DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:You can't possibly expect me to consider them as merely an agitated country that will step down from violence once we leave the region! They haven't ever stepped down from inflicting terror, ever!!
It has been their mainstay since those religious whacko's took over the country!

At this point, we should keep them in check, but Christ, man, they were under imperial domination for generations. it's no wonder they're pissed. One of the things I have said over and over on this board is the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. we arm the world and our weapons end up being used to kill or threaten us. And the people who are killed by those we arm...? We should just keep killing them when they get a little upset about it?

(where have i heard this one before?)

Here maybe?

just to derail things a bit... happy pally, how many gigs of porn are you up to? do you have any moose on girl porn?

Ford Prefect wrote:....I find it scary that even while the folly of trying to impose a regime change on a foreign country is being proven again in bloody clarity the drums of war are beating for Iran and otherwise sensible people such as yourself Will are buying into it....

I'm not calling for war. I know there are those who will jump at the chance to invade any country that has brown people that act different, that's not me. I'm calling for people to recognize the Iranians (and Syrians) are by far and away the biggest threat we face when it comes to terrorism.
They are the mothership, without their involvement the worlds suffering at the hands of Islamic terrorists is reduced significantly!

So when Bush says Iran is part of the problem our boys face on the battlefield I want to hear people talking about how to deal with them instead of "Yea, right! Bush is just lying again like he did about the WMD's"
I want to hear Nancy Pelosi and all our congressmen stand in front of the cameras and say something like:
" This news of Iranian material support for the enemy in Iraq is troubling and in light of the Iranian involvement for many decades in terrorist activities throughout the region they would be very wise to back off immediately because although we are divided over here on how to manage the war we are not divided on how to react when terrorists openly attack our people! At this point, with that said, Iran should consider itself duly warned of our united resolve to strike back with extreme prejudice against her for any harm she causes our troops in Iraq"

That's the kind of response I feel the Iranians should receive. Instead the democrats had been so in line with the Islamo-facsists agenda that they actually were criticized by them recently, complaining that the democrats have fallen down on their campaign pledge to end the war!! The f^@#ing enemy is chastising half of our congress for not helping them as fast as they had promised to in their campaign speeches!!

If the United States is divided by internal political debate on this issue and the threat posed by Iran is reduced to a polarizing rhetorical talking point then Iran will continue to operate under the radar.
While they have enjoyed that ability in the past it becomes a much, much, bigger problem in the near future because, where they used to send suicide bombers out with a small pack of dynamite on their belt they will soon have the ability to send out a small nuclear device instead!

So far I'm hearing people say things like 'Iran isn't really a threat because the U.S. could just stop meddling in the region...' or 'They won't use nukes because Israel has nukes too...'
Those two positions scare the hell out of me because if enough ignorant voters start repeating that line then the political leaders here will follow that lead so they can protect their incumbency.

I believe that Iran is going to build nuclear weapons and of all the nuclear weapons in the world theirs will be, by far, the most likely nuclear weapons to be used by terrorists.

Now if you believed that, as I do, you would be calling for people to stop clouding the debate with political rhetoric and instead treat it like the looming world changing catastrophe it is!

Someone is going to have to do something to stop Iran from building the devices or to make them unwilling to continue on their path of exporting terror. It better happen soon.
That will require any number of actions ranging from military strikes (be they surgical or all out war) to international blockades that result in starving Iranian children and of course you can throw in countless, toothless, U.N. resolutions and sanctions if it makes people feel better... but ultimately lots of people are going to die due to Iranian whack-jobs building nuclear devices. And as far as designing a strategy to, hopefully, cause most of those deaths to be Iranian instead of American it really doesn't matter one little bit how we actually share some blame for getting to this point.

When lower Manhattan is off limits for decades while we count down the half-life of the nuclear dust that some Islami-kazi spread there with his nuclear-bomb-rental-truck it really won't help to be able to say "Yea, well we stirred the pot over there so I guess it had to be."
Waiting to react to their next move so we aren't seen as bullies is quickly becoming a completely unacceptable strategy.

Will I don't see how you can stop Iran from arming the enemies of the U.S. and how you can expect to crush their will to resist what seems to be a U.S. attempt to dominate the politics and economies of all the mid-east countries. Iran will get nuclear weapons, so will Syria and maybe even Yemen eventually. Turkey, the UAE, all of them will eventually be able to arm themselves. The genie is out of the bottle and as technology moves forward nuclear power will become as readily available as 16 gigabite hard drives. Right now Israel has how many nuclear weapons? Don't know? That's because they won't tell you they actually have them and who they are aimed at. Why do you expect the enemies of Israel, and there are many, to be cowed by the threat of what is demonstratively an expansionist regime. Are they supposed to roll over and take whatever Israel and by extension the U.S. wants to give them? Talk about arming your enemies. Who arms Israel?

The U.S. needs to come to terms with this reality and stop trying to rule the world's economies and dominate their politics. There has to be acceptance that some times other countries will make decisions that hurt the economy of the U.S. and maybe reduce the standard of living of it's citizens and that there is nothing that the U.S. can and should do about it. Just like the rest of the world lives these days.

How long has Israel had nukes and not used them?
Whatever period of time that is, I don't think the whacko in Iran will be able to restrain himself that long.
That is why I'd like to postpone the genie's emergence from his bottle over there. Not that I think we can stop the inevitable but because I'd like to see a few key factions either be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century or killed before they get to unwrap their new toy!

By the way, the only time any member of \"the rest of the world\" has stood by and let others reduce their standard of living is when they didn't have a choice! In all other instances they took action, whether it was exporting their brand of government, or god, or a large army, they always act in their own best interest to protect their quality of life.

The human struggle to dominate the planet has never waned, the methods change and the rationales are refreshed from one generation to the next but the end goal is always the same.

To have a shot at that holy grail, world peace, we first must establish a foundation: One planet, one culture.
Until then we all live under war or oppression or, if you're really lucky, just corruption mixed with some degree of strife.
And these conditions are not likely to change until the fairy godmother returns.

Ford Prefect wrote: .......demonstratively an expansionist regime.

lol.

Israel's had Nukes since the early sixties.

On with the show.

To have a shot at that holy grail, world peace, we first must establish a foundation: One planet, one culture.
Until then we all live under war or oppression or, if you're really lucky, just corruption mixed with some degree of strife.
And these conditions are not likely to change until the fairy godmother returns.

Yeah I put a call in for the old lady but all I get is her answering machine. I think she is screening her calls.

Hi Will,

I'm certainly willing to agree it's not about 'fair'. My point is, by us being there, Iran is expected to attempt to alter the outcome. That does not absolve them of past/present culpability of whatever they may have done, but I do not think of their current involvement in the Iraq situation as an indicator of anti-US aggression, or a threat of terrorism against us.

I also think warring with them in long-term is bad for us. It just creates more regional anti-US sentiment, which we have enough of. We've also shown to be losers in our other two middle east endeavors.

I'm calling for people to recognize the Iranians (and Syrians) are by far and away the biggest threat we face when it comes to terrorism.

I go with the 9-11 numbers and vote Saudi Arabia, the country who always gets a pass. More 9-11 hijackers were Saudi than anything else.

Birdseye wrote:I go with the 9-11 numbers and vote Saudi Arabia, the country who always gets a pass. More 9-11 hijackers were Saudi than anything else.

This doesn't surprise me considering that the Saudi government is probably one of the most well-supported by the US, the poor Sauds may have been influenced in their suicidal hatred for the US as a proxy for their hatred against the rulers.

Birdseye wrote:I go with the 9-11 numbers and vote Saudi Arabia, the country who always gets a pass. More 9-11 hijackers were Saudi than anything else.

I'd have to argue that Saudi Arabia the country isn't really very responsible for the 9/11 hijackers being who they were. Muhammed Atta, the ring leader was from Egypt, not Saudi Arabia, and he wasn't at all bent on performing any act of terrorism until he went to Germany and became indoctrinated at the Al Qudz mosque in Hamburg.
Saudi Arabia is sort of the Land of Opportunity in the middle east region. There is little unemployment and high quality of life there so many Muslims move there looking for work. I believe many of the 9/11 crew that are attributed to Saudi Arabia were recent immigrants.
And related to that, in al Queda, getting a Saudi passport was considered the path of least resistance to enter America since we are on better terms with the Saudis than Iran or Syria...
So they may have entered America from Saudi Arabia in a literal sense, they definitely came from al Queda... they came from islamo-facsism which knows no borders.

It's the culture, every religion thinks their god is the only true god but the islamic culture is the only one that promotes the killing of outsiders as a duty of its followers!

Saudi Arabia is home to the Wahhabi sect, the most outrageous islamic fundamentalists, so in that sense they stand out but Iran has done more in a material way and launched more attacks, kidnappings, bombings etc.

Al Queda, thanks to one big hit, may be making some gains recently on the charts compared to Iran for killing the most infidels in one attempt but the volume of attacks, and the degree to which Iran is able to keep the middle east destabilized via Hezbollah and Hammas alone dwarfs al Queda's over all record.

Put it this way, if terrorism was Rock&Roll al Queda had a couple records reach the charts and finally went gold with their last effort...
Iran on the other hand is like Universal, Sony, BMG, Warner and EMI. They don't get the headlines like the band al Queda does but they are the machine that keeps churning out a lot of the product.

Boy, all we have left defending the United States is an apparent Bush apologist?

I should visit more often. Palzon continues his tired rant ... \"Bush is not the guy\"; while at the same time identifying crises and positing no solution. Why aren't you on the impeachment bandwagon .... I can't wait to hear.

And Birds, well, you haven't offered a substantive rebuttal to the pretty well accepted fact that Iran is manufacturing weapons that are killing United States soldiers. You just want to complain about your own manufactured Bush-credibility issues. \"Bush lied, people died\". Right. Might sell in some circles, but not in the grown-up ones.

And Will -- I appreciate everyone has their opinion but you might do well to think in the long term here and avoid the MSM. This is a war. Bad things happen in war and ths one, well, it may well be a protracted one. So pick a side.

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote: And Birds, well, you haven't offered a substantive rebuttal to the pretty well accepted fact that Iran is manufacturing weapons that are killing United States soldiers. You just want to complain about your own manufactured Bush-credibility issues. "Bush lied, people died". Right. Might sell in some circles, but not in the grown-up ones.

BD

If you are so concerned with substance, perhaps you could add some instead of pissing and moaning and feigning superiority via personal attacks and making up statements I (and others) didn't say.

Bold Deceiver wrote:And Will -- I appreciate everyone has their opinion but you might do well to think in the long term here and avoid the MSM. This is a war. Bad things happen in war and ths one, well, it may well be a protracted one. So pick a side.

BD

The problem is I no longer believe our commander wants to win it...makes it kind of hard to say Oorah Boys! Go get some! When I think all they are going to get is shot at and told to just hold the hill indefinitely.
I'm afraid our last best hope is Cheney kills Bush in his sleep and finishes the job.... or..only slightly less unlikely... the rest of the world suddenly wakes up and joins in causing the mainstream media to have to change their spin thus giving the liberals cover so they can join the fight without having Cindy Sheehan do a hungerstrike protest at all their fund raisers.

We needed Churchill and Patton and we got Bush and Wesely Clark. Long term...I'm seeing 8 years of Hillary... Game over Dude!

Let us remind ourselfs of who we are dealing with before giving up and saying, \"They're going to get nukes someday so lets just let them have them now\".
Leader of Iran is on record for denying the holocaust ever happened.
Leader of Iran vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Now we have this regarding the movie The 300:

\"Javad Shamqadri, an art advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, accused the new movie of being \"part of a comprehensive U.S. psychological war aimed at Iranian culture\", said the report.\"

So yeah, lets do nothing and maybe Iran will get some stable leadership after they get the bomb and make nice to us.

Birdseye wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote: And Birds, well, you haven't offered a substantive rebuttal to the pretty well accepted fact that Iran is manufacturing weapons that are killing United States soldiers. You just want to complain about your own manufactured Bush-credibility issues. "Bush lied, people died". Right. Might sell in some circles, but not in the grown-up ones.

BD

If you are so concerned with substance in debate, perhaps you could add some instead of pissing and moaning and feigning superiority via personal attacks and making up statements I (and others) didn't say.

Gee I'm so sorry. I thought this thread was captioned "Hmm, I think we've heard this one before", or some such tripe. Did I make a mistake here? Are you not saying in that sentence that "we the American people have been led astray by the misrepresentations of Bush, and we should now be wary?" I think that's exactly what you meant. Don't be so shy.

Well, yes, of course I'm concerned with substance, particularly in political discourse. Maybe that's not something you're completely comfortable with, because it's far, far simpler to move through life without actually thinking through the issues you raise. It's just great fun to raise issues.

So let me put it to you, and I hope that I don't offend. Do you believe that Bush misrepresents the truth when he says that Iranians are supplying weapons manufactured by the Iranian government; ones which are in fact killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq? You may answer yes or no, but if you feel the urge to expound, please include a "yes" or "no" in your answer. We'll all be charmed by it.

There will be follow-ups, so make sure to think it through!

BD

Will Robinson wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:And Will -- I appreciate everyone has their opinion but you might do well to think in the long term here and avoid the MSM. This is a war. Bad things happen in war and ths one, well, it may well be a protracted one. So pick a side.

BD

The problem is I no longer believe our commander wants to win it...makes it kind of hard to say Oorah Boys! Go get some! When I think all they are going to get is shot at and told to just hold the hill indefinitely.
I'm afraid our last best hope is Cheney kills Bush in his sleep and finishes the job.... or..only slightly less unlikely... the rest of the world suddenly wakes up and joins in causing the mainstream media to have to change their spin thus giving the liberals cover so they can join the fight without having Cindy Sheehan do a hungerstrike protest at all their fund raisers.

We needed Churchill and Patton and we got Bush and Wesely Clark. Long term...I'm seeing 8 years of Hillary... Game over Dude!

You cannot tell from appearances how things will go. Sometimes imagination makes things out far worse than they are; yet without imagination not much can be done. Those people who are imaginative see many more dangers than perhaps exist; certainly many more than will happen; but then they must also pray to be given that extra courage to carry this far-reaching imagination. But for everyone, surely, what we have gone through in this period . . . never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill

This isn't a war we are necessarily going to win, Will, you know it. So?

BD

Gee I'm so sorry. I thought this thread was captioned \"Hmm, I think we've heard this one before\", or some such tripe. Did I make a mistake here? Are you not saying in that sentence that \"we the American people have been led astray by the misrepresentations of Bush, and we should now be wary?\" I think that's exactly what you meant. Don't be so shy.

Led astray doesn't necessarily mean lie. Bush could just be incompetent and sloppy. It is interesting that you think I \"Manufactured\" Bush's credibility issues, when a huge portion of americans believe Bush does have credibility issues after much of the Pre-Iraq war intelligence turned out to be incorrect.

Well, yes, of course I'm concerned with substance, particularly in political discourse. Maybe that's not something you're completely comfortable with, because it's far, far simpler to move through life without actually thinking through the issues you raise. It's just great fun to raise issues.

Is there any particular reason you have to speak with condescension? Did you think it helped your point, or \"open my eyes\"? I just don't see the point. If we are to communicate at all, I suggest cutting out the personal attacks.

So let me put it to you, and I hope that I don't offend. Do you believe that Bush misrepresents the truth when he says that Iranians are supplying weapons manufactured by the Iranian government; ones which are in fact killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq? You may answer yes or no, but if you feel the urge to expound, please include a \"yes\" or \"no\" in your answer. We'll all be charmed by it.

Yes, I think there are some Iranian weapons killing American soliders (sadly, I'm sure there are American mfg'd weapons doing this too). The question is, what is the root of the Iranian arms trade (I don't know the answer)? Is it militant merchants, profiting off of the war? Is it a small fringe sect of the military or government acting on their own? We have really only heard the phrase \"Revolutionary Guards\" associated with Iran's government.

And yes, because of his credibility issues, I am asking for better proof this time from Bush.

There will be follow-ups, so make sure to think it through!

I hope you decide to respond treating others as equals, instead of placing yourself on a pedestal. People's ears are more open when they don't feel like the person they are talking to is being condescending. Think that through, please.

Birdseye wrote:Led astray doesn't necessarily mean lie. Bush could just be incompetent and sloppy.

Hmmm... so we're back to the WMD thing again? For the wild-eyed, Bush is a liar. For those who voted against Bush in 2000 and 2004 (and wish to maintain some semblance of credibility and affect an air of "superiority"), Bush is incompetent and/or sloppy. Nothing new here. Nothing substantive either.

Birdseye wrote:It is interesting that you think I "Manufactured" Bush's credibility issues, when a huge portion of americans believe Bush does have credibility issues after much of the Pre-Iraq war intelligence turned out to be incorrect.

A huge portion of Americans believed that "separate but equal" was a really good idea too. I'm not moved by the argument that Democrats profess to hold a dim view of the President's credibility. Please.

And I'd also like to explore the phrase, "credibility issues" with you. Maybe you could be more specific. Are back to the WMD problem again? Or is this about too few troops? Or too many troops? Because the title of your post would seem to take us to the WMD issue.... And by the way, you're aware that American intelligence is as good as it gets, right? That's not to say infallible, but this is it, pahdnah. Since the Administration isn't out there gathering data, should it rely on the analysis it is presented? And if you think there should be improvements, where would President Birdseye begin the overhaul. Remember, we're looking for substance.

Birdseye wrote:

BD wrote:Well, yes, of course I'm concerned with substance, particularly in political discourse. Maybe that's not something you're completely comfortable with, because it's far, far simpler to move through life without actually thinking through the issues you raise. It's just great fun to raise issues.

Is there any particular reason you have to speak with condescension? Did you think it helped your point, or "open my eyes"? I just don't see the point. If we are to communicate at all, I suggest cutting out the personal attacks (para.)...I hope you decide to respond treating others as equals....

Oh please. You just called the President of United States "incompetent and sloppy" -- whose being condescending and arrogant here? The young man who started this post? When men and women are dying for your right to suggest that the American President is either treacherous or stupid? Watch where you toss those stones, now.

Then after all of this, you actually concede the Iranian government is supplying weapons that are killing American soldiers. Astonishing.

So what are you doing here, really? I'd say you're just bashing away without thinking it through.

I don't want you to come away thinking I've ignored some of your other (alarmingly narcisstic) commentary. Let me just say that when I offer a counterpoint, it isn't always just for you.

Is that deferential enough, or now am I being patronizing? Dang me!

Warmest regards,

BD