Or perhaps, and I know this is very difficult to understand, that the rest of the world doesn't have the resources the U.S. has enjoyed to dedicate to creating a hyper-power standing military. Have you not taken any poli-sci courses? Did your professors not go over that the only country in the entire goddamned world that stands a chance of holding a torch nearly as large as the U.S.'s currently is China? That since WWII the geopolitical stage has been set in a way that the Western world depends on the U.S. to spearhead just about any major campaign, and that the Eastern world cannot do anything nearly as dramatic? Did you flat out ignore multiple times that I stated that other nations are threatening them while you also made up my stance that the U.S. should bear the entire burdon? Seriously, point out where I said the U.S. alone needs to deal with this. Point out where I said that we are the world police.

Whatever.

btw, I am awed by your impressive resume there. That should net you a win by default. /sarcasm

Oh no, you've resorted to denying my educational background and ignoring my previous post all together. Well played, Free. I'll tell you what, I've been drunk for the past 6 hours, and I'm going to bed. Within the next 24 hours, I'll return (sober), and if you can manage to form a big-boy argument, I'll play along.

hahaha, I lost a debate to a drunk.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you just made that up to try and take a jab at me

Yeah, these two empty bottles of Old E and the last half of 750mL of Thunderbird beg to differ. I'll take a pic if you'd like.

[edit - and gonzo, me admitting that I've been forced to resort to Old E and Thunderbird should be horrible enough]

errr... russia has nukes too, why not attack there? or pakistan? india? Iran does not have nukes, and will not have for several years even if they were going to build those. They do have the blueprints, but not the technology to build one. America has nukes too, why not attack there? Afterall, their evil emperor IS a chimp...

Operation Ajax; that's why Iran is in the state that it's in. Look that one up. That was back in the 50's. Maybe Iran-Contra too, might wanna take a look at that as well. Oh, and backing Israel, right or wrong, is "being involved in the middle east". Oh, and Saddam... the Taliban... I dunno, there seems to be a long list of actions the US took during the cold war. They've had their hand in the honey jar, so to speak.

That said, man the Iranians are acting painfully stupid right about now. Fair or not that they can't do their nuclear research, they should just stop until the political climate changes, otherwise they won't be there next season. Why they don't back down is mind boggling; no one will really protest any action against them.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]no one will really protest any action against them.[/QUOTE]

Except the goddamned hippies

nukesnukesnukesnukesnukes

Y'know, Freelancer, Roach, you're never going to understand each other. Clearly if after four pages neither of you can even comprehend the other's point of view, this debate isn't going to accomplish anything.

In any case, the USA is screwed either way. If they pre-emptively strike, the rest of the world is going to get all pissy like they did over Iraq. If they do nothing, and Iran attacks Israel, then they'll be blamed for not stopping it when they had the chance.

So this means that no matter what happens, the United States loses, and I win. *reclines in chair with popcorn*

Mad props to Roach. Well done on holding your own.

Pacifisim doesn't work in today's world. There are bad people in this world who need a good smacking around. One of them is Iran. Iran wants to obliterate a nation. Lemme say that again. Iran wants to obliterate a nation. Iran hates Israel. Iran's president says that he absolutely loathes Isreal. Iran must be stopped from carrying out their hate in reasonable methods. A well placed bullet to Iran's president will help some. Assassinations and covert ops would have been better than an all out invasion for Iraq. A shame we don't practice assassinations. Evil men must die.

once again, biased.

Iran is not a nation of bad people for **** sake.
Its leaders arent as restrained as ours, well, thats relative of course.

Extremist muslims have influence within the governement, sure, but come on JG, seriously, you make it sound like every man woman and child is out to get you, cos you're white and not muslim.


And 2ndly, look at Israel's behavior in the last decade or so?
Sending in tanks into populated towns to seek out a few wannaabe assassins?

The whole middle east has a ****ed up system, granted. But lets be a little more open minded shall we?

Perhaps media is to blame here.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Israel's been no saint in this ongoing conflict. But last checked, Isreal doesn't want all the Muslims burned asunder.

Suppose that Iran gets it's way. Israel is now nothing but a radioactive desert with loads of bodies. We retaliate in some fashion. The aforementioned extremists will see that the Western world is too chicken-**** to properly stand up against them. It will give them resolve and have their base grow. That's a bad thing. Roach mentioned this. They don't care if they die. They don't care of other Muslims die. All they care about is fueling their hate. If Iran or other extremist nation/group succeeds in nuking Isreal, they would have won. And the entire Western world would be made to look like the greatest fools of the 21st century. These powerful nations to be bested by a scattered rag-tag army.

Sadly, this pleases some in said Western nations.

@ruthven:Exactly.. JG sounds like a propaganda poster..

I shall respond when I return @ or from school.

Propogandist for what? For whom?

I don't think JG is arguing that every man, woman, and child wants to see the Jews and Israelites burn. I (may be completely off here) think he meant, when saying "Iran", the Iranian government and those who share its leaders' opinions.

I don't think americans have totally forgotten the Russians.

but they're not attacking there.... russia has oil too! and they abuse the chechens! a million reasons to attack russia!

Russia is in deals with the USA to reduce the number of nukes they have. They've been following through with the deal, so why bother with them?

This is true. I did not eloquate very well. I do not want the systematic destruction of the ENTIRE nation nor do I say that every Iranian hates Jews and Isreal.

Actually, I have a bit of a prediction. That is, the same crap will happen in Iran that will happen in Iraq. What do I mean? I mean that in this game of chicken, unless Iran is absolutely daft, they will stop all advances, fair or not, on getting nuclear energy for the time being.

But ol' US won't be satisfied, claims of WMD importing may pop up, or that Iran isn't fully complient, or other such BS.

Inspectors come in, but find nothing. US doesn't trust them... you know where the rest goes.

Does Dubya still think that he's fooling anyone? JUST ADMIT IT, YOU JERKFACE, YOU WANT THE GODDAMNED OIL.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]Actually, I have a bit of a prediction. That is, the same crap will happen in Iran that will happen in Iraq. What do I mean? I mean that in this game of chicken, unless Iran is absolutely daft, they will stop all advances, fair or not, on getting nuclear energy for the time being.

But ol' US won't be satisfied, claims of WMD importing may pop up, or that Iran isn't fully complient, or other such BS.

Inspectors come in, but find nothing. US doesn't trust them... you know where the rest goes.[/QUOTE]


Except it is complete fact that Iran is producing weapons grade plutonium and they have been buy plans for nuclear weapons and been trying the lure scientists from various contries for sometime now.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]Operation Ajax; that's why Iran is in the state that it's in. Look that one up. That was back in the 50's. Maybe Iran-Contra too, might wanna take a look at that as well. Oh, and backing Israel, right or wrong, is "being involved in the middle east". Oh, and Saddam... the Taliban... I dunno, there seems to be a long list of actions the US took during the cold war. They've had their hand in the honey jar, so to speak.[/QUOTE]
We haven't heavily backed Israel until fairly recently, we were too wrapped up in our own conflicts. The 6 day war took place during Vietnam, and the Israelis launched the campaign after the U.S. couldn't dedicate its time to dealing with that region. You're pointing your finger at the wrong country for Ajax, the U.K. (namely SIS agent Woodhouse) sparked that entire ordeal. The Taliban is a perfect example of what I was talking about. We backed them simply to prevent the spread of the Reds. As soon as the Reds were no longer in that region, what did we do? That's right, we abandoned Afghanistan and told them to take care of themselves. They were literally left in the stone-age.

*blinks* God I love Massassi. I can always find at least a few "arguments" in a thread that give me a sense of validation.

Are you serious? Let me put this in an easy to understand metaphor. Imagine you're in an apartment complex. You were put there after the police forced the former residents of your apartment out to relocate you after state services removed you from an abusive home. The former residents hold a massive grudge against you. All of your neighbors disagree with everything you feel, think, and believe. In fact, seven of them attempted to break into your apartment shortly after you moved in to not just force you out, but kill you. Dead. Over the next few years you and your neighbors go through very similar conflicts. And suddenly the younger generations of the police, the same police that put you in this apartment after removing the former residents blame you for the relocation of those former residents, and the families of these new policemen agree; they think you're god awful because you won't give them back their apartment. You're trying to ease tension, you allow the teenagers and the grandmother of the former residents to stay in your spare bedroom. After doing this, they allow other family members into you apartment, stating they are guests. Some of the guests begin stealing from you, lighting fire to your kitchen, vandalising your apartment. This is your home, how are you going to deal with it? After dealing with the abusive home, the brutal and constant attacks from neighbors, and now geurilla attacks on your apartment. Now to make this complete, let me fill those of you who don't know what's what of my little story here:
You = Israelis
Police = England
Former residents = Palistinians
Neighbors = Arabian nations

I haven't read something that clever and interesting for a while.

*applauds Roach*

Let's nuke the bastards.

He didn't lie, and you cannot prove this. You get so worked up that there ended up being no WMDs, even when he said there only might be. So you're going to be so quick to call him a liar? Until it's proven he lied to the American people, I won't accept something some EU wannabe know-it-all says. Not to say that I like the guy--but I dislike him for a few different reasons. Mostly having to do with non-domestic issues that I think he's done through senate (mostly bills he's tacked on to stupid stuff making the US into more of a Big Brother state than I thought any president could do in the mere timespan of 6 years so far).


Barring the fact that Iran creates a great deal of the world's oil and gas, and that Israel is home to a holy city to over 1/3 of the World's population (or what should be a holy city), there's the fact that if we took this view on issues as a nation there would be more Somalias, more Rwandas, more Sudans, etc. than I could personally live with. Hell, I already hate Bush Sr. for the things he did in the name for oil, but the things he refused to do in the name of human decency.


As Roach already said: practice what you preach. Wars can begin an end in less time than it takes to watch an episode of Family Guy. In such a short amount of time, usually the results are seen before the cause is known for sure. We need pre-emptive measures now more than ever.


I agree with the first two paragraphs--but not the third. We said preventative wars were bunk for places like Rwanda and Somalia--all that ended up getting us was millions dead.


I trust an established nation with everything to lose if it takes out even one country with a nuclear strike than a rogue nation with nothing to lose by accomplishing the goals of its dictator-esque leader through nuclear means. The US is a machine that far outweighs whatever current leader resides in office. The only reason Bush got so much accomplished (mostly for the worse) is because he's the first president in a while to be the same political affiliation as both the House AND the Senate. America doesn't need, want, or have to push that red button. Who knows with a nation like Iran?


No war/confrontation WON'T cause an international conflict. You have to live with what you do--for better or worse. The US is just trying to prevent the deaths of millions. Going about it the wrong with with things like Iraq and Homeland Security? Very much so. But Iran is a VERY different story.

Also, your second paragraph, though I've already addressed this thought process:
If we never intervene in foreign conflict, millions can die in the blink of an eye. Someday, if you move away to another country, that could be you. Because the US didn't "intervene unjustly".


Yeah, just look at how well off Africa is.

Oh...wait...


Excuse me if I'm wrong, but haven't we been funding their military training, outfitting and...well really most of their military along with offering aide and going "If anyone attacks you we will attack them"?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Excuse me if I'm wrong, but haven't we been funding their military training, outfitting and...well really most of their military along with offering aide and going "If anyone attacks you we will attack them"?[/QUOTE]
Funding, yes. Training, no, if anything they do us a favor by training our troops. And no, we do not say "if anyone attacks you we will attack them." The U.S. did not get involved in any of the Israeli-Arab conflicts, including the Arab-Israeli war, the Suez war, and the 6 day war.

I meant funding for the training

And I thought I heard something along the lines of "If someone launches a full-scale attack on you we will back you." Reminded me of Pre-WW2, though, so I wasn't sure.

I'll be dead in that case, of course. As well as my family, friends and the rest of my countrymen. Of course, Israel is so small that hundreds of thousand of Palestinians would die as well. But hey, it's our problem! Don't lose any sleep over it.

sorry roach, my bias against Israel was simple.

...In that I was tired that everyone was always hating the muslims because the status que over here( and i'm sure in the US also), seemed to demand that as a so-called Christian nation, we should back the jews, and paint all muslims with the same brush, labelling them extremists and too alien in their beliefs to ever be friends.

Makes me mad.

On the news, I saw Israelie soldiers blocking Palestinians from voting, only a week ago.

Maybe I'm guilty of painting Israel with the same brush, as others do to with Palestine.

Getting back on topic.


Are the Iranian leaders such a bunch of dumbarses, that they would even consider using nuclear bombs on israel. If they nuke anyone, they get nuked.
Half the world goes up in smoke, the rest suffers nuclear winter.

Reminds me of that song, by Sting.

"If the Russians loved their children too..."

If Iran want a future for their children and families, they wont dare use any nukes.
I hope they go no further than possessing them, as a deterrant.



ps. I may not be as intelligent as Roach, and well articulated, but dont dismiss my feelings and opinions to any length plzktxbai.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Yes, they are, and that's the issue.

The solution to the Middle East is to to leave it alone. Then give them lots and lots of nukes, but in-bed tiny a gps and remote detonator device in the uranium. That way they could nuke each other, but they couldn't nuke us or our allies. And the way they are, we wouldn't have a Middle East in a few weeks. Problem solved.

Too bad that would destroy the atmosphere....

Roach;

Oil is running out. No questions asked it will happen. That is a nice summary with no overt political agenda, but I can provide other links if it's too funky for you.

You see, Iran has a perfectly valid reason to pursue nuclear power. But, as you have been saying they are likely to try and build some nukes to put in their pants. You have to make a distinction between their right to nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

Freelancer;

You have a sister? Girlfriend? Is your mother still alive? So let's say someone walks up to her and says 'I'm going to rape you.' You don't know this dude, and he looks creepy. He happens to be a registered sex offender too, maybe you don't know for what, but he is on the list. You going to wait until he is already slamming your sister/girlfriend/mother until you do something? No, sorry, you won't. You will do something beforehand. You will first of all tell your sister to be careful.

If you have sufficient cause you will call the police. That's what we're doing. It seems like you didn't read the article. People are wanting to try diplomacy first. Bush hasn't asked for reallocation of troops to prepare or anything, we can't just up and stage an invasion of a country like Iran with a serious military. That should tell you that he is not currently planning to go in, he is playing with others and trying diplomacy.


Ruth, the fanatic portions of the Iranians will blow themselves (and their neighbors) up to get at people they don't like.

On a lighter note here is the USMC Silent Drill Platoon

and let me play devils advocate for a sec...


If the US and Britain can have nukes, why cant iran?

To Iran, it makes em more angry at the situation, once again, its one rule for us, a different rule for them.

lets not jump onto our high-horse here, the US used nukes once, killed a crap load of innocent people, to end a war, granted. This is just more history of the west to fuel the fire of hate for these extremist leaders.


(oh, and mugabe was a real sh***er, but we never intervened. Why did we intervene with Saddam? hmmmm )

that may cause more flames.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Personally I think Iran's leader's hard-a** all-out-war-on-Israel attitude is fabricated and intended to stifle Iran's internal social and political struggles, especially the strong democracy/human rights movement, by diverting public attention to foreign affairs and creating an atmosphere of war, thus legitimizing even stricter totalitarian rule. Iran has no historical conflict with Israel, and no ethnic connection to the Arab world, so why would Israel bother them so much?

Having said that, a moustache-wearing guy named Adolph showed us in the past never to dismiss the deranged babbling of a totalitarian leader.

i like what you say, fardreamer, it gives me hope.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

The problem is, we honestly don't know when. If you watch the studies, they come to a new conclusion just about every other day. You'll hear that we've only drilled about 1/4 of the potential oil that is in the world one day, a few days later some other group is stating that we'll run out within the next 40-50 years. I'm not saying it won't eventually go away, but with Iran's natural gas reserve, they don't need to be thinking this desperately about nuclear power. The can afford to hold off for a few months to allow the global community to inspect and agree that their efforts are peaceful.


Ruthven - Yes, 7 (8) nations have nuclear weapons. Pandora's box has been opened. Why let the plague spread further than it already has?