should attack Iran or another nation if they had nothing to do with the attack, do you?


Ahhh but is it that simple?

How do you prove sponsorship? You have to have damanable proof to vaporise a country.

If you had the proof, then people ask why didn't you stop it?

If you don't have the proof, then what do you tell your people while you are researching it.

Any country that lost a city would want an immediate response......

What if their particular version of "crazy" includes the belief that no one will take any action against them out of fear they would be next?

But how would you know that a certain government is crazy in that way? And what are the possibility that the entire government would let its leader attack the United States? If military leaders heard that Iran was about to launch an attack on Italy, you're telling me the leaders wouldn't try to stop it somehow? The military leaders wouldn't want their power taken away by the NATO task force that would come to beat the hell out of Iran as a consequence.

Either way, I think history speaks for itself. If you attack a more powerful nation, you should expect to have your nation ruined and your government removed.

Maybe not. If the "crazies" attack the U.S. with almost all our troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of two things are likely to happen.

Someone explain to me what Iran could possibly benefit from launching an attack on the US, or the UK, for that matter.

Not all problems have solutions...

A good way to start includes me becoming Global Dictator. I'd get this world into shape!

SHRIEK! Run! The sky is falling! ; ))

Hmmm. Perhaps you should tell that to all the signatories of the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

it's not like they would listen. the US is already preparing to go against that treaty. if bush get's his way nuclear weapons production and development will begin again.

the nucler non-proliferation treaty is one of the biggest pieces of bull**** that i have ever heard of. it keeps the nuclear "deterant" in the hands of a very small number of nations when really it should have called for all nuclear weapons to be dismantled.

But how would you know that a certain government is crazy in that way? And what are the possibility that the entire government would let its leader attack the United States? If military leaders heard that Iran was about to launch an attack on Italy, you're telling me the leaders wouldn't try to stop it somehow? The military leaders wouldn't want their power taken away by the NATO task force that would come to beat the hell out of Iran as a consequence.

Either way, I think history speaks for itself. If you attack a more powerful nation, you should expect to have your nation ruined and your government removed.

You may be correct ... in fact I hope you are! Just don't forget that many Islamists truly believe that heaven awaits those who die in "Jhiad." And don't forget the "seven virgins" awarded in heaven to those who do.

Realistically, which of the two ( Iran and Israel ) do you think might actually use them against a Western city?

Realistically, neither.

Since nuclear weapons were held by more than one country, no one has used them.

Only one country has ever used them in anger.

Mario Van Peebles!

Maybe not. If the "crazies" attack the U.S. with almost all our troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of two things are likely to happen.

1.) We pull out of Iraq (good thing for the crazies) and head over to Iran, making it look like we really do have it in for Arab states (another good thing for the crazies). This leaves Iraq to collapse into civil war (yet another good thing for the crazies) and it looks like the U.S. failed to keep the promise to rebuild Iraq.

2.) We let them take potshots at us (good thing for the crazies.)

Either way, they win.

1) Please, if someone attacked the United States, we'd have a surge in people enlisting in the army. Not to mention some support from NATO nations. At worse, we just station some aircraft carriers and battleships in the Persian Gulf and bomb the hell out of Iran until a bunch of hillbillies with shotguns can overrun the country. Not to mention our ability to blockade the nation and let it starve until we decide to move in.

2) What would they accomplish by taking potshots at us? Woo hoo, we spent another 2 million dollar missile hitting (enter nation name here)! YAY! Now the United Nations has embargoed us, we're being bombed daily, the world is against us, and we haven't gained anything monetarily, terroritory wise, or in any other sense. Our people are starving, they're pissed at us, our army's morale is at an all time low, and there's nothing we can do about it. Yeah! That's what we should do. I'm sure the Arab nations will love us, except all of those that surround us and will have no choice but to deride our attacks and stop trading with us.

Yeah, the crazies definetly win in that scenario.

Realistically, neither.

Since nuclear weapons were held by more than one country, no one has used them.

Only one country has ever used them in anger.

Estimates at the time indicated that the Allies would suffer over 200,000 casualties in any invasion of the Japanese home islands.

I sincerely hope that no country will use them, but there are no guarantees.

Someone explain to me what Iran could possibly benefit from launching an attack on the US, or the UK, for that matter.

A threat to the Arab world would be gone. Of course that threat is also an important consumer of their goods coughoilcough, so they would never do it, but they could really fuck up the U.S. if they wanted to.

1) Please, if someone attacked the United States, we'd have a surge in people enlisting in the army. Not to mention some support from NATO nations. At worse, we just station some aircraft carriers and battleships in the Persian Gulf and bomb the hell out of Iran until a bunch of hillbillies with shotguns can overrun the country. Not to mention our ability to blockade the nation and let it starve until we decide to move in.

2) What would they accomplish by taking potshots at us? Woo hoo, we spent another 2 million dollar missile hitting (enter nation name here)! YAY! Now the United Nations has embargoed us, we're being bombed daily, the world is against us, and we haven't gained anything monetarily, terroritory wise, or in any other sense. Our people are starving, they're pissed at us, our army's morale is at an all time low, and there's nothing we can do about it. Yeah! That's what we should do. I'm sure the Arab nations will love us, except all of those that surround us and will have no choice but to deride our attacks and stop trading with us.

Yeah, the crazies definetly win in that scenario.

If you're a crazy, will you be necessarily considering those factors?

Ahhh but is it that simple?

How do you prove sponsorship? You have to have damanable proof to vaporise a country.

If you had the proof, then people ask why didn't you stop it?

If you don't have the proof, then what do you tell your people while you are researching it.

Any country that lost a city would want an immediate response......


Well, we do have the CIA, NSA, FBI, and army/navy/marines intelligence that usually tells us were terrorists are. We had proof about the Taliban and Al-Queda. Terrorist organizations need money and places to train, both of which are traceable. It isn't that easy to hide an entire organization in this day of age.

So, we would know where they were.

1) Please, if someone attacked the United States, we'd have a surge in people enlisting in the army. Not to mention some support from NATO nations. At worse, we just station some aircraft carriers and battleships in the Persian Gulf and bomb the hell out of Iran until a bunch of hillbillies with shotguns can overrun the country. Not to mention our ability to blockade the nation and let it starve until we decide to move in.

2) What would they accomplish by taking potshots at us? Woo hoo, we spent another 2 million dollar missile hitting (enter nation name here)! YAY! Now the United Nations has embargoed us, we're being bombed daily, the world is against us, and we haven't gained anything monetarily, terroritory wise, or in any other sense. Our people are starving, they're pissed at us, our army's morale is at an all time low, and there's nothing we can do about it. Yeah! That's what we should do. I'm sure the Arab nations will love us, except all of those that surround us and will have no choice but to deride our attacks and stop trading with us.

Yeah, the crazies definetly win in that scenario.

Perhaps their idea of what it means "to win" is considerably different than yours. Some Islamists advocate all out war in the expectation that Islam would become the dominant power they have wanted it to be since the fall of the last Caliphate.

If you're a crazy, will you be necessarily considering those factors?


Someone in your government sure as hell would, especially if they want to keep their power.

Just saying, "They're crazy! They'll attack us!" is nonsense, and a weak argument to boot. There's no proof that Iran is crazy in the sense of going to war. If Iran was crazy, why the hell hasn't it attempted to invade Israel a million trillion times yet? Or Iraq? Because they're not crazy when it comes to knowing what they can get away with and what they can't get away with in the global scene.

Am I to take it that nuking cities in Africa, the middle-east and Asia is acceptable, but nuking a 'western city' is not?
Yes, as far as the U.S. government should be concerned, nuking Africa isn't the kind of thing we should promote, but it isn't the kind of thing for it to worry about.
Africa for Africans. America for Americans.
Every nation should take care of their own and leave the rest of the world to whatever it wants, provided that it doesn't involve harming that nations interests.

Well, we do have the CIA, NSA, FBI, and army/navy/marines intelligence that usually tells us were terrorists are. We had proof about the Taliban and Al-Queda. Terrorist organizations need money and places to train, both of which are traceable. It isn't that easy to hide an entire organization in this day of age.

So, we would know where they were.

And yet we can't catch BinLaden and Mullah Omar.

We can't find that Jordaian bastard in Iraq.

You can't hid a formal orginization? True. But Al-Q is not a formal organization. More like a confederacy.

For all of Sheriff Shrubs talk, we can't stamp out Al-Q by ourselves.....

Well, we do have the CIA, NSA, FBI, and army/navy/marines intelligence that usually tells us were terrorists are. We had proof about the Taliban and Al-Queda. Terrorist organizations need money and places to train, both of which are traceable. It isn't that easy to hide an entire organization in this day of age.

So, we would know where they were.

Not if Kerry is elected. He has consistently advocated radically cutting the funding for all intelligence agencies ... until lately, that is. His latest alteration of position ( notice I didn't call it a "flip-flop" ) indicates he wouldn't do that. Still, the best indicator of future performance is past performance, so draw your own conclusions.

Estimates at the time indicated that the Allies would suffer over 200,000 casualties in any invasion of the Japanese home islands.

I sincerely hope that no country will use them, but there are no guarantees.

Whatever the justification was (and the estimates are open to doubt, as is the possibility of the Japanese seeking peace), it seems ironic that it is the only nation to ever drop the bomb to be the one who is threatening pre-emptive strikes against nations who have or seek missiles.

Perhaps their idea of what it means "to win" is considerably different than yours. Some Islamists advocate all out war in the expectation that Islam would become the dominant power they have wanted it to be since the fall of the last Caliphate.


Perhaps, or perhaps no. Your argument continues to be, "They're illogical! They're going to attack us!" But you have no proof really. Iran hasn't acted irrational before, if it had it would attack Israel right now. But it hasn't. Why? Because it knows that doing so would cause its cities to be bombed and it would cause the government's control of the people to slip.

Victory might be defined differently for them, but losing is losing no matter where you go. Having your country invaded by a more powerful country, having your government removed, and having a new pro-enemy government placed in your stead is considered a loss no matter where you live.

Someone in your government sure as hell would, especially if they want to keep their power.

Just saying, "They're crazy! They'll attack us!" is nonsense, and a weak argument to boot. There's no proof that Iran is crazy in the sense of going to war. If Iran was crazy, why the hell hasn't it attempted to invade Israel a million trillion times yet? Or Iraq? Because they're not crazy when it comes to knowing what they can get away with and what they can't get away with in the global scene.

So you think 19 terrorists self-immolating by flying two jet airplanes into the World Trade Center wasn't an "insane" act??? Hmmm.

The reason Iran hasn't attacked Israel up to now is that they knew the Israelis would kick their collective ass. But now ... Iran has the Nuke and the means to deliver it.

BTW ... most intelligence analyses indicate there are numerous Iranian fighters in Iraq now.

Someone in your government sure as hell would, especially if they want to keep their power.

Just saying, "They're crazy! They'll attack us!" is nonsense, and a weak argument to boot.

That sure as hell wasn't my argument. I certainly don't promote the idea of going to war with Iran, seeing as I found going to war in Iraq questionable at best. I was just noting that the crazies would at least percieve a benefit to such an attack. Read my earlier posts in this thread if you want to know the main reason for why I think Iran won't attack. Clue: It's economic in nature.

There's no proof that Iran is crazy in the sense of going to war. If Iran was crazy, why the hell hasn't it attempted to invade Israel a million trillion times yet? Or Iraq? Because they're not crazy when it comes to knowing what they can get away with and what they can't get away with in the global scene.

I agree that they're not stupid. I was just pointing out that there would indeed be benefits to crazies from such an attack, even though the nagative effects would outweigh those benefits.

Not if Kerry is elected. He has consistently advocated radically cutting the funding for all intelligence agencies ... until lately, that is. His latest alteration of position ( notice I didn't call it a "flip-flop" ) indicates he wouldn't do that. Still, the best indicator of future performance is past performance, so draw your own conclusions.

Please kid, stop with the nonsense. There's no reason to mention Kerry in this debate; but since you brought him up, he has completely endorsed the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. If you knew what those where, you'd be glad to accept them because they would lead to better, faster, better shared intelligence among the intelligence community.

And by noticing that you didn't call it a flip-flop you implied that it was a flip-flop but pretended that you didn't. That stuff is childish, so stop doing it.


So back to the original argument, we have in place enough intelligence to prove where the organization is found, and which, if any, governments are protecting it.

Whatever the justification was (and the estimates are open to doubt, as is the possibility of the Japanese seeking peace), it seems ironic that it is the only nation to ever drop the bomb to be the one who is threatening pre-emptive strikes against nations who have or seek missiles.

There is "irony" everywhere we look in this world. The Japanese High Command advocated fighting on, even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was the Emporor who overruled them.

not to be too cynical but

this is what we have israel for

if something needs doing today, israel will do it. after all THEY are the ones who will be hit. not nyc, not london, but tel aviv.

if they dont do it, you can rest easy knowing that it didnt need doing.

Please kid, stop with the nonsense. There's no reason to mention Kerry in this debate; but since you brought him up, he has completely endorsed the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. If you knew what those where, you'd be glad to accept them because they would lead to better, faster, better shared intelligence among the intelligence community.

And by noticing that you didn't call it a flip-flop you implied that it was a flip-flop but pretended that you didn't. That stuff is childish, so stop doing it.


So back to the original argument, we have in place enough intelligence to prove where the organization is found, and which, if any, governments are protecting it.

ROFLMAO! The "flip-flop" statement was a joke. And I'm 61 years old ... hardly what most people would refer to as "a kid!" LOL!

And yet we can't catch BinLaden and Mullah Omar.

We can't find that Jordaian bastard in Iraq.

You can't hid a formal orginization? True. But Al-Q is not a formal organization. More like a confederacy.

For all of Sheriff Shrubs talk, we can't stamp out Al-Q by ourselves.....

We know that Bin Laden is in Pakistan/ Afghanistan, we're just too stupid to send enough troops to search the area clearly. If we did have Al-Queda as our priority, we would have demolished them by now, or if we hadn't pissed off most of the world and convinced them to send more troops to Afghanistan, we might have strapped BinLaden to the electric chair by now.

You're missing my point on the organization thing. Organizations, no matter what, need money, they need supplies, they need places to train, places to stay, and they need the ability to reach their training locations. All of these things are traceable, and are traced very well by our intelligence community. Whether Al-Queda uses cells or is a huge organization in one central location, there is evidence that would support what organization attacked us.

We know that Bin Laden is in Pakistan/ Afghanistan, we're just too stupid to send enough troops to search the area clearly. If we did have Al-Queda as our priority, we would have demolished them by now, or if we hadn't pissed off most of the world and convinced them to send more troops to Afghanistan, we might have strapped BinLaden to the electric chair by now.

You're missing my point on the organization thing. Organizations, no matter what, need money, they need supplies, they need places to train, places to stay, and they need the ability to reach their training locations. All of these things are traceable, and are traced very well by our intelligence community. Whether Al-Queda uses cells or is a huge organization in one central location, there is evidence that would support what organization attacked us.

The US is concerned about what American forces in the border areas of Pakistan would do to the stability of the current government. President Musarraf has lately begun patrols in the border areas using elements of the Pakistani Army, so perhaps this point will soon become moot.

So you think 19 terrorists self-immolating by flying two jet airplanes into the World Trade Center wasn't an "insane" act??? Hmmm.

The reason Iran hasn't attacked Israel up to now is that they knew the Israelis would kick their collective ass. But now ... Iran has the Nuke and the means to deliver it.

BTW ... most intelligence analyses indicate there are numerous Iranian fighters in Iraq now.

Uhhh... ok. My argument, again, is that states and governments act as rational actors. Al-Queda, not being a state doesn't have to act sane nor act within the system that states do. So yes, 19 terrorists flying into the Twin Towers is an insane act, but Iran wouldn't act like that.

You're second analysis is correct, except for your conclusion.

"The reason Iran hasn't attacked Israel up to now is that they knew the Israelis would kick their collective ass. But now ... Iran has the Nuke and the means to deliver it."

Israel still has the ability to kick Iran's ass, what's the difference? Iran has nukes? So does Israel. You attack Israel, why wouldn't Israel still kick your ass? If you use your nukes, Israel uses theirs and you're left with... well nothing. You have no country, no government, no subjects.

So let us see: I can either run a country, or I can die and run a winter holocaust.

Not a tough choice.

The US is concerned about what American forces in the border areas of Pakistan would do to the stability of the current government. President Musarraf has lately begun patrols in the border areas using elements of the Pakistani Army, so perhaps this point will soon become moot.

Hopefully the Pakistanis will finally find him, and hopefully, the point will be moot.

Perhaps, or perhaps no. Your argument continues to be, "They're illogical! They're going to attack us!" But you have no proof really. Iran hasn't acted irrational before, if it had it would attack Israel right now. But it hasn't. Why? Because it knows that doing so would cause its cities to be bombed and it would cause the government's control of the people to slip.

Victory might be defined differently for them, but losing is losing no matter where you go. Having your country invaded by a more powerful country, having your government removed, and having a new pro-enemy government placed in your stead is considered a loss no matter where you live.

Again, I hope you're correct, but I have my doubts. There really are people in the world whose idea of "sanity" bears a remarkable resemblance to that which we in the West call "insanity." Sad, but true.

Not to be abrupt, but I would like you to respond to my post near the bottom of the last page, Nueva America.

Uhhh... ok. My argument, again, is that states and governments act as rational actors. Al-Queda, not being a state doesn't have to act sane nor act within the system that states do. So yes, 19 terrorists flying into the Twin Towers is an insane act, but Iran wouldn't act like that.

You're second analysis is correct, except for your conclusion.

"The reason Iran hasn't attacked Israel up to now is that they knew the Israelis would kick their collective ass. But now ... Iran has the Nuke and the means to deliver it."

Israel still has the ability to kick Iran's ass, what's the difference? Iran has nukes? So does Israel. You attack Israel, why wouldn't Israel still kick your ass? If you use your nukes, Israel uses theirs and you're left with... well nothing. You have no country, no government, no subjects.

So let us see: I can either run a country, or I can die and run a winter holocaust.

Not a tough choice.

Not a "tough choice" for you, no.

That sure as hell wasn't my argument. I certainly don't promote the idea of going to war with Iran, seeing as I found going to war in Iraq questionable at best. I was just noting that the crazies would at least percieve a benefit to such an attack. Read my earlier posts in this thread if you want to know the main reason for why I think Iran won't attack. Clue: It's economic in nature.



I agree that they're not stupid. I was just pointing out that there would indeed be benefits to crazies from such an attack, even though the nagative effects would outweigh those benefits.

If someone was truly, ridiculously insane and just wanted to kill America, then yeah, they'd have a reason to attack us. But you agree that Iran isn't stupid, and you seem to agree that Iran's economy would feel a bad impact by behaving menacingly.

The most important thing here, however, is that crazies don't really run Iran; sure they're extremist, but there is an ongoing struggle in Iran between the old, more extremists, and the young, more pro-democratic subjects. Either way, neither group has shown a willingness to go off the deep end.

Heck, Kim Jong-Il seems to be the craziest dictator of all (rumor has it that he buys more Hennessey than anyone else), but even he wishes to reach a global, if not at least a regional, resolution to his country's problems and nuclear agenda. In the end, countries don't invade or attack other nation without having a major reason. If Iran believed the United States was about to invade it, and their intelligence pointed that way, then yes, I can see them attacking us for pure spite. But barring that, I don't see them trying to kill the "evil" Americans.

If someone was truly, ridiculously insane and just wanted to kill America, then yeah, they'd have a reason to attack us. But you agree that Iran isn't stupid, and you seem to agree that Iran's economy would feel a bad impact by behaving menacingly.

The most important thing here, however, is that crazies don't really run Iran; sure they're extremist, but there is an ongoing struggle in Iran between the old, more extremists, and the young, more pro-democratic subjects. Either way, neither group has shown a willingness to go off the deep end.

Heck, Kim Jong-Il seems to be the craziest dictator of all (rumor has it that he buys more Hennessey than anyone else), but even he wishes to reach a global, if not at least a regional, resolution to his country's problems and nuclear agenda. In the end, countries don't invade or attack other nation without having a major reason. If Iran believed the United States was about to invade it, and their intelligence pointed that way, then yes, I can see them attacking us for pure spite. But barring that, I don't see them trying to kill the "evil" Americans.

Do yourself a favor, read The Sword of the Prophet, by Srdja Trifkovic.

If someone was truly, ridiculously insane and just wanted to kill America, then yeah, they'd have a reason to attack us. But you agree that Iran isn't stupid, and you seem to agree that Iran's economy would feel a bad impact by behaving menacingly.

The most important thing here, however, is that crazies don't really run Iran; sure they're extremist, but there is an ongoing struggle in Iran between the old, more extremists, and the young, more pro-democratic subjects. Either way, neither group has shown a willingness to go off the deep end.

Heck, Kim Jong-Il seems to be the craziest dictator of all (rumor has it that he buys more Hennessey than anyone else), but even he wishes to reach a global, if not at least a regional, resolution to his country's problems and nuclear agenda. In the end, countries don't invade or attack other nation without having a major reason. If Iran believed the United States was about to invade it, and their intelligence pointed that way, then yes, I can see them attacking us for pure spite. But barring that, I don't see them trying to kill the "evil" Americans.

I agree with you. Even extremists tend to be pragmatists like the rest of us at heart. That's a very fortunate thing, IMO.

Do yourself a favor, read The Sword of the Prophet, by Srdja Trifkovic.

Didn't the guy who write that commit genocide against Muslim Serbs?

"No, not unless they launch first."

Didn't the guy who write that commit genocide against Muslim Serbs?

Different guy.

Having long range missiles is not illegal. Developing nuclear weapons capability is not illegal. It is generally accepted that it would be nice if people didn't, but that's beside the point. The UN stuff is, well, typical UN stuff. All those treaties are permissive. No-one is obliged to do anything at all. If Iran wishes to have nuclear-tipped ICBMs, there isn't a law in the world that bans them from doing that. There is only the belief among Americans that the Iranians, and dark-skinned/oriental people in general, can't be allowed to do that. It's stupid. A pre-emptive strike on Iran would probably earn the US expulsion from every international body and sanctions of their own, screw the economic consequences. Seriously, the US/Israeli talk of pre-emptive strikes (and on a live nuclear power blant, they would be nuclear whether you used conventional wapons or not) is pure bluffing. If anyone was nuts enough to do that, the world would destroy them, and rightly so.

So you think 19 terrorists self-immolating by flying two jet airplanes into the World Trade Center wasn't an "insane" act??? Hmmm.

So, if by some miracle one of them had survived and stood trial in a court of law, he would have been able to cop an insanity plea?

What's "premtive"?

So, if by some miracle one of them had survived and stood trial in a court of law, he would have been able to cop an insanity plea?


Well?

Plane exploding will give you one big booboo so I think he could cop an insanity plea. ;)

http://www.google.com/search?q=premtive&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Well?

Plane exploding will give you one big booboo so I think he could cop an insanity plea. ;)

The choice facing us in then is recognising either that hijacking planes full of civilians and colliding them at high speed into buildings also full of civilians is a sane thing to do, or that it is insane and thus those who performed it were not legally or ethically culpable.

So, if by some miracle one of them had survived and stood trial in a court of law, he would have been able to cop an insanity plea?

If he underwent a battery of psychological tests and was determined to be so mentally ill that he could not be held responsible for his actions, perhaps.

If he underwent a battery of psychological tests and was determined to be so mentally ill that he could not be held responsible for his actions, perhaps.

I'm interested to see Eutrusca's response here: if he follows you he
allows that it could be a sane thing to hijack a plane full of civilians and collide it at high speed with a building also full of civilians.

Thus raising questions about ...

So you think 19 terrorists self-immolating by flying two jet airplanes into the World Trade Center wasn't an "insane" act??? Hmmm.

If they were insane, then they can't be blamed.

If they were insane, then they can't be blamed.

Welllll. Let me state I am hardly the Terrorist expert.

One thing I read is that the "martyrs" go through several "coaching" sessions so it could be argued that they are not in the right state of mind.

The fact that I heard Palistinean parents anguish over thir martyred sons suggests that it is not a Religious training(mind you I have also heard "yea" talk as well from other parents).

So the state of mind probably can be argued.

How about the option, Israel will do to Iraq what they did to Iran in 1981

I think it's fair to say most of the world, led by the EU, will slap sanctions onto Israel faster than they can say "The end justifies the means."

I think it's fair to say most of the world, led by the EU, will slap sanctions onto Israel faster than they can say "The end justifies the means."

Really? The EU would be upset at a lost Nuclear production facility?

Or would it be a slap on the hand and or stern look punishment? ;)

Erm, no, it would be red-hot fury. Europe does not want to see the Iranian plants bombed.

What's "premtive"?

A misspelling of preemptive? ( shrug ) So I dropped an "e." Have me shot at dawn. Or, worse punishment yet, make me listen to ten hours of John Kerry speeches! :D

Erm, no, it would be red-hot fury. Europe does not want to see the Iranian plants bombed.

Enlighten me. Why would they not want the Iranian plants bombed?

Europe would like Iran to voluntarily give up nuclear weapons production technology. However, the relevant UN legislation is voluntary, and the IAEA's mission is the proliferation of nuclear technology (just not actual weapons), so there are no compulsory powers involved.

If Iran says yes, Europe is happy. If Iran says no, Europe will be disappointed, but will shrug and say that the law clearly says they are allowed to have nuclear weapons if they want.

Now if Israel/US attack Iran...that is a different matter. Europe will be very pissed off, to the extent of EU sanctions becoming inevitable. It is willing to persuade Iran, but any military move against it will be met with opposition.

See, just because you would like to see something happen, doesn't mean you will kill to make it happen. That's Europe's policy. Israel/America's may prove different. Thus the two will be in conflict. For Europe, it's peaceful disarmament, or nothing. War is not an option.

But, you can try if you like, and see what happens. ;)

Am I to take it that nuking cities in Africa, the middle-east and Asia is acceptable, but nuking a 'western city' is not?

If you live in a Western country then the alternative is better.

But seriously, when has Israel STARTED a fight?

The United States. I think the consequences would be more dire for Iran, as seeing as how we have the capability of pounding their country back to the stone age.

They are mostly still in the stone age. especially socially.

Edit: at least the younger generation there seems to be much better.

They are mostly still in the stone age. especially socially.

Edit: at least the younger generation there seems to be much better.


Someone likes embellishing. But, okay, if you don't agree with Stone Age, how about Ice Age.

True a country would be foolish.

However, what do you do when you have Abdul from Islamic JIhaad for the abused Kittens in the US shouting ALLAH ACKBAR and *POOF*?

Whom do you counter attack?

After enough attacks(or a large enough one) against the US like that, eventually the counter strike will be against anything that moves and looks vaguely like they might not like us.

Disagree; they're insane in some forms, but for the most part they all have something in common: they want to stay in power. Attacking the United States or another Western nation is the quickest way of having that goal destroyed.

Most global actors are logical in this sense. There is always the exception (some argue that Hitler didn't want any power if it meant him not taking over France and Russia), but most rulers, even Islamist extremists, want to stay in power. Thus, I can't see Iran attacking the US, knowing full well that doing so would lead to the end of their power in Iran.

Very True. Especially after the US took down the Govts of Afganistan and Iraq. The govts in the middle east have to be very nervous.

Ahhhh another war mongering post?

Track record:

Afghanistan = dismal failure

Iraq = total failure

Iran = why spoil a perfect track record?

Europe would like Iran to voluntarily give up nuclear weapons production technology. However, the relevant UN legislation is voluntary, and the IAEA's mission is the proliferation of nuclear technology (just not actual weapons), so there are no compulsory powers involved.

If Iran says yes, Europe is happy. If Iran says no, Europe will be disappointed, but will shrug and say that the law clearly says they are allowed to have nuclear weapons if they want.

Now if Israel/US attack Iran...that is a different matter. Europe will be very pissed off, to the extent of EU sanctions becoming inevitable. It is willing to persuade Iran, but any military move against it will be met with opposition.

See, just because you would like to see something happen, doesn't mean you will kill to make it happen. That's Europe's policy. Israel/America's may prove different. Thus the two will be in conflict. For Europe, it's peaceful disarmament, or nothing. War is not an option.

But, you can try if you like, and see what happens. ;)

Heh! No thank you. Let Europe handle it, since they're within range of the Iranian intermediate range missles. ; ))

Ahhhh another war mongering post?

Track record:

Afghanistan = dismal failure

Iraq = total failure

Iran = why spoil a perfect track record?

How is it war mongering to post an opinion stating that after enough large scale attacks against us(9/11 or larger scale), the US will simply stop caring and adopt a completely vindictive/paranoid(justified imho) stance?

How is it war mongering to post an opinion stating that after enough large scale attacks against us(9/11 or larger scale), the US will simply stop caring and adopt a completely vindictive/paranoid(justified imho) stance?

I'm afaid that our friends on the left have very little tolerance for views which don't match their own. Anything which smacks of being even remotely "pro-war" drives them into frenzied personal attacks on the one who posted what they consider to be "warmongering."

How is it war mongering to post an opinion stating that after enough large scale attacks against us(9/11 or larger scale), the US will simply stop caring and adopt a completely vindictive/paranoid(justified imho) stance?
What a total unwise concept?

BTW, there has been only one attack on the US and that led to war against Afghanistan. BTW, where is Bin Laden?

Then for support of your "completely vindictive/paranoid stance", the US just invaded Iraq. Good plan Stan?

So go ahead and pick some more countries to bully. I am sure that the results will be much better than the other two failures?

when has Israel STARTED a fight?

How about these for starters?
October 29, 1956
June 5, 1976
June 7, 1981
June 4-5, 1982

What a total unwise concept?

BTW, there has been only one attack on the US and that led to war against Afghanistan. BTW, where is Bin Laden?

Then for support of your "completely vindictive/paranoid stance", the US just invaded Iraq. Good plan Stan?

So go ahead and pick some more countries to bully. I am sure that the results will be much better than the other two failures?

See what I mean? A total lack of tolerance for anything which doesn't exactly match their own warped view of how things "ought" to be. Sigh.

BTW, there has been only one attack on the US and that led to war against Afghanistan. BTW, where is Bin Laden?


World Trade Centre bombing in 1993?

World Trade Centre bombing in 1993?

wasn't that rednecks?

wasn't that rednecks?

At the risk of racism, the term "rednecks" is infrequently used to describe people with names like Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.

Perhaps you are thinking of Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma bombing?

See what I mean? A total lack of tolerance for anything which doesn't exactly match their own warped view of how things "ought" to be. Sigh.

Afghanistan hasn't exactly been a success. The economy is even more fucked than before and the Taliban have resumed business. Talk about failure.

Am I to take it that nuking cities in Africa, the middle-east and Asia is acceptable, but nuking a 'western city' is not?

Unfortunately yes. We have the power to respond to such a threat. And a good 80% of this thread are "westerners", and the ayatolah is known for having a slight dislike towards the west....

Afghanistan hasn't exactly been a success. The economy is even more fucked than before and the Taliban have resumed business. Talk about failure.

RPP, both you and I know that judging the success of the operation in Afghanistan on the basis of the explicitly given reasons for intervention there is missing the whole point of the operation.

Unfortunately yes. We have the power to respond to such a threat. And a good 80% of this thread are "westerners", and the ayatolah is known for having a slight dislike towards the west....

If 'we' have the power to respond to a western city getting nuked, then 'we' have the power to respond to any city getting nuked. As far as the Iranian dislike for the west goes... certainly prior to the almost neo-imperialist activities which followed the hijackings there had been a marked improvement in Iranian-western relations - observe the increased gains of the reformist elements in the past ten years. I think it is fair to say that they have reasonable grounds for their 'slight dislike' given the displays of power that they have witnessed since then.

RPP, both you and I know that judging the success of the operation in Afghanistan on the basis of the explicitly given reasons for intervention there is missing the whole point of the operation.

So the point wasn't to mislead the public about terrorism and secure some oil interests while they still had public support?

If 'we' have the power to respond to a western city getting nuked, then 'we' have the power to respond to any city getting nuked. As far as the Iranian dislike for the west goes... certainly prior to the almost neo-imperialist activities which followed the hijackings there had been a marked improvement in Iranian-western relations - observe the increased gains of the reformist elements in the past ten years. I think it is fair to say that they have reasonable grounds for their 'slight dislike' given the displays of power that they have witnessed since then.

oh I agree. But the people on this thread have a more...vested interest in the topic if we're talking about "western cities" being attacked. These threads revolve around topics of interest. unfortunately when it involves "us" we show more interest.
Also thanks to our media and such, "EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET US!!!!" (silliness)

"Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-
range 'strategic missile' and delivered it to its armed forces,
saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even
the 'big powers.'"

Hmm. Nuclear trustworthiness.
My list goes something like this:

1. Reasonably trustworthy - very unlikely to launch except in response to a WMD attack:
India, UK, US, France

2. Potentially a bit dangerous but mostly rational:
Russia, China - I think Iran comes in this category

3. Quite dangerous - have a stated 'first strike' policy and tend to be a bit paranoid:
Israel, Pakistan. Iraq would have been here IF they had had WMD. Which of course they didn't.

4. Oh God, what are we going to do? These guys are crazy!!
North Korea, Al Qaeda [??]

I don't think Iran is the worry, people. Just because they're Muslims doesn't make them crazy, you know. Kim Jung-Il on the other hand. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Hmm. Nuclear trustworthiness.
My list goes something like this:
1. Reasonably trustworthy - very unlikely to launch except in response to a WMD attack:
India, UK, US, France
2. Potentially a bit dangerous but mostly rational:
Russia, China - I think Iran comes in this category.
I don´t think Iran comes into that category. Put it into number 5.

3. Quite dangerous - have a stated 'first strike' policy and tend to be a bit paranoid:
Israel, Pakistan. Iraq would have been here IF they had had WMD. Which of course they didn't..
I disagree with you. Actually most nuclear powers reserve themself the right to strike first with nukes (even the US). The Soviet Union didn´t. Why? Because they had more conventional forces in Europe and more conventional weapons up until the Nato-double decision of 1979 and the stationing of new rockets in Western Europe.

4. Oh God, what are we going to do? These guys are crazy!!
North Korea, Al Qaeda [??].
I don´t see a connection North Korea - Al Quaida. The concern in the case of North Korea is that it may proliferate WMD to other countries - like Iran, Saudi-Arabia, others.
The same concern exists in a way for Pakistan. They may sell a nuke to their buddies in Saudi-Arabia which use to fund them.
The situation in North Korea is dangerous because it may cause an arms race in North East Asia. As a result of an permanently nuclear North Korea (they already have a few nukes) either the US stations nukes in Japan and South Korea or those countries get nukes themself (the fact that they are "experimenting" with plutonium shows that they are already considering that option. The next step would than be a nuclear Taiwan and an arms race in the pacific region.
The same threat exists in the case of Iran. As a result of that normally Iraq would try to get nukes. That is currently impossible. But Saudi-Arabia (via their connections to Pakistan (likely) or North Korea (not impossible) would try to get nukes as well. The same for Turkey. And if Turkey gets nukes Greece will follow.
Probably Egypt and Syria would also try to get nukes and Lybia would restart its WMD program.
The threat is real. And there is a huge destabilising impact of a nuclear Iran to the entire region.
The same is the case for North Korea. But in the case of North Korea it is already too late for an preventive strike.
In the case for Iran it doesn´t seem to be the case, though Iran tries to push its program through in order to reach a North Korea like scenario.
The options are clear: if Iran doesn´t give up - which seems to be most unlikely - there is either going to be a preventive strike in 2005/06 or - if that doesn´t happen - a North Korea-scenario.
Time is running out - but this time for the strategy of prevention. President Bush has to make a though decision in that respect.

At the risk of racism, the term "rednecks" is infrequently used to describe people with names like Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.

Perhaps you are thinking of Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma bombing?

yes i was. and long live the islamic rednecks, if there are any.

Why do you think that NK getting nukes would mean Japan, SK and TaiWan getting them? Especially since as you pointed out NK already has them and none of the other 3 do.

Furthermore, what makes you think that Iran getting nukes would make Saudi Arabia and Turkey want them? If Saudi did want them, surely its great friend America would be able to intervene? And if Turkey wanted them, it would be unable to get into the EU jeopardising all the work it has done in the last 10 years or so to get into the EU. As an EU member Turkey will be an ally of Greece, if an unwilling one. Greece of course as an EU member isn't allowed to get nukes.

I don´t think Iran comes into that category. Put it into number 5.

You really do have a hang-up on Iran, don't you?

I don´t see a connection North Korea - Al Quaida.

Nor me. I put them in the same (maximum) category from degree of likelihood to use nuclear weapons, not because I thought there was a connection. The question mark was about whether Al Qaeda has nuclear weapons, which I actually think is highly unlikely.

The situation in North Korea is dangerous because it may cause an arms race in North East Asia.

The situation isn't helped by the fact that the Dear Leader is cuckoo.

The proliferation argument about the East Asian region is a real one. Japan could build nuclear weapons pretty much tomorrow if it chose to. However, North Korea is a state in a state of complete economic collapse, with mass famine, and possibly social collapse, revolution and/or a military attack on South Korea just around the corner. This makes it much more dangerous than Iran, which is not in such a position. Much as you may dislike their politics and much as America may have a 'history' with Iran, I still believe that they are a far more rational and sensible state than you give them credit for.

The nuclear destabilisation in the Middle East began the day Israel deployed nuclear weapons. Arguably Iraq and Iran are merely playing catch-up.

Time is running out - but this time for the strategy of prevention. President Bush has to make a though decision in that respect.

Let's hope not too tough. America needs another conflict in the Middle East like it needs a hole in the head.
Besides, let's face it, the Israelis will probably airstrike the n-plant first, like they did Iraq.

yes i was. and long live the islamic rednecks, if there are any.

There are a few. There was a programme on the BBC about them a few months ago.

There are a few. There was a programme on the BBC about them a few months ago.

Yes, but those involved in the WTC bombing in 1993 don't fit into that category to the best of my knowledge, being a mix of Egyptians, Jordanians and Sudanians.

Yes, but those involved in the WTC bombing in 1993 don't fit into that category to the best of my knowledge, being a mix of Egyptians, Jordanians and Sudanians.

This programme was just about people from Texas and Alabama who were born into Christian and Agnostic families who converted to Islam. I think I'm misunderstanding this use of "redneck".

Let's hope not too tough. America needs another conflict in the Middle East like it needs a hole in the head.
Besides, let's face it, the Israelis will probably airstrike the n-plant first, like they did Iraq.
It won´t since Iran may take a reprisel.
Iran is not Iraq. It is much stronger than Iraq ever was. A thing for the US to tackle, not for Israel. They still have problems with the few Palestinians. They are not in a position to go on confrontation with Iran.
I think a war is almost inevitable. The most think-tanks in the US think the same. Not that I like the idea.
But either the US and Iran settle their disputes - that would also stabilize Iraq - or they don´t. The latter seems to be much more likely. And then we either see a North Korea style development or a preventive strike.

Regarding North Korea. I would not underestimate the stability of the regime. It is - unfortunately - still very stable. The assumption it would collapse soon are eroneous and wishfull- thinking. The economic situation is pretty desasterous, but better than during the 1990s.
So, I don´t see your scenario. Iran is actually more dangerous than North Korea. It is much more important and powerful. So, I´ve to disagree with your assessment.
North Korea can be contained if China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the US pull on one string - and if China uses its influence on North Korea.
Iran can´t. Nobody has enough influence on it.
Neither Russia or European countries. The failure of the diplomatic mission to Iran of the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany shows that fact.

Doesn't option two in this thread make absolutely Zero sense? Pre-emptive means before they do it. If we wait until they launch, then its not preemptive any longer

Doesn't option two in this thread make absolutely Zero sense? Pre-emptive means before they do it. If we wait until they launch, then its not preemptive any longer

The original post makes himself fairly clear on that if you take the trouble to read it. Don't quibble just for the sake of it.

Wasn't trying to quibble, honestly missed that Note at the bottom of the first post. My Bad.

Wasn't trying to quibble, honestly missed that Note at the bottom of the first post. My Bad.

No problem. Just that the issue has cropped up a couple of times on the thread already.

[Eutrusca #1]
"Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-
range 'strategic missile' and delivered it to its armed forces,
saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even
the 'big powers.'"

"Iran's new missiles can reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern
Russia, according to weapons and intelligence analysts."

NOTE: A vote for "Yes, but only if they strike first" means it would not technically be a "preemptive" strike, but humor me. : ))

Astounding..!

Yet another extremely predictable poll bent to the left, as per the NS population.

That's fine. More leftists to play with. My favorite meat...! :D

This programme was just about people from Texas and Alabama who were born into Christian and Agnostic families who converted to Islam. I think I'm misunderstanding this use of "redneck".

No, I don't think you are (assuming we both use it to mean something like "poor, patriotic, often not educated to the best of their abilities mid-westerners"). What may have thrown you was my use of the term 'infrequently' as a polite way of saying 'never' a couple of posts ago.

Yet another extremely predictable poll bent to the left, as per the NS population.

That's fine. More leftists to play with. My favorite meat...!

I think you are drawing an incorrect assumption that leftists are automatically doves, and rightists automatically hawks.

No, I don't think you are (assuming we both use it to mean something like "poor, patriotic, often not educated to the best of their abilities mid-westerners"). What may have thrown you was my use of the term 'infrequently' as a polite way of saying 'never' a couple of posts ago.

Well a couple of them were quite wealthy and others well-educated. So I just thought you meant people from the "Deep-South".

What I found interesting was that they were all very patriotic. They waved the flag on the 4th of July as hard as their Christian friends. If was their friends and families (sadly) who insisted that they were un-patriotic and anti-American.

Let's hope not too tough. America needs another conflict in the Middle East like it needs a hole in the head.
Besides, let's face it, the Israelis will probably airstrike the n-plant first, like they did Iraq.

Another war in the middle east will be the same thing as a hole in the head, at this rate.

Well a couple of them were quite wealthy and others well-educated. So I just thought you meant people from the "Deep-South".

Well, the problem with all stereotypes is that they are untrue - taking a single example or a handful of such and turning them into caricatures.

What I found interesting was that they were all very patriotic. They waved the flag on the 4th of July as hard as their Christian friends. If was their friends and families (sadly) who insisted that they were un-patriotic and anti-American.

I see no particular reason why any given Muslim should be more or less patriotic than a member of any other religion - except in the case where they are forced to constantly prove themselves as patriotic due to the suspicions of others.

[Bodies Without Organs #126]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Yet another extremely predictable poll bent to the left, as per the NS population.

That's fine. More leftists to play with. My favorite meat...!

I think you are drawing an incorrect assumption that leftists are automatically doves, and rightists automatically hawks.

That's probably true..! :)

My observations have been that rightists attack with armies, and leftists attack with bricks, words and badly designed posters/tee-shirts.

While it's certaninly not a requirement for either "group" to be wedded to hawkish/dovishness, the preponderance of leftists would rather have nasty-evilness run rampant as long as it's relatively far away and doesn't affect them overly.

The rightists, on the other hand, would rather kill the bad guys, as long as it is in the interests of the nation to do so.

After all, isn't that what armies are for..? :) <semi-provocative-jab>

[Bodies Without Organs #129]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refused Party Program
What I found interesting was that they were all very patriotic. They waved the flag on the 4th of July as hard as their Christian friends. If was their friends and families (sadly) who insisted that they were un-patriotic and anti-American.

I see no particular reason why any given Muslim should be more or less patriotic than a member of any other religion - except in the case where they are forced to constantly prove themselves as patriotic due to the suspicions of others.

I agree with you entirely,.. though the suspicions of others should be expected and dealt with.

Isn't that the task of life, after all. To deal with realities..?

The rightists, on the other hand, would rather kill the bad guys, as long as it is in the interests of the nation to do so.

After all, isn't that what armies are for..? :)

Nope: the generally stated aim of armies is not to kill but to neutralise the enemy by whatever means are appropriate. Even an anti-war kid like me recognises that the vast majority of the command structures of most armies recognise this. It may be that killing the enemy is the appropriate means in some situations, but care for enemy casualties and POWs shows that it isn't the primary aim.

Nope: the generally stated aim of armies is not to kill but to neutralise the enemy by whatever means are appropriate. Even an anti-war kid like me recognises that the vast majority of the command structures of most armies recognise this. It may be that killing the enemy is the appropriate means in some situations, but care for enemy casualties and POWs shows that it isn't the primary aim.

Very true. The US Army, for example, is actively developing non-lethal and non-injurious methods of neutralizing opposing forces, particularly when they are mixed in with unarmed civilians.

World Trade Centre bombing in 1993?
I stand corrected, but in all honesty, that was just a calling card, and the real message was delivered whilst Senor Bush was in office, ignoring messages of imminent doom from his advisors and CIA, and FBI.

See what I mean? A total lack of tolerance for anything which doesn't exactly match their own warped view of how things "ought" to be. Sigh.

How is it that my views are warped, because they don't match yours? I also have tons of "tolerance", unlike your President Bush, who rushed into a messy predicament in Iraq, even though the UN inspectors were not finding any WMD.

If they launch a missile, and destroy a city, then I'd have no problem if Iran was attacked.

If they launch a missile, and destroy a city, then I'd have no problem if Iran was attacked.

Um ... how do you think the people killed and maimed in that city would feel about your delicate sensibilities?

Um ... how do you think the people killed and maimed in that city would feel about your delicate sensibilities?
Hey, I have no problem with preemption. But I don't think it is necessary. A popular revolt in Iran will happen before decade's end. When that happens, I want US special forces to seize the missile facilities, and air support to protect the revolt. Beforehand, however, not much is likely.

Take them out before they get more.

Take them out before they get more.

Who?

USA? Israel? Russia? North Korea? Pakistan? India? China? Syria? Iran?

All of them?