DescentBB

TIGERassault wrote:Firstly, you really think that the citizens are going to blame their own government for the American's blockade?

It's not "americas blockade" and it doesn't matter how many of them would blame their government for it. It would only matter that they know they are stuck there until the current sponsorship of terrorism stops.

They can all stay right where they are and love their crazy fundamentalist, murderous leaders for all eternity for all we care!

TIGERassault wrote:Secondly, it would very likely start a war against America by:
1: Any country that feels threatened that America will do the same to their country.
2: Iran's trading countrys.
3: Any country that thinks a country blockade like that would be too evil, regardless of what that country may do in the future.
4: Any country that thinks America are becoming too powerful and rebellious, and want to prevent them from starting WW3 (the UN is there for a reason, it's a bad idea to ignore it).
Thirdly, it's just downright evil to prevent every citizen of a country the rights and privelleges they deserve, simply because you feel threatened by it's government.

You seem to be failing to comprehend what you read. I clearly offered the plan as one that must be implimented by ALL THE MAJOR POWERS IN THE WORLD. It wouldn't work otherwise as I pointed out...

I was pointing out what should be done to minimize the death and destruction that will ultimately come from letting these completely delusional religous-whacko's gain nuclear weapons!

TIGERassault wrote:(the UN is there for a reason, it's a bad idea to ignore it).

Lol! This is funny! I suppose when Saddam ignored the U.N., bribed the U.N. in fact, America was justified for enforcing the U.N. resolutions after all!

TIGERassault wrote:Thirdly, it's just downright evil to prevent every citizen of a country the rights and privelleges they deserve, simply because you feel threatened by it's government.

I don't think any country has an inherent right to anything outside their own borders, they are at the mercy of the relationship they have with the outside world....
That is what this proposed plan of mine is all about after all, their actions has caused them to be cut off!

Still waiting for someone to tell me how the magic of diplomacy is going to stop Islamo-facsism by the way, no takers yet. Not going to hold my breath waiting either....

Firstly, considering that you do not plan to prevent the citizens any access outside of their country by peaceful means, you plan falls under the definition of terrorism.

Will Robinson wrote:It's not "americas blockade" and it doesn't matter how many of them would blame their government for it. It would only matter that they know they are stuck there until the current sponsorship of terrorism stops.

They most likely sill stop the sponsership of terrorism. But mainly because they'll be focusing on killing the American army directly!

And if it isn't America's Blockade, then what is it?

Will Robinson wrote:They can all stay right where they are and love their crazy fundamentalist, murderous leaders for all eternity for all we care!

I would very much consider that people would care, considering the amount of cost and lives lost due to trying to keep up a blockade.

Will Robinson wrote:You seem to be failing to comprehend what you read. I clearly offered the plan as one that must be implimented by ALL THE MAJOR POWERS IN THE WORLD. It wouldn't work otherwise as I pointed out...

Do you, by any chance, remember the opinion polls? And do you remember that nearly all the major powers in the world are democracies?

Will Robinson wrote:Lol! This is funny! I suppose when Saddam ignored the U.N., bribed the U.N. in fact, America was justified for enforcing the U.N. resolutions after all!

You siad that before. Would you mind perhaps linking me to an article, because I didn't know about this.

Will Robinson wrote:I don't think any country has an inherent right to anything outside their own borders, they are at the mercy of the relationship they have with the outside world....

Umm... sorry, I don't quite understand you there.

TIGERassault wrote:...And if it isn't America's Blockade, then what is it?

I already explained this at least once. The plan I proposed would have to involve all the major powers in the world therefore it would be the worlds blockade.

Do you, by any chance, remember the opinion polls? And do you remember that nearly all the major powers in the world are democracies?

And your point is....

TIGERassault wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Lol! This is funny! I suppose when Saddam ignored the U.N., bribed the U.N. in fact, America was justified for enforcing the U.N. resolutions after all!

You siad that before. Would you mind perhaps linking me to an article, because I didn't know about this.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. This has been discussed here more than once so use the search tool, or just google oil for food scandal. In addition to the oil for food scandal, voting members of the U.N. Security Council had multi billion dollar oil contracts, oil futures and infrastructure contracts, they couldn't cash in on those contracts if Saddam was overthrown. This too can be found if you look for it. There was one Russian contract that even stipulated it would comence only upon the U.N. releasing him of the sanctions. So while they voted for the implimentation of these sanctions initially they then decided to vote against enforcing them and then proposed Saddam be allowed out from under them!! Why? Follow the money...

TIGERassault wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I don't think any country has an inherent right to anything outside their own borders, they are at the mercy of the relationship they have with the outside world....

Umm... sorry, I don't quite understand you there.

It's not that difficult of a sentence and there is nothing particularly tricky about it. You implied that people have rights and privileges that a blockade would infringe on. I basically said that outside their own borders they only have whatever their relationship with other countries provides them, so obviously if the majority of the other contries decide to cut them off and contain them then they don't have any rights or privileges. Still waiting on the diplomatic solution that will stop the islamofacsists from trying to kill all the jews......*crickets*....

Will Robinson wrote:

roid wrote:heh. ok, so the getting them to hate us and think we are unreasonable thugs - is that before or after the "we are your friends" propeganda starts playing?

a surreal mutualy exclusive conflicting combination of messages you're sending there ....

The only reason you see a conflicting message is because you fabricated one completely out of whole cloth!
The message I would be sending wouldn't be designed to fool them into thinking were friends!
I'd be sending them messages that say "As soon as you dump the religious zealots who believe they can bring about the coming of the 12th Imam and ultimately the end of the world....
Well then we'll talk! Until then we're going to keep you down and cut off."

ah, my bad. I primarily think of propeganda as subtley/covertly influencing the psyche (oft by subtley influencing the subconscious). Didn't predict using it to provide direct threats and ultimatums direct to the civilian population. I'm pretty sure that's "terrorism". (edit: i see TIGERassault already pointed this out)

Will Robinson wrote:what is the magical diplomatic message that would cause them to stop trying to kill all the jews and infidels?!?!

It doesn't work that way, it's not a bomb you drop, there is no magical bullet that solves the problem. It's a frustratingly abstract and delicately managed process.

Will Robinson wrote:You see it's real easy to sit back and criticize any effort someone makes and declare that all we need is diplomacy....

What i'm suggesting is a delicate and abstract process, it is definitely not EASY or SIMPLE. It is not Diplomacy. But psuedo-declarations of war such as the withdrawl of diplomats is not helpful.

Will Robinson wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:Firstly, you really think that the citizens are going to blame their own government for the American's blockade?

It's not "americas blockade" and it doesn't matter how many of them would blame their government for it. It would only matter that they know they are stuck there until the current sponsorship of terrorism stops.

They can all stay right where they are and love their crazy fundamentalist, murderous leaders for all eternity for all we care!

Assuming you arn't just letting off steam:
You should know better than this. The Iranians WILL blame America for the blockade, it will encourage the Iranians to side with their own government and open their ears to any extremist solution. What this course of action will do is BREED TERRORISTS. Even Condelina Rice knows this, it was the gist of her "America fucked up the middle east in the past and created our own problems" speech from iirc sometime last year.

Will Robinson wrote:The plan I proposed would have to involve all the major powers in the world therefore it would be the worlds blockade.

The world will not go along with this point of attack, coz it's dumb and stinks of cliche American old-school military arrogence.

Still waiting on the diplomatic solution that will stop the islamofacsists from trying to kill all the jews......*crickets*....

You imply that a non-military strategy does not exist. That is because an ego-based military strategy is as easy to devise as watching a John Wayne movie and grabbing your crotch. You don't need to know anything about the country you are warring with, you don't need to know anything about culture, you don't need to ask any questions. To quote the movie Aliens: "You just need to know where they are". It's the easy road.

If you honestly want my solution i could write it up. But the discussion is a bit heated atm, it might be a waste of time. It's nothing new - i'm sure i've seen others here mentioning various covert psychological warfare techniques.

Basically, i think there's something culturally lacking in Militant-Islam. The CIA would try to covertly facilitate and encourage the re-introduction of socio/cultural safeguards back into these cultures. I'm sure a project like this would be already in the cards.

When asked to explain how you would stop the islamo-facsists from killing the jews and infidels you said:

roid wrote:It doesn't work that way, it's not a bomb you drop, there is no magical bullet that solves the problem. It's a frustratingly abstract and delicately managed process.

Ok, but you have't given an answer, you merely gave a vague description of the nature of the process! So give us some specifics and answer this: At what point, following approximately 58 years of frustration and all kinds of 'delicately managed process' do you accept the notion that words are not going to change things?!?!

Will you continue to pursue more 'frustarating process' while the islamo-facsists arm their proxy warriors in Hezbollah and Hamas and al Queda with nuclear devices?
Will you continue to have the innocents on both sides of this conflict suffer more of the death and destruction that always rises out of all this 'delicately managed process' until the Iranians and Syrians have long range nuclear missiles which will make them even more dangerous and practically immune to any outside pressure short of shared nuclear exchange?!?!
How long do you need to manage this process? Another 58 years perhaps?

This is laughable except it is so damn seriously dangerous and time is so rapidly running out that I want to cry at the thought that many leaders in the world share your naive, or perhaps just ignorant, viewpoint! Denial in this case will certainly cost the lives of thousands upon thousands in a bloody war.

roid wrote:What i'm suggesting is a delicate and abstract process, it is definitely not EASY or SIMPLE. It is not Diplomacy. But psuedo-declarations of war such as the withdrawl of diplomats is not helpful.

See the above for my view on your desire to pursue some vague process and consider that if my plan were implimented the withdrawl of diplomats might be seen as a 'psuedo declaration of war' but the bombings of civilians on busses and in restaurants and thousands of rockets and cross border attacks, kidnappings etc. etc. etc.....all those things are definitely recognized as a firm material declaration of war from the islamo-facsists!
So I'm not too concerned about how their sensibilities might be upset by the expelling of their diplomats!!!
Gain a little perspective PLEASE!!!!
To think you actually just expressed concern over a plan that would send a few useless diplomats home because it might send a warlike message to people who are already waging war on us is just incredible!!

And again you almost answer the million dollar question but come up short:

roid wrote:You imply that a non-military strategy does not exist. That is because an ego-based military strategy is as easy to devise as watching a John Wayne movie and grabbing your crotch. You don't need to know anything about the country you are warring with, you don't need to know anything about culture, you don't need to ask any questions. To quote the movie Aliens: "You just need to know where they are". It's the easy road.

If you honestly want my solution, i could write it up. But it seems things are a bit heated atm, it might get lost in the crossfire.

I think you need to write it up post haste because without a workable plan your call for more process is as silly and dangerous as I've portrayed it to be above.
So if you really do think you know how to solve it without force please put me in my place, redeem yourself and I'll eat my words! Don't let the heat scare you off.

Eh, the whole oil for food scandal was a wash anyways. The US knew about it, as did everyone else, it's no big deal. America has never, ever engaged in \"illegal\" activities with other countries right?

I suppose the people that believe this soon to be new war is just are the same that believe that:

1. Iraq still has WMD.
2. The situation in Iraq is improving.
3. Everything that Hannity and Coulter say.

When is America going to be fixed?

Will you quoted my post while i was still in the editing phase. There are bits at the end you missed.

Zuruck wrote:Eh, the whole oil for food scandal was a wash anyways. The US knew about it, as did everyone else, it's no big deal....

Actually it was a big deal. If some of the people who made the law and threatened to enforce the law weren't also telling Saddam that they wouldn't really go along with U.N. enforcement of the law then Saddam would have realized that an invasion and his capture was iminent!
He would have given in and then the U.S. would have had no reason/excuse to invade.

So I'd say it's a big big deal that France and Russia were publically voting for the U.N. resolutions but privately assuring Saddam that they wouldn't go along with an invasion and they were trying to get him out from under the very sanctions they voted for so they could make their profit from their Iraqi oil deals.

So for one thing, it's certainly a big deal to everyone who has died over there to be sure!

And its a big deal to all the other members of the U.N. who were counting on the power of the U.N. to solve a conflict by way of diplomacy.

It's a big deal because it diminishes the confidence anyone might have had in the U.N.'s ability to effectively enforce its own sanctions and bring about a diplomatic solution in place of a use of force.....sound familiar?

roid wrote:Will you quoted my post while i was still in the editing phase. There are bits at the end you missed.

You mean this;

Basically, i think there's something culturally lacking in Militant-Islam. The CIA would try to covertly facilitate and encourage the re-introduction of socio/cultural safeguards back into these cultures. I'm sure a project like this would be already in the cards.

If I interpret it correctly, besides sounding like an impossible feat, it certainly sounds like a project that would take generations to bear fruit! Generations of frustrating delicately managed process (with all the death and destruction those processes bring) before the culture is changed!
Meanwhile the islamo-facsists are armed with nuclear weapons, they will arm their proxy warriors in Hezabollah, probably in Hamas and al Queda as well, and while we wait on the secret CIA-culture-change program to cause moderate muslims to gain control of these countries we have to deal with the current leaders who are rushing to bring about the coming of the 12th imam, and subsequently the end of the world by way of a major war with Israel and America!

So I'd have to say your plan sounds more than a little weak and about three generations too late!

If you could explain the whole "covertly facilitate and encourage the re-introduction of socio/cultural safeguards back into these cultures." thing for me and show how it could stop the current crop of islamo-facsists whacko's from carrying on like they are I'm listening.....

I also increased my language from \"lost in the crossfire\" to \"could be a waste of time\". Also i indicated that i'm not alone here in my respect for psych-warfare.

yes it would take time. Lothar estimated a generation. But i think significant preliminary (ie: early stage) progress could be made in less than a year if they are able to introduce and encourage a \"killer app\" (translation: a super effective application) social paradigm changing product, service, or meme.
With the proper covert marketing techniques (there's some very very sneaky and effecive techniques out there ) and a MILITARY budget and psyops practice behind it. I think it would really get places. I'm sure you're sceptical, like many people of your temperament you probabaly believe that psychology & sociology are junk-science that is wasting university space that could better be used for researching/building bigger guns and Creationism-101*.

(* or not. i just gotta get that outta my system)

The thing is, if i talk psych i don't even know if anyone else even understands the language. To explain it in layman's terms is difficult to impossible.


ps: you did hear our \"uh Will, your idea is terrorism\" right?

Will, can I ask you a simple question:
Do you think a person should use guns if someone attempted to rob that person?

roid, I think your idea would work fine on rational and semi-rational people. However, you are up against the very core of these people. It would be like trying to convince Smotie there was no god. You just...can't.

roid wrote:I'm sure you're sceptical, like many people of your temperament you probabaly believe that psychology & sociology are junk-science that is wasting university space that could better be used for researching/building bigger guns and Creationism-101*.

I think you are extremely prejudiced in your assesment of my motives and beliefs and that has severely hampered your objectivity in considering my position.
For example, I find the notion that there is a god/supreme being extremely hard to believe and I never make a decision based on what I think he would want. It's not that I don't wish it were true but I think it's prudent to not bet on it or depend on it.
I do enjoy knowing that most of my lifestyle decisions seem to be in perfect harmony with the basic tenets of christianity but I don't in anyway derive validation from the religion, in fact it is the other way around. It's the fact that they agree with what I already believe to be the right thing to do that gives them value in my eyes even if not absolute credibility.

I don't think psychology & sociology are junk-science.
I don't think an effort to develop those sciences are detracting from developing better and bigger guns. Those pursuits are not mutually exclusive and it seems we have developed our arsenals quite well.

Anyway, if you bring so much mental baggage to the reading of anything I write it's no wonder you don't give my position a decent review.
For example, you dismiss my thoughts on how to tax the islamofacsists momentum and restrict their sphere of influence with a world wide quarantine as some John Wayne-shoot 'em up-mentality.
Well if I was truely even half the neanderthal bully you want to reduce me to I'd be proposing we hang the diplomats from Iran and Syria from a tall tree instead of putting them on an airplane and sending them home.
I'd be suggesting we don't waste one drop of american blood by joining a multi-national force to contain the exporters of terrorism and instead would be calling for the total destruction of the festering breeding grounds by way of massive nuclear strikes!

Your preoccupation of finding just how wrong I am has kept you from even considering where I might be right!
You have ignored the timetable I suggested we are up against where before someone as knowledgable as your self could even explain you social engineering/psyops war plan Iran will have become armed with nuclear missiles!
I think you are just blowing smoke with that angle of attack or you need to explain in greater detail what you mean by "significant preliminary (ie: early stage) progress" because the time frame you give that of less than a year is probably all we have before Iran gets a shipment in from N. Korea or Pakistans black market!!

roid wrote:ps: you did hear our "uh Will, your idea is terrorism" right?

Have you noticed yet that I never give a ratts ass about what you want to call it, about what's percieved to be fair, about us wielding nuclear power while demanding the other guy give it up? Ever notice I'm totally comfortable with advocating the victory of western civilization at the expense of the islamofacsists destruction?
I only care about the fact that my plan would be relatively effective, save lives and it's not nearly as bad as telling the Israeli's that were working on a plan but it's going to be a while before we trick them into liking us with psyops and before we're able to "introduce and encourage a "killer app" social paradigm changing product, service, or meme". So they need to just bear with us and in the meantime they better remodel those bomb shelters they are hiding in to withstand nuclear fallout....

There is the reality of the threat...and there is your limited, vague, 'We need a seriously complex plan' reaction to it...
And in the expansive gulf between the two lies the fate of a whole race of people.... or the fate of the soldiers from the nations who will ultimately have to rush in too little too late to engage the enemy after they have become much more dangerous than they are now!!
The Israeli's have been twisting in the breeze for 58 years, how much longer should we talk about it?

TIGERassault wrote:Will, can I ask you a simple question:
Do you think a person should use guns if someone attempted to rob that person?

I can't imagine the brilliant psycological analysis you're about to deliver based on my answer but lets see what you're made of. Here's my straight foward honest answer:
I wouldn't shoot someone for stealing something from me but I would shoot someone if they put my life or the life of another in immediate danger.

Since life is rarely as simple black or white as that answer first appears lets examine it a little deeper.

So, if I come home and find someone in my house stealing my TV set I may, or may not depending on all sorts of conditions, pull my pistol out and demand he stop, drop to his knees and surrender until the police arrive.
If he at that point did anything I thought was threatening toward me I'd most likely pop two rounds into the center mass of his chest cavity and line up my front sight on his forehead...if he wasn't dropping to the ground fast enough at that point I'd fire the third round into his frontal lobe.

There, you should now have enough information about me to have me professionally declared crazy as a loon and a homicidal menace.... or sound of mind and reasonably restrained in my actions.
It all depends on what you ask the professional witness to come up with.

If you honestly want my solution i could write it up.

Please do.

There are some particular details I'd like to see:

1) how do you propose dealing with terrorism in the short-term? That is, how do you deal with those who are already terrorists and already planning attacks?

2) how do you propose dealing with state sponsors of terrorism who still wield great power? Do you believe the culture could change fast enough that we shouldn't worry about the Mullahs getting nukes?

3) how does your plan differ in any substantial way from mine?

Will Robinson wrote:Have you noticed yet that I never give a ratts ass about what you want to call it, about what's percieved to be fair, about us wielding nuclear power while demanding the other guy give it up? Ever notice I'm totally comfortable with advocating the victory of western civilization at the expense of the islamofacsists destruction?
I only care about the fact that my plan would be relatively effective, save lives and it's not nearly as bad as telling the Israeli's that were working on a plan but it's going to be a while before we trick them into liking us with psyops and before we're able to "introduce and encourage a "killer app" social paradigm changing product, service, or meme". So they need to just bear with us and they better remodel those bomb shelters they are hiding in to withstand nuclear fallout....

1: You're advocating the victory of western civilization at the expense of the islams, not the facsists.
2: You're plan would not be relatively effective whatsoever. And it probably wouldn't save lives either.
3: No, we would tell the Islams "We're working hard on changing their views, but we can't interfere by military means".

Will Robinson wrote:I can't imagine the brilliant psycological analysis you're about to deliver based on my answer but lets see what you're made of. Here's my straight foward honest answer:
I wouldn't shoot someone for stealing something from me but I would shoot someone if they put my life or the life of another in immediate danger.

Since life is rarely as simple black or white as that answer first appears lets examine it a little deeper.

So, if I come home and find someone in my house stealing my TV set I may, or may not depending on all sorts of conditions, pull my pistol out and demand he stop, drop to his knees and surrender until the police arrive.
If he at that point did anything I thought was threatening toward me I'd most likely pop two rounds into the center mass of his chest cavity and line up my front sight on his forehead...if he wasn't dropping to the ground fast enough at that point I'd fire the third round into his frontal lobe.

There, you should now have enough information about me to have me professionally declared crazy as a loon and a homicidal menace.... or sound of mind and reasonably restrained in my actions.
It all depends on what you ask the professional witness to come up with.

Yes; so you'd be willing to severly injure/murder another human being simply because you may feel a bit threatened.

Will; you have the exact same mind as an average Terrorist! Except for that your plans are more devistating.

TIGERassault wrote:1: You're advocating the victory of western civilization at the expense of the islams, not the facsists.

I mostly agree -- Will's plan is not tightly enough focused on hurting the Islamofascists while not hurting the civilians who have to live with them. (One solution I heard for the Lebanon blockade was for Israel to only allow ships in from certain trusted countries, so they knew only humanitarian supplies were being shipped in. That wouldn't be a bad solution here, either.)

3: No, we would tell the Islams "We're working hard on changing their views, but we can't interfere by military means".

Why take military means off the table? Why not use all of the tools at your disposal?

Will Robinson wrote:I wouldn't shoot someone for stealing something from me but I would shoot someone if they put my life or the life of another in immediate danger.

Yes; so you'd be willing to severly injure/murder another human being simply because you may feel a bit threatened.

"a bit" threatened?

What's the difference between "a bit" threatened and "very" threatened, in your mind? Do you think maybe, just maybe, you're being "a bit" unreasonable in the way you're reading Will's posts, by assuming that when he says "put my life or the life of another in immediate danger" that he's speaking of being only slightly threatened?

you have the exact same mind as an average Terrorist!

Terrorists aren't doing it because they feel "a bit threatened". Come on; nobody feels "a bit threatened" by a bunch of Jewish women in a Cafe in Haifa, or a bunch of businessmen in the World Trade Center. OK, sure, they felt threatened by the US Marines in Beirut in the mid 80's, but only because they were ALREADY up to no good.

Terrorists -- at least the Islamofascist kind -- are doing it because they want to force the world to live under Islamic domination. Google "Caliphate".

I never said I wouldn't allow goods into Iran or Syria. I said I don't want them to get anything out. Obviously we would want to stop N.Korea from sending another one of those missile shipments but I have no reason to want to starve them.
I don't want them to be able to export personel or harmful goods like weapons.

If you want to allow them to sell their oil for food I'd even allow that but not with the U.N. as the manager of the program. We saw what happens when you let them run the show!!
I'd want some in depth regulation from true allies.

My goal was merely to cut them off from being able to cause anymore death and destruction. At least as much as that kind of containment will provide. I think the people would eventually get fed up with the conditions the world placed on them and rise up and overthrow the ayatollah whacko and president slapnut in spite of being all mad at us. People do what people need to do....they can handle a little tough love or forever live in la la land cut off from their potential victims.

And rememeber this was offered as what I thought all the major players in the world should band together and do, not as a fix but as a temporary measure. After 58 years of \"Hey Honey, lets watch the arabs and jews kill each other for a while and then we'll make them stop for a while...again.\"
I figure it's time for an honest attempt at something more permanent than buying each side some time to lick their wounds and re-arm.
By all means make the Israeli's give up the occupied territory and withdraw from Lebanon and offer land for peace and....oh, yea....that's right...they already did all that and got bombed for their trouble. but anyway don't let it be said I don't want to make sure they lay down their arms too! We can cut off weapons shipments to and from Israel too if that will make them feel better.

TIGERassault wrote:Yes; so you'd be willing to severly injure/murder another human being simply because you may feel a bit threatened.

I see you have completely altered my position so you can then hold it against me. Google Straw Man to see what your contribution to this debate has been reduced to.

TIGERassault wrote:Will; you have the exact same mind as an average Terrorist! Except for that your plans are more devistating.

You know, I'll accept, in part, your point here.
In the sense that we both seek to force a change and will both use force to do so we are equally terrorists.
As you will learn, in life you often have to consider the motive for each party's action before you can properly decide which party you agree with.
An arsonist starts a forest fire and then a fireman starts a backfire to contain it. In a sense they both started a forest fire....who do you think was trying to save the forest and who do you think was trying to kill all the jews?!?

Will Robinson wrote:You know, I'll accept, in part, your point here.
In the sense that we both seek to force a change and will both use force to do so we are equally terrorists.
As you will learn, in life you often have to consider the motive for each party's action before you can properly decide which party you agree with.
An arsonist starts a forest fire and then a fireman starts a backfire to contain it. In a sense they both started a forest fire....who do you think was trying to save the forest and who do you think was trying to kill all the jews?!?

If you haven't already noticed, America and Iran are not the only countries trying to do something. A number of other countries are still using diplomacy.
And just because you believe something wont work, it doesn't mean it wont work.

Lothar wrote:Why take military means off the table? Why not use all of the tools at your disposal?

Because we refuse to use those tools. Mainly because they are unefficcient.

Lothar wrote:"a bit" threatened?

What's the difference between "a bit" threatened and "very" threatened, in your mind? Do you think maybe, just maybe, you're being "a bit" unreasonable in the way you're reading Will's posts, by assuming that when he says "put my life or the life of another in immediate danger" that he's speaking of being only slightly threatened?

Most things bigger than your fist can put someone's life in immediate danger,even if those chances are very rare. What I have been given is too broad to be measured accurately.

Lothar wrote:Terrorists aren't doing it because they feel "a bit threatened". Come on; nobody feels "a bit threatened" by a bunch of Jewish women in a Cafe in Haifa, or a bunch of businessmen in the World Trade Center. OK, sure, they felt threatened by the US Marines in Beirut in the mid 80's, but only because they were ALREADY up to no good.

So what? Terrorism is still terrorism.

TIGERassault wrote:A number of other countries are still using diplomacy.

Which, of course, does not work when one side's stated goal is the destruction of the whole nation of Israel and the eventual subjugation of the world to Islam.

Answer this one question: do you believe diplomacy will work with a nation led by a man who has stated he has a direct link with Allah, and Allah wants him to kill the Jews and dominate the world?

Lothar wrote:Why take military means off the table? Why not use all of the tools at your disposal?

Because we refuse to use those tools. Mainly because they are unefficcient.

... compared to what? How exactly are you measuring "efficiency"?

Just because you SAY they're inefficient doesn't mean they actually are.

Lothar wrote:"a bit" threatened?

What's the difference between "a bit" threatened and "very" threatened, in your mind? Do you think maybe, just maybe, you're being "a bit" unreasonable in the way you're reading Will's posts, by assuming that when he says "put my life or the life of another in immediate danger" that he's speaking of being only slightly threatened?

Most things bigger than your fist can put someone's life in immediate danger,even if those chances are very rare. What I have been given is too broad to be measured accurately.

"too broad to be measured accurately"... so you go and make stupid assumptions about what Will means? Instead of asking for clarification, you just ASSUME he has poor judgement as to what "immediate danger" means?

What's funny is you said this right after making a statement that was "too broad to be measured accurately" (see above.)

Lothar wrote:Terrorists aren't doing it because they feel "a bit threatened". Come on; nobody feels "a bit threatened" by a bunch of Jewish women in a Cafe in Haifa, or a bunch of businessmen in the World Trade Center. OK, sure, they felt threatened by the US Marines in Beirut in the mid 80's, but only because they were ALREADY up to no good.

So what? Terrorism is still terrorism.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Please, say again, what action EXACTLY are you calling "terrorism"?

People who respond to a legitimate physical threat are not terrorists. People who attack non-military targets -- unarmed civilians at the market, for example -- are terrorists. There simply is no moral equivocation you can pull off that will equate "shooting at people who are shooting at us" with "flying planes into commercial buildings" or "blowing yourself up in the middle of a crowded market".

TIGERassault wrote: If you haven't already noticed, America and Iran are not the only countries trying to do something. A number of other countries are still using diplomacy....

Yes, and after 58 years of total failure I say enough is enough!!!
Call me impatient but I think all those countries you think are trying to solve this with peaceful diplomatic means are WASTING THEIR TIME!!
Just how long is too long in your estimation?

Lothar wrote:Which, of course, does not work when one side's stated goal is the destruction of the whole nation of Israel and the eventual subjugation of the world to Islam.

Actually, I got sidetracked. The 'parties' shouldn't be Will's idea or Iran. The 'parties' should be the different ways that peace could be brought about.

Lothar wrote:Answer this one question: do you believe diplomacy will work with a nation led by a man who has stated he has a direct link with Allah, and Allah wants him to kill the Jews and dominate the world?

Yes.

Lothar wrote:"too broad to be measured accurately"... so you go and make stupid assumptions about what Will means? Instead of asking for clarification, you just ASSUME he has poor judgement as to what "immediate danger" means?

Yes.

Lothar wrote:... compared to what? How exactly are you measuring "efficiency"?

I measure efficiency on:
1: Cost
2: Human suffering

Lothar wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by that. Please, say again, what action EXACTLY are you calling "terrorism"?

People who respond to a legitimate physical threat are not terrorists. People who attack non-military targets -- unarmed civilians at the market, for example -- are terrorists. There simply is no moral equivocation you can pull off that will equate "shooting at people who are shooting at us" with "flying planes into commercial buildings" or "blowing yourself up in the middle of a crowded market".

I consider Will's plan of cutting off Iran's ability to trade out of the country, by force.

Will wrote:Call me impatient but I think all those countries you think are trying to solve this with peaceful diplomatic means are WASTING THEIR TIME!!

Dont worry, you've made that thought rather clear already.

Will wrote:Just how long is too long in your estimation?

I don't know, but it would be unlikely to matter. I do not measure 'how long' on "how long it would take, in total", but I measure 'how long' on "how long left would it take". And that can't be measured.

'Just how long is too long in your estimation?' - Will R

\"I don't know, but it would be unlikely to matter. I do not measure 'how long' on \"how long it would take, in total\", but I measure 'how long' on \"how long left would it take\". And that can't be measured.\" -Tiger

Abso-frikin-lutely incredible!
I think that 'how long\" matters a great deal to all those people who are suffering and to the families of all those who have died so far! And I wonder how you could offer that statement above with a straight face?!?

It sounds like you have no plan for diplomacy to effect a peaceful solution you only know you wish that a peaceful solution could be found.

You are willing to wait indefinitely for a peaceful solution to magically present itself and don't seem the least bit concerned with the fact that for 58 years their has been nothing but hostility, violence, suffering and death and after 58 years of people trying diplomatic solutions no offer or treaty has worked to stop it.

It seems your desire for a peaceful solution is because you don't want the suffering and death that a use of an intenational force would bring. Yet you don't have one bit of a problem with the 58 years of suffering and death that has been going on and will continue to go on for untold years to come!

Although, actually, it won't go on the same way for that much longer because it's going to get much worse pretty soon.
You are unwilling to do anything about the impending aquisition of nuclear weapons by the suicidal islamofacsists who will arm their Hezbollah wing and at such a time Israel will be totally screwed and the rest of the world will likely be screwed to a large degree because, unlike past standoff situations where the beligerents have nuclear weapons but don't use them out of fear of dying from our retaliation, the crazy nutbags in Iran not only don't care about mutually assured destruction they seek it as a fulfillment of a religious prophecy in which they believe allah will reward them for doing so!!!

Your position is absolute insanity. It's beyond mis informed or even dogmatic leftwing reject-anything-from-the-right-no-matter-the-cost loyalty. It's absolutely insane!

Will's plan used to be about "keeping Iran down" until they crack. But now his new plan may be primarily concerned with controlling Iran's EXPORTS - which seems reasonable to me if the purpose is for Containment and not regime change via threat of punishment to the civilian populace.

sigh... i know, i'm being optimistic - Will's views are unfortunately more extreme than my above paragraph gave him credit. Another time another roid may feel like screaming, but in my current mood i'm just finding it disheartening.*

Lothar wrote:3) How does your plan differ in any substantial way from mine?

Remember i was initially replying to Will. I think your plan is sound. What i've been thinking out loud about in this thread is effectively the last step of your plan. But it won't work if Will first goes in with his "keep Iran down till they crack" policy. Will's plan is incompatible with the last step of your plan.
You will not be able to use FEAR to carry out your last step.

*c’est la vie. goodnight all

roid wrote:Will's plan used to be about "keeping Iran down" until they crack. But now his new plan may be primarily concerned with controlling Iran's EXPORTS - which seems reasonable to me is the purpose is for Containment and not regime change via threat of punishment to the civilian populace....

My plan was always about controlling what they send out of their country. Someone else decided to ascribe other intent to it, but make no mistake, implimenting my plan would cause the people there much suffering even if they could sell their oil (for food/medicine only) and it would most likely lead to regiem change which is the long range goal of my interfering with their lives in the first place.
And if anyone wants to call it terrorism so what! What we are all doing right now is cowardly and cruel and unusual punishment! Insisting on a diplomacy-only policy simply so one can claim to have only pursued peaceful means is not diplomacy it's cowardly and in fact it's tortue in this case!

Distil this scenario down to your own friends and nieghbors and you wouldn't wait 58 years and suggest waiting some more!!! Yea, right, lets wait until the police captain has a son and maybe he'll be able to talk some sense into these terrorist nieghbors....and if that doesn't work maybe his grandson will grow up with the magical negotiating skills...
Hell No!!! You'd be screaming for the SWAT teams to go in yesterday!!!

Will Robinson wrote:Abso-frikin-lutely incredible!
I think that 'how long" matters a great deal to all those people who are suffering and to the families of all those who have died so far! And I wonder how you could offer that statement above with a straight face?!?

If you haven't noticed, the people who are suffering now are not our only concern. We are also concerned about the people that will suffer if you follow through with your plan.

Will Robinson wrote:You are willing to wait indefinitely for a peaceful solution to magically present itself and don't seem the least bit concerned with the fact that for 58 years their has been nothing but hostility, violence, suffering and death and after 58 years of people trying diplomatic solutions no offer or treaty has worked to stop it.

No; it is you that wants a peaceful solution to magically present itself. We already have our solution, but it is very flexible.

Will Robinson wrote:It seems your desire for a peaceful solution is because you don't want the suffering and death that a use of an intenational force would bring. Yet you don't have one bit of a problem with the 58 years of suffering and death that has been going on and will continue to go on for untold years to come!

Regardless of what military actions you undertake, it is not going to bring those 58 years back.

Will Robinson wrote:Your position is absolute insanity. It's beyond mis informed or even dogmatic leftwing reject-anything-from-the-right-no-matter-the-cost loyalty. It's absolutely insane!

You really expect people to think that the guy who wants to terrorise everyone in an entire country and dismiss any diplomatic attempts knows what sanity is?

TIGERassault wrote:No; it is you that wants a peaceful solution to magically present itself. We already have our solution, but it is very flexible.

Flexible to the point of being non existant!!! What solution do you have exactly other than being the self rightuous one who thinks by merely invoking the word diplomacy he has offered a solution!?!?

TIGERassault wrote:Regardless of what military actions you undertake, it is not going to bring those 58 years back.

My concern isn't to bring back those 58 years, it is to learn from that failure and try something different. A sure sign of insanity is to repeatedly try the same thing over, and over, and over, and for 58 years over, and over again and expect a different result! You claim to have some flexible solution. Well, what is it?

TIGERassault wrote:You really expect people to think that the guy who wants to terrorise everyone in an entire country and dismiss any diplomatic attempts knows what sanity is?

I expect most sane people realize that sometimes words don't get it done and if, after 58 years, all you have is the whisper of some unexplained flexible plan that comes from someone who can't even say how long letting this go on would be too long.... and hasn't ever addressed the issue of the upcoming weapons upgrade to nuclear warheads the islamofacsists are working so fervently toward....
Well, honestly I expect people reading this to start to wonder just how crazy or completely stupid you have to be!!! If that hurts your feelings maybe you could shout 'diplomacy' at me and I'll be forced to stop telling you how dumb you sound!

And I'll save Lothar the trouble of having to call me down for being abusive to the...well..for being abusive.
I promise I'll stop. I'll play nice or not at all from now on. Besides my point couldn't possibly have been better supported than to have it contrasted to Tigerassault's counter.