Iranian capabilities

Do I detect sarcasm in your 9-11 themed reply? Or is my sarcasm detector setting itself off. I can't tell, clarify would you please? Do you think arabs had anything to do with 9-11? I'd love to hear a theory that involves them that didn't get spoon fed straight from the television.
OBEY

A war with Iran would cause heavy casualties, that we, as Americans, are not ready to see yet.
5 ro 10 soldiers a day or week is one thing, footage of a destroyer or of a tank column with 400 dead is another.

Iran is not a country to poke at in my opinion. We will be fighting them on two fronts and have prepared opurseleves accordingly. Aren't people wondering why troops were bieng shipped to Afghanistan but the war on terro there was slowing down? I think we are ready to make a IRanian sandwich.

This would not be a war to be won in weeks or months, but years of death and fighting. The will of a broken man will eventually triumph over technology, Look at Vietnam as a refresher on guerilla tactics and how to fend off an enemy larger than you. Not defeat, but resist till they go away.

I only hope the use of nuclear weapons is shelved, as I can easliy see Israel lit like a Christmas tree from Iranian weapons if they pre-emptively attempt to strike. This is a Worl war folks, and it is just a matter of time before the true death and destruction starts for our soldiers in these countries.

Originally posted by Clownface
@ The vagabond
Bravo! A composed and civilised reply to a low flaming attack. We should all aspire to follow your example. Calling someone silly boy for replying in an thread about the tension between US(Israel) and Iran is something I hope and thought we were above here on ATS. I'm sorry I was wrong..
I don't expect anyone to like my ideas but give me some reasoning as to why not and we'll both might learn something..
And sign me up for arm chair general. Send me an U2U and we'll start a guild

I'm all for a guild, but no meetings OK? I'm not the punctual type.
I also suppose I have to admit that I've been in a flame war or two here on ATS. Nobody wins those, which is precisely why I did not go for the throat in this one. I'm a pragmatist- if there was anything to gain my calling people dirty names, i'd do it a lot, but since it would just make me look stupid, I try really hard to bite my ill-tempered tongue.

Now, this is a late response. If I had not clicked in, I would not have noticed it. Round 3:

Now now, petty name calling is not generally the way to prove your confidence in your point. It can often betray insecurity in your point and the feeling that you must be aggressive outside of the logical realm in order to keep the arguement from coming down on you.

It's not name calling. I am just demonstrating to you that it's obvious you do not understand the human aspects of wars and their aftermath. For you, it all appears to be an elaborate strategy game. This just reflects emotional immaturity. Hence the "silly boy" comment.

If the things I said were actually being carried out by men halfway across the world I would shut up, or if the cause was worthy I would go there and lead from the front. Your initial question was "do I want innocent people do be killed?" My answer remains no.

You either want war or you don't want innocent people to be killed. As you've already voiced your support for a war against Iran(even planned the offensive) it is clear that you want innocent people killed.

If I wanted you to translate my statements I would have called one of my Spanish speaking friends and paid him to type this in Spanish. I want you to take my words at their meaning as is instead. I don't want people to die. I don't want such a war to occur. I merely find the strategic and political conditions which surround a war interesting to discuss apart from the obvious horrors of actually causing a war to happen. I see no difference between discussing what could happen in a war and discussing what could happen on a chessboard just as long as you are not promoting and encouraging the idea that we should actually send men to kill other men.

The difference between a chessboard and an actual country is one is full of inanimate objects and the other is full of living people with friends and family. Now, that we have that clear. It is wholly inaccurate that you are "just talking/strategizing" you are actually supporting a physical invasion of Iran.

So when you say "you don't want war" or "innocent Iranians to die" you are either lying or very confused.

My point here is that the war in question could theoretically become necessary if Iran, which is in fact run by violent religious zealots who have supported activities by violent relgious zealots in other countries were to be proven to have an offensive nuclear program with the goal of aiming nuclear weapons at other nations. If that developed then I would support the prosecution of this otherwise theoretical war, and if it were not for the permanent injuries I sustained while training to go to Iraq I would be absolutely willing to go do my part in that war.

Well, first and foremost why would you have even fought in Iraq? Now Iran:

1. Iran does not have nuclear weapons
2. Iran does not have a credible nuclear deterrent against US and will not have one in several decades.
3. Iran has not been hostile to any nation in recent history

What are we fighting Iran for again? Is there a reason, or are you going it pull it out of a hat?

The Chinese and Russians have had these weapons for some time and have demonstrated over that time that they possess them in the interest of deterrence. Iranian leaders on the other hand have regularly made threats of missile attack on the west and the destruction of western civilization. Friends or not, the Chinese and Russians pose no threat of using nuclear weapons on somebody just for worshipping the wrong God.

Please, back-up your claim with a credible source that the Iranian government have made threats against the west to destroy western civilization.

I believe that Iraq was a legitimate threat. I don't believe they made fools of us because I believe the reasons presented existed. Unfortunately we all know those were not the true reasons. They were in it for the oil and not for the WMD or the human rights abuses or any other reason and this is why a serious defense of the legitimate reasons was not attempted after the conquest was complete. In short, we did the right thing in Iraq in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. All the same, the right thing got done at least in part and Iraq is better off than it was.
Iran should also be dealt with. Hopefully in a better way than Iraq, however any solution is better than no solution.

You believe Iraq was a legimate threat. Yet you also believe it had no WMD and believe this war was fought for oil.

So how was Iraq a threat, if you believe it had no WMD?
You said above, you would have been absolutely willing to paticipate in the war had you not injured yourself in training(no, wonder you're an arm chair general ) yet know the real reason of the war to be for oil. So, who is the real threat and rogue nation?

And further, knowing that the war is for oil, how do you justify your "absolutely willingness" to be used as a pawn for the interests of politicans and business man in absence of a threat to you? That would make you a murderer.

Do you have any sense of morals and ethics?

It would be difficult to have made the translation any more opposite to my statement. I said I wanted to avoid vaporizing the Iranians if possible. If it were my call (and unfortunately its not) I'd offer Iran modern missile defenses, technological assistance with its nuclear program, and a military assisstance pact vowing American intervention against any first-strike against Iran if only they would agree not to build any facility which can enrich Uranium or Plutonium to weapons grade.

In other words you want Iran to be subserviant to your neo-imperialism designs and abdicate it's right to defend itself, or else, you will invade it. That's called tyranny and is a true projection of terrorism. No thanks, I speak on the behalf of the Iranians.

All countries have the solemn right to defend themselves. As do all people. You reserve the right to defending yourself. Then why can't they? Is it because they are a rogue nation? Yet it is your own nation, which you have conceded yourself, that invades other countries to loot it of commodities?

In truth, the biggest threat to global stability is the American Empires terrorism against others. Who is going to deal with America, surely not you?

I believe that you and I would agree that nuclear weapons are a horrible thing, that their spread and production should be limited in every way possible because the existing nuclear powers can never be convinced to disarm so long as other powers are building more. Nuclear weapons are something we should be working very hard to step back from, not something we should be allowing to spread. A war kills people in the thousands or tens of thousands. Nuclear war would kill millions and endanger over 6 billion.

That is very hypocritical for someone speaking from a nation that has used nuclear and radiological weapons on several occasions and stockpiles them in the thousands. If there is anyone who endangers the world with nuclear war it's US. It would take Iran several decades to amass even 10% of the nuclear weapons US has and that is assuming it has enough Plutonium and Uranium too. At that time nuclear weapons will most likely be rendered obsolete.

This is nothing more than paranoid delusions due to mass hysteria bred by the government. You said the Iraq war was for oil? Well, Iran has even more oil than Iraq. Do the math.

I would love to hear how you arrived at the conclusion that I don't know those two nations are neighbors. As for the Sino-India war, I know enough to tell you that naive politicians blundering towards a war that can only devastate their country is something that I'd prefer that Americans not imitate.

Well hear the obvious then. India and China are neighbors, if India overlooks transgressions by China, due to the locality of the threat it can be very complacent. However, you are attempting to relate this to an unlikely and exaggerated situation between two countries who are not only not neighbors, but which are in fact so distant from each other, that the supposed threats missiles cannot even bridge the gap.

It's paranoid schizophrenia. Almost as good as me expelling all the Indians from England, because in 2075 they will own all the jobs.

Talking about this is going to anger China and Russia?
And on the real side of the discussion, if Iran can not be kept from developing weapons, then what to you suggest we do instead of angering China and Russia (who can not directly intervene because of deterrence).
I suppose your idea might be to let Iran have the weapons and wait for them to get into it with Israel and drag us down the slippery slope a few years later?
Our best bet to keep this from escalating is to nip it in the bud. If the world wars didn't make that abundantly clear then maybe people like you will never learn.

When China and Russia gets angry with you, Iran is going to the least of your worries. If you put your hand into the hornet nest, not only do you risk getting stung, you could also be killed.

The difference here is China and Russia are real threats, and the Iran threat is imagined. You are going to risk a real threat for an imagined one? If yes, then my assessment is correct: paranoid schizophrenia.

[edit on 24-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Now, this is a late response. If I had not clicked in, I would not have noticed it. Round 3:

You'll have to forgive me, I already had a similiar thread going and didn't find my way back in for a while. Imagine my embarrassment at having left what appeared to be a flame completely unchallenged.

It's not name calling. I am just demonstrating to you that it's obvious you do not understand the human aspects of wars and their aftermath. For you, it all appears to be an elaborate strategy game. This just reflects emotional immaturity. Hence the "silly boy" comment.

You are entitled to your opinions on the subject of war, however you walk a fine line when you insult somebody for doing something utterly harmless.

You either want war or you don't want innocent people to be killed. As you've already voiced your support for a war against Iran(even planned the offensive) it is clear that you want innocent people killed.

Your statement is flawed in that it suggests that it disregards what I have expressed support for and all qualifications of that support and centers entirely on a loosely defined side effect of the thing I have expressed support for. Using this tactic, I could say that a person who wants to use toilet paper wants to contribute to deforestation.
I do not wish for innocent people to be killed. If Iran were raising a strong possibility of nuclear war then the death of innocent people is very nearly a foregone conclusion and then it is left for us to choose the lesser evil.
Under certain conditions (including the exhaustion of all peaceful options for convincing Iran that nuclear weapons are not necessary) I would then support a war in spite of the regrettable fact that their would be innocent casualities. I would support such a war because in the sum of things it is likely that fewer innocents would be lost.
It is a shame that we do not live in a black and white world where we could simply choose not to have situations where innocent people die. Unfortunately, so long as the several wills of different powers are in conflict, there will always be people creating that danger and there will always be hard choices to make relating to this.

The difference between a chessboard and an actual country is one is full of inanimate objects and the other is full of living people with friends and family. Now, that we have that clear. It is wholly inaccurate that you are "just talking/strategizing" you are actually supporting a physical invasion of Iran.

It is imperative that we differentiate between the discussion of capabilities and the discussion of what should be done. One can discuss the capabilities of nations to make war it has absolutely no effect on living people with friends and family. It is just discussion of how equipment and training programs match up against one another. To say that such a discussion equates to actually supporting a physical invasion of Iran is completely unfounded. Where have I stated anything which even approaches the meaning of "This should be done simply because it is possible"?

You have your right to believe that this is wrong to discuss war. You can make a very convincing arguement that this must cease in order for humans to ever develop beyond the necessity of war. On the other hand you would be hard pressed to make a strong case for such discussion representing a belief that such things should actually happen. By such logic, a discussion of what would happen if I were placed in prison would equate to a personal desire on my part to actually go to prison.

So when you say "you don't want war" or "innocent Iranians to die" you are either lying or very confused.

You make this statement with no logical foundation whatsoever. The only support you have offered is an appeal to emotion by stating that the discussion involves real people with friends and families. You have failed to demonstrate that the discussion harms or attempts to harm them in any way.
I believe that I understand your point, and I respect it. I simply disagree with it. Although war is awful, and there may very well be something culturally/perspectively wrong with someone who does not find it awful to consider, you can not fully equate the discussion of war to support for war. Many awful things are discussed and although they are awful to consider, the ability to withstand discussion of awful things does not equate to a support for them. Substitute Fire, Disease, or Famine for War and see what I mean.

Well, first and foremost why would you have even fought in Iraq?

For two primary reasons.
1. Although the highest leadership of this nation was not primarily concerned with doing good for Iraq, there was in fact a potential to do good for Iraq. Less of that has been accomplished than should have been, but some has. I would be willing to fight for the removal of anyone who rules over people through the use of torture, rape, and murder. Such things have disgusted me since I was young and fueled my desire to be a Marine since very early in highschool.
2. Because people just like me were being sent into harms way, including my best friend. I did not feel that I had any right to sit home in safety and say that I supported what they were doing, but I did support what they were doing. It seemed obvious that I had to get my fat arse into shape, join the marines, and ask for a UH Infantry Option- and I did.

Now Iran:
1. Iran does not have nuclear weapons

Iran hosts Russian made sunburn missiles with nuclear warheads. They have also recieved the same from Ukraine, although the source I read was unclear as to who directly controls the missiles provided by Ukraine.

2. Iran does not have a credible nuclear deterrent against US and will not have one in several decades.

Iran has an active weapons program and Iranian leaders were recently quoted as telling their scientists "you are not muslims" if you do not complete a bomb in some specific timeframe.

3. Iran has not been hostile to any nation in recent history

Although Iran has not undertaken a conventional invasion of another nation in recent history it propped up the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and is actively supporting Iraqi insurgents not only in the interest of harming the United States but with the goal of subverting the Iraqi government. Furthermore

www.libertypost.org...
An official of Iran's Revolutionary Guards has threatened the United States and other Western nations with suicide and missile attacks aimed at 29 sensitive sites.

"Our missiles are now ready to strike at their civilization, and as soon as the instructions arrive from leader ['Ali Khamenei], we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations," the Revolutionary Guard adviser said in a speech reported by the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, according to Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI.

He also threatened to "take over" Britian.

More can be found on ATS here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your likely response is that it is an idle threat, but it is a threat. What reaction could someone have from a threat, except to feel threatened and act accordingly? Are these the kind of people we want to have nuclear weapons, when they are swearing up and down that they are going to position anything they can get their hands on so as to be prepared to eliminate western civilization whenever their religious leader gives the word?
They drag their Sahab-3 missiles out for parades with banners saying "Israel must be wiped from the Earth" and "We will crush America under our feet". Do we want those missiles to have nuclear warheads?

Please, back-up your claim with a credible source that the Iranian government have made threats against the west to destroy western civilization.

Ask and ye shall recieve. Khatami is not so harsh on us, I'll give you that, but he seems to be the exception. As for credibility, note the link to MEMRI.

You believe Iraq was a legimate threat. Yet you also believe it had no WMD and believe this war was fought for oil.

1. I don't know if Iraq still had WMD or not and I don't recall making any absolute statements one way or another on that subject. At one time Iraq had WMD. Iraq did a poor job of proving disarmament to the UN when it was in their interest to do so. There is a possibility, although the arguement is not politically viable for the administration, that any existing WMD could have been evacuated to Syria or even Iran. This would not be the first time Iraq had hidden equipment with its neighbors in the face of a US invasion.
2. Saddam was a hostile military presence in an already unstable region. His continued reign after the Gulf War was only tollerated because nothing else would have been politically viable for the middle-eastern members of the coalition. America should have been looking for a way to correct that mistake from the minute that war was over.
3. Saddam was supporting terrorism by promising money to the families of suicide bombers. His continued support justified military response from Israel, which would have destabilized the region. For a 3rd party to deal with him on Israel's behalf would have been perfectly legitimate in the interest of peace and stability in that region.
4. Saddam was a plague on the Iraqi people. He violated human rights, he kept them in poverty, he used a humanitarian oil-for-food program to line his own pockets instead. There was every reason to remove him. If the UN were functioning as originally intended it would be actively removing and punishing people like Saddam where ever they held power.

So how was Iraq a threat, if you believe it had no WMD?
You said above, you would have been absolutely willing to paticipate in the war had you not injured yourself in training(no, wonder you're an arm chair general

) yet know the real reason of the war to be for oil. So, who is the real threat and rogue nation?

I will not endeavor to defend the current administration of the United States. In an exceedingly corrupt world they have somehow managed to sink beneath the rest and call special attention to their own brand of insider politics and sweetheart economics.
As for Iraq, I have above illustrated how the presented a danger to potential danger to neighbors including a defenseless nation (Kuwait) and a NATO member (Turkey). They further destabilized an entire region and undermined the middle east peace process resulting in the deaths of a few innocent people and presenting the potential for a great many more. That regime created a great many innocent victims within its own borders as well. Although not a threat to America this only added to the measure by which Saddam's regime was morally indefensible, reprehensible, and nonsensical to support (I'm not ready to defend OJ just yet, but I'm working on the lingo just in case he ever kills again).

Who was really the rogue state? Well it's not really a relative term, so I suppose you could say both are (although in America you could make the case for a differentiation of rogue regime because we have a chance to separate the administration from the nation every 4 years.)
If it were a relative term though, who has killed more Iraqi citizens and cost the Iraqi people more wealth? Saddam, by a landslide. The margin gets closer if you give America partial credit for the casualties of the Iraq-Iran war, however since the war was actually Saddam's idea you really have to give him the lion's share of the body count.

And further, knowing that the war is for oil, how do you justify your "absolutely willingness" to be used as a pawn for the interests of politicans and business man in absence of a threat to you? That would make you a murderer.

As I have pointed out, the politicians happened to be in a position where they could not accomplish their evil end without first accomplishing some good. Suppose that you wanted to go help the poor in a certain city, and the most practical way to get there was to hitch a ride with someone who was going to that city to commit a crime. You can't really stop him from going and comitting the crime, so go balance him out by doing what you can. That's my way of looking at it.
Although I'm usually the one to be gung-ho about instant willing obedience to orders (its just the Marine in me) I also have to say that I wouldn't necessarily have stayed on Uncle Sam's team in any situation.
I was aware of what happened in Rwanda when I joined the Marines, and I was aware that there is no way my conscience could ever let me get on a helicopter and leave people who were about to be butchered. I never did figure out exactly what I would do in such a situation, and I can't say that I know because I've never been there weighing such a decision. All I can say is that I joined with noble intentions and I'd like to think that I would have answered to my sense of integrity ahead of my chain of command.

Do you have any sense of morals and ethics?

I have a love hate relationship with them. I have them, I try to follow them. I find them incredibly inconvenient. I am also a realist- I understand that the world consists mainly of grey areas and choices between two evils.

In other words you want Iran to be subserviant to your neo-imperialism designs and abdicate it's right to defend itself, or else, you will invade it. That's called tyranny and is a true projection of terrorism. No thanks, I speak on the behalf of the Iranians.

I do not support imperialism. I believe that America should keep itself entirely out of the domestic, economic, and international affairs of Iran and other nations. The sole exception is where it concerns basic human rights, including the right to life. Pointing nuclear weapons at people with the intent to actually use them is unacceptable, and statements by Iran have proven that they would use what should be a deterrent force in an unacceptable way.
Iran should be given every assurance of security via non aggression pacts, mutual protection pacts, sale of missile defenses, perhaps the presence of international liasons at NORAD, and of course Iran already has its defense agreement with Russia. I am all for international security and stability. This includes halting the spread of nuclear weapons and increasing defenses against them for all nations in hopes of making these ridiculous creations obsolete.
I look at international relations the way I look at my dealings with people while I'm walking around town. Show people respect, stay out of their business, avoid conflicts, and if someone means you harm, knock the snot out of him.

All countries have the solemn right to defend themselves. As do all people. You reserve the right to defending yourself. Then why can't they? Is it because they are a rogue nation? Yet it is your own nation, which you have conceded yourself, that invades other countries to loot it of commodities?

The subject with Iran is not defense, it is the capability to project offense when they have expressed their desire and intent to use such capability.

It also bears clarification that America is not looting Iraq of oil- the scheme is more complex than that. We still have to pay for the oil and provide services for the funds our companies take in. In truth, the greatest victims of this war are the American people, and the Iraqis come in a close second. American business criminals are reaping contracts for American tax dollars and overcharging like mad. Ultimately, this war is primarily a scheme for Bush and friends to raid the US treasury as their own little piggie bank while Americans watch the social programs they have paid their own money into be whittled away.
The secondary aim is to monopolize government contracts in Iraq. Iraq is getting screwed on the deal, but they are getting a service and they dont have that much money to screw them out of anyway. Not to mention that we're going to end up forgiving most of the debt. Iraq is just a monopolized market for American corporations- not half the victim the American taxpayer is.
Before you bring up the violence, please note that the only people being hurt MORE often now than before the war with Iraq are US troops. Iraqis haven't been raped or had holes drilled in them for months now- unless of course they were in contact with Lindie England (that was the lady's name right?).

In truth, the biggest threat to global stability is the American Empires terrorism against others. Who is going to deal with America, surely not you?

By the lesser of two evils standard which must be used in this world which is devoid of perfect alternatives, the United States is not the greatest threat to stability at all. We didn't upset stablity in Afghanistan- we improved it. Unless of course you find something stable about the prospect of being tortured for the crime of a man shaving or a woman being seen in public without her husband.
America has done nothing more than replace one dishonorable regime with another in Iraq, and has argueably done less damage there then the previous one while removing the potential for wars which was inherent to the old regime. Some might call that stabilization of an odd and ugly sort.
America is the single most active nation in preventing the outbreak of hostilities against South Korea. If you'd like to suggest that we are hindering reunification i would agree- we are definately keeping a communist cult of personality and failed state from forcing a successful democracy to abandon everything which it enjoys today and be forcibly reunited under the rule of the failed state. If you would like to suggest that Crazy Kim is just going to step down in the interest of whats best for the Korean people you can sell crazy somewhere else- I'm all stocked up.
In many ways America's interest in world affairs, although self serving, has served as a stabilizing force because America unlike some other powers is not driven by religious or racial hatred. Additionally, many of these nations have nothing for America to exploit other than a market place. The worst thing we do to anybody is force them to buy crap they dont particularly want- sort of like the Girl Scouts. We're a long way from perfect, but we're hardly a ravaging horde sweeping across the face of the Earth bringing death and misery to the happy utopias of the 3rd world.

That is very hypocritical for someone speaking from a nation that has used nuclear and radiological weapons on several occasions and stockpiles them in the thousands. If there is anyone who endangers the world with nuclear war it's US. It would take Iran several decades to amass even 10% of the nuclear weapons US has and that is assuming it has enough Plutonium and Uranium too. At that time nuclear weapons will most likely be rendered obsolete.

Iran doesn't need 10% of what America has, they only need 2 or 3. There are abundant examples of how quickly this can be accomplished. Pakistan did it from scratch even. If it took decades for these programs to succeed then every nuclear power in the world including North Korea began their work in the 1950s and 1960s? The American program was done in under 20 years and that was the first one ever. The Russians duplicated it practically no time at all because they didn't have to discover it themselves. I believe that you have attempted to understate the danger to support your position, or at the very least that you are not aware of how quickly a nuclear program can develop with the proper support, as demonstrated historically.

The reason my point is not hypocritical is because I do not suggest that America's possession of nuclear weapons is a good thing. I explicitly state that I do not wish to halt the spread of nuclear weapons in order to secure the dominance of already armed nations, but to pave the way for a reversal of the dangerous proliferation which has brought this planet to the edge of oblivion in the past.
I believe that stopping the spread of these weapons is a necessary first step to halting production in armed nations and ultimately allowing the nuclear age to expire. If I did not wish for the half of nuclear development to lead to the disarming of America's stockpile as well, I would in fact be a hypocrite.

This is nothing more than paranoid delusions due to mass hysteria bred by the government. You said the Iraq war was for oil? Well, Iran has even more oil than Iraq. Do the math.

1 region divided by 3 different relgious groups with nuclear weapons and histories of religiously motivated war with eachother, plus a radical theocracy in one of those nations equals nuclear war.

And I reiterate that although oil motivated the Iraqi war it was a little more complex than a simple oilgrab. America can't just run into Iran and pocket the oil, so how much they have is not truly relevant, especially when the US economy can not readily be looted for much more than it already has been in Iraq.
Bush put the money ahead of the legitimate priorities for America- go figure.

Well hear the obvious then. India and China are neighbors, if India overlooks transgressions by China, due to the locality of the threat it can be very complacent. However, you are attempting to relate this to an unlikely and exaggerated situation between two countries who are not only not neighbors, but which are in fact so distant from each other, that the supposed threats missiles cannot even bridge the gap.

We have allies and interests in the region which we could not defend with the presence of those weapons. Furthermore the development of nuclear weapons has always been followed by further attempts to develop a means of delivery (ICBMs, Submarines, etc).

It's paranoid schizophrenia. Almost as good as me expelling all the Indians from England, because in 2075 they will own all the jobs.

It's only schizophrenia if I have more than one personality. *breaks into song* "schizophrenia: how many of ya got it? How many mutha******s can say they psy-chotic?" Sorry, i couldn't help myselves.

First of all you really need to do something about hose Indians it sounds like . More imporantly, this problem is not about job competition, it's about innocent people being vaporized and others starving to death because of the economic and environmental affects of a nuclear war, and its not going to wait until 2075- it could easily be real in 2025. (Even if it were to wait until 2075, would it somehow be OK just becaue you wouldn't be around to suffer?)

When China and Russia gets angry with you, Iran is going to the least of your worries. If you put your hand into the hornet nest, not only do you risk getting stung, you could also be killed.

All the more reason to get on this problem now while A. Peaceful sollutions are possible. B. there is a chance of taking LIMITED military action (bombing reactors etc) which would not justify the risk of nuclear war in Chinese/Russian retaliations. What did France do to Israel when they took out the oshirak (spelling?) facility? Nothing.

The difference here is China and Russia are real threats, and the Iran threat is imagined. You are going to risk a real threat for an imagined one? If yes, then my assessment is correct: paranoid schizophrenia.
[edit on 24-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

We're... um I mean I'm... not schizophrenic. See my above statement about managing risks by acting sooner rather than later.

See you in round 4 *singing* But after.. 4 rounds with Jose Cuervo...

You are entitled to your opinions on the subject of war, however you walk a fine line when you insult somebody for doing something utterly harmless.

I am just stating a truth. If you had emotional maturity, you would not be playing and tossing about ideas that involves the loss of innumerable lives.

I do not wish for innocent people to be killed. If Iran were raising a strong possibility of nuclear war then the death of innocent people is very nearly a foregone conclusion and then it is left for us to choose the lesser evil.

So to choose an evil, you fabricate an evil greater than it, to make the original evil seem lesser. Have you heard the saying "two wrongs do not make a right"

Your own intellectual misgivings of killing innocent people are irrelavant. I cannot verify that. What I can verify is what you express in words or action. And you are expressing encouragemant for war, and nor are you oblivious to the realities that war entails the loss of innocent lives.

Now, I ask you, what do you stand to lose if you do not go to war?

To say that such a discussion equates to actually supporting a physical invasion of Iran is completely unfounded. Where have I stated anything which even approaches the meaning of "This should be done simply because it is possible"?

No, actually you have and still are endorsing physical war against Iran. It is no longer a game.

You have your right to believe that this is wrong to discuss war. You can make a very convincing arguement that this must cease in order for humans to ever develop beyond the necessity of war. On the other hand you would be hard pressed to make a strong case for such discussion representing a belief that such things should actually happen. By such logic, a discussion of what would happen if I were placed in prison would equate to a personal desire on my part to actually go to prison.

No, war is not wrong. It can be very necessary at times. However, it should only be exercised after all other options have been exhausted. As a last resort. You are far from convincing me that this war against Iran is necessary. On the contrary, you are closer to convincing me of the opposite.

So I put forth the question again: Why do you feel it is necessary to go and invade Iran, knowing that hundreds of thousands will perish, and it will perturb or infuriate people all over the world and further fuel the hatred of people for your country.

You fear nuclear war? Yet have no idea that the actions of your country could be the cause of global nuclear war. Now, would that not be extremely foolish?

You make this statement with no logical foundation whatsoever. The only support you have offered is an appeal to emotion by stating that the discussion involves real people with friends and families. You have failed to demonstrate that the discussion harms or attempts to harm them in any way.
I believe that I understand your point, and I respect it. I simply disagree with it. Although war is awful, and there may very well be something culturally/perspectively wrong with someone who does not find it awful to consider, you can not fully equate the discussion of war to support for war. Many awful things are discussed and although they are awful to consider, the ability to withstand discussion of awful things does not equate to a support for them. Substitute Fire, Disease, or Famine for War and see what I mean.

It is thoughts that become action. You are actually supporting a war against Iran, and it is your thoughts that translate into action. Reality is nothing more than a reflection of your own mind. You create reality from moment to moment with your thought and then manifest it with action.

There is active action and passive action. In this instance, an active action would be joining the forces to invade Iran. A passive action would be giving your approval for the invasion of Iran, like a vote for your presidential candidate, and just like every vote counts, every thought counts as well.

Hence, why I said, you're either lying or very confused, because in the end while you shy away from the killing of innocent people and talk about how war is ugly, nonetheless you act FOR it.

So again, are you lying, or are you just confused? Or is it the third reason? Is it blind faith?

Well, first and foremost why would you have even fought in Iraq?

1. Although the highest leadership of this nation was not primarily concerned with doing good for Iraq, there was in fact a potential to do good for Iraq. Less of that has been accomplished than should have been, but some has. I would be willing to fight for the removal of anyone who rules over people through the use of torture, rape, and murder. Such things have disgusted me since I was young and fueled my desire to be a Marine since very early in highschool.

Bless you. Now tell me, where were you during the time your own government were weaponizing Saddam Hussain and ignored his gas attacks on Kuwait?

What are you doing now where your own government is involved in the systematic torture of the Iraqi people and the genocide of Iraqis today?

What about the Israelis and Chinese who also using mass torture against human people? Do you have any plans for them?

Finally, who died and made you global police man? The Iraqi people do not want you, nor do the Iranians, so what are you doing? Tyranny?

However, don't you think your own problems should take precedence over the worlds problem? What about the oppression of the American people by the state?

2. Because people just like me were being sent into harms way, including my best friend. I did not feel that I had any right to sit home in safety and say that I supported what they were doing, but I did support what they were doing. It seemed obvious that I had to get my fat arse into shape, join the marines, and ask for a UH Infantry Option- and I did.

So you feel you are compelled to commit wrong because your friends have as well? Classic. So, if your friends jumped off a cliff in line, would you too?

Iran hosts Russian made sunburn missiles with nuclear warheads. They have also recieved the same from Ukraine, although the source I read was unclear as to who directly controls the missiles provided by Ukraine.

Heresay or documented fact? I need to know this before I address this any further.

Iran has an active weapons program and Iranian leaders were recently quoted as telling their scientists "you are not muslims" if you do not complete a bomb in some specific timeframe.

Again, heresay or documented fact? Further, how does that address my point that Iran does not have a credible nuclear deterrent against US?

Although Iran has not undertaken a conventional invasion of another nation in recent history it propped up the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and is actively supporting Iraqi insurgents not only in the interest of harming the United States but with the goal of subverting the Iraqi government.

First and foremost, there is no Iraqi government. Iraq is now illegally occupied by US. Please get that clear.

Second, US was actively involved in the weaponization of Pakistan, Taliban, Iraq and among other nations. So, if you are going to claim that Iran is some kind of evil nation on the grounds of it's support for Taliban and Iraq, then you will also concede that US is an evil nation for the same reasons. So as they say; charity begins at home.

www.libertypost.org...
An official of Iran's Revolutionary Guards has threatened the United States and other Western nations with suicide and missile attacks aimed at 29 sensitive sites.

"Our missiles are now ready to strike at their civilization, and as soon as the instructions arrive from leader ['Ali Khamenei], we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations," the Revolutionary Guard adviser said in a speech reported by the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, according to Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI.

He also threatened to "take over" Britian.

Note, I said credible source, not the nexus of Middle East Propoganda from which this story has originated:

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.

Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization. MEMRI's headquarters is located in Washington, DC with branch offices in Berlin, London, and Jerusalem, where MEMRI also maintains its Media Center. MEMRI research is translated to English, German, Hebrew, Italian, French, Spanish, Turkish, and Russian.

It disturbs me how you could be so hopelessly gullible. Come on, don't let them insult your intelligence like that. Yet, for the sake of argument, let's suppose it was true. It would show that one man in Iran wants to destroy western civilization. How is that representative of Iranian foreign policy?

Further, again forgive me to state the obvious, but how would Iran do that? I think we've already established it has no nuclear or ICBM capability.

More can be found on ATS here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your likely response is that it is an idle threat, but it is a threat.

No, it is not an idle threat. It is an actual threat, that I have no doubt will be carried out. But you missed something glaringly obvious:

In a speech to the residents of the city of Hamedan on July 5, 2004, Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei said: " We, the Iranian people, within the borders of our country, will cut off any hand that harms our scientific, natural, human, or technological interests. We will cut off the hand that is sent to invade and work against our people's interests. We will do this with no hesitation�. If the enemy has the audacity to harm and invade, our blows against it will not be limited to the borders of our country� If someone harms our people and invades [our country], we will endanger his interests anywhere in the world."

The Iranian leader is not threatening the people of America, but exercising it's solemn right to defend itself against any invading forces. The real threats are actually being made by US without provocation by Iran. What do you have to say for this?

They drag their Sahab-3 missiles out for parades with banners saying "Israel must be wiped from the Earth" and "We will crush America under our feet". Do we want those missiles to have nuclear warheads?

Source please?

As for credibility, note the link to MEMRI.

I thought you were joking above, but you are actually being serious. Are you prepared to truly question yourself of the possibility of being brainwashed with propoganda? As soon as you identify it, it will lose it's power.

1. I don't know if Iraq still had WMD or not and I don't recall making any absolute statements one way or another on that subject. At one time Iraq had WMD. Iraq did a poor job of proving disarmament to the UN when it was in their interest to do so. There is a possibility, although the arguement is not politically viable for the administration, that any existing WMD could have been evacuated to Syria or even Iran. This would not be the first time Iraq had hidden equipment with its neighbors in the face of a US invasion.

You just admitted it in the previous posting that this war is not for WMD or liberation, it is for oil. Now you are talking about WMDs again. Are you coming or going?

As I said earlier, you appear to be confused. Your clarity of thought on the matter can be described as nebulous at best. You are trying to draw correlations between a set of contradictory ideas you have been fed by the media. The reason you are confused is simply because you are trying to make sense of non-sense. As I said above, identify it, and it will lose it's power.

There is a root cause for everything, and that root is always your mind, because it is your mind that manifests your reality. Regain control over your mind, and you won't be so confused anymore. However, if you continue to blindly follow propoganda you do it at the expense of losing your own mind.

I will respect you more if you actually stick to the real reason this war was fought for. You said oil, right? Good, stick with it. It will save me the time responding to the rest of the reasons.

I will not endeavor to defend the current administration of the United States. In an exceedingly corrupt world they have somehow managed to sink beneath the rest and call special attention to their own brand of insider politics and sweetheart economics.

Well, you seem so eager to fight against other corrupt administrations. So, why do you not fight against your own? That will actually prove you are a man and a real soldier.

Although not a threat to America this only added to the measure by which Saddam's regime was morally indefensible, reprehensible, and nonsensical to support (I'm not ready to defend OJ just yet, but I'm working on the lingo just in case he ever kills again).

Thank you - NOT a threat to America. So if Iraq is NOT a threat to you, why are you "absolutely willing" to partake in an invasion of it? I don't want you to answer that, all I want you to do is ponder over the truths you have deduced yoursef:

1. Iraq was not a threat
2. The war was for oil
3. America is also a rogue state

For once, forget everything else you have heard, and ponder over these truths. Your unconscious mind is trying to tell you something. Listen to it.

Who was really the rogue state? Well it's not really a relative term, so I suppose you could say both are (although in America you could make the case for a differentiation of rogue regime because we have a chance to separate the administration from the nation every 4 years.)

You had a chance to separate the current administration this time around, did you? I don't think you realise, but you don't actually have any control in who you elect. The candidates are chosen by the state. You choose from them. Nor do you know that the administration itself does not own all of the power, though shares it with congress, senators and other shadowy elements.

This is not a conspiracy theory, though an actual fact, that I can prove to you.

In the administration of George Bush Sr was the Gulf war, leading to the partial destruction of Iraqi capability and economic sanctions to cripple it.

In the administration of Clinton we saw air raid campaigns on Iraqi cities, and threats of invasion of, further demolishing it's ability.

In the administration of George Bush Jr is Gulf war 2, which due to the the actions of prior administrations that left Iraq nearly defenceless, we saw the final invasion.

So, what do you say? US a rougue state since the last decade? Or US a rogue state since the last two decades, as it was Reagan who weaponized it(and Iran) or perhaps US a rogue state for the last three decades, since it was US that trained and allowed Indonesia to kill 1/3rd of East Timoreans?

So if US is a rogue state, why do you not deal with your own? And if you feel US is a rogue state, why do you support it's policies? Again, are you coming or going?

As I have pointed out, the politicians happened to be in a position where they could not accomplish their evil end without first accomplishing some good. Suppose that you wanted to go help the poor in a certain city, and the most practical way to get there was to hitch a ride with someone who was going to that city to commit a crime. You can't really stop him from going and comitting the crime, so go balance him out by doing what you can. That's my way of looking at it.

What good has come to the Iraqi people? Genocide? Torture? Rape? Oppression? They are prisoners in their own country. I hope this kind of good does not come upon you. Although it appears that it just may.

Although I'm usually the one to be gung-ho about instant willing obedience to orders (its just the Marine in me) I also have to say that I wouldn't necessarily have stayed on Uncle Sam's team in any situation.
All I can say is that I joined with noble intentions and I'd like to think that I would have answered to my sense of integrity ahead of my chain of command.

You say that, and then say you would be "absolutely willingly" to join the War on Iraq, even though knowing it is for oil and you are fighting for a rogue state. Is this double standards or are you confused again?

I have a love hate relationship with them. I have them, I try to follow them. I find them incredibly inconvenient. I am also a realist- I understand that the world consists mainly of grey areas and choices between two evils.

I am not surprised you do not have any defined morals and ethics. They change from momet to moment, because you cannot think consistently, you are inherently confused. When you say realist, you do not mean you base your thinking on reality, you actually mean you rationalize your thoughts and feelings to conform to your own conveniances

What is real is that intrinsic knowing. Do you know the highest level of thought is not thinking but knowing You are doing it all the time. When you walk down a flight of stairs, you are not thinking about each step, for if you did you would be disorientated, you doing it because you know it. You have an emotional being that is innate to you, and that recognises a language of emotions that is universal and transcends race, gender and even species. That is your morals and ethics - they are predefined, part of the mark-up of your being.

When someone transgresses against you, you feel pain. It is wrong. We all empathize with this. You also empathize with innocent people being killed.
You actually know more than you show, but you are not listening to what your unconscious mind is trying to tell you. Seek and you shall find.

There is a real enemy, but it's not Iraq, Iran or the terrorists, and when you fully recognize the real enemy, then perhaps you can put the marine inside you to good use.

I do not support imperialism. I believe that America should keep itself entirely out of the domestic, economic, and international affairs of Iran and other nations. The sole exception is where it concerns basic human rights, including the right to life. Pointing nuclear weapons at people with the intent to actually use them is unacceptable, and statements by Iran have proven that they would use what should be a deterrent force in an unacceptable way.

How can you restore human rights by being inhuman?

Iran should be given every assurance of security via non aggression pacts, mutual protection pacts, sale of missile defenses, perhaps the presence of international liasons at NORAD, and of course Iran already has its defense agreement with Russia. I am all for international security and stability. This includes halting the spread of nuclear weapons and increasing defenses against them for all nations in hopes of making these ridiculous creations obsolete.
I look at international relations the way I look at my dealings with people while I'm walking around town. Show people respect, stay out of their business, avoid conflicts, and if someone means you harm, knock the snot out of him.

So how is Iran being shown respect by constantly threatening it with invasion and performring simulations of attacking it, or calling it an axis of evil. You talk noble intentions, but seem to be unaware, that your leaders do not share your noble intentions. You know this as well.

So who should you be supporting?

The subject with Iran is not defense, it is the capability to project offense when they have expressed their desire and intent to use such capability.

You have still not convinced me that Iran is building nuclear weapons to be deployed against you.

It also bears clarification that America is not looting Iraq of oil- the scheme is more complex than that. We still have to pay for the oil and provide services for the funds our companies take in.

It's not more complex than that, you're needlessly overcomplicating it. Iraq has oil, a powerful currency in a world where oil is in demand and few have it. Now US has it. Do you know what motivated Britain to invade India? Spices.

In truth, the greatest victims of this war are the American people, and the Iraqis come in a close second.

Really? I did not know Americans were being killed in their hundreds of thousands and being "lit up" every day by the state. Please do tell me more about hat bloodshed you have to see everyday.

How are you a victim? You just said you talk about war, because that way, you do not have to kill anyone or be hurt/killed. You are living a life of luxury compared to the Iraqis, and yet you see yourself as a victim before them.

Before you bring up the violence, please note that the only people being hurt MORE often now than before the war with Iraq are US troops. Iraqis haven't been raped or had holes drilled in them for months now- unless of course they were in contact with Lindie England (that was the lady's name right?).

I am losing hope for you now.

By the lesser of two evils standard which must be used in this world which is devoid of perfect alternatives, the United States is not the greatest threat to stability at all. We didn't upset stablity in Afghanistan- we improved it. Unless of course you find something stable about the prospect of being tortured for the crime of a man shaving or a woman being seen in public without her husband.

Which other country in the world in the last century has been involved in non stop war with everyone and has so many enemies? Do you have any idea why so many countries hate America?

America is the single most active nation in preventing the outbreak of hostilities against South Korea. If you'd like to suggest that we are hindering reunification i would agree- we are definately keeping a communist cult of personality and failed state from forcing a successful democracy to abandon everything which it enjoys today and be forcibly reunited under the rule of the failed state.

That is interesting. America seeds the conflicts, fuels the divides, then watches the conflicts play out and escalate and then intervenes as hero? And there are actually people who beleive it!

Do you know why America is "defending" Taiwan? It's because it keeps China at bay. Do you know why it is weaponizing Pakistan? It's because it keeps India at bay. It's called power politics and involves strategically immobilizing a region by double playing the regional powers so that they cannot expand their influence. It's all motivated by selfish interests.

America is most definitely a stabalizing force, but only because all of the majors powers are entangled in it's influence and global hegemony. However, America itself is destabalizing the world by it's out of control neo-imperialism

In many ways America's interest in world affairs, although self serving, has served as a stabilizing force because America unlike some other powers is not driven by religious or racial hatred. Additionally, many of these nations have nothing for America to exploit other than a market place. The worst thing we do to anybody is force them to buy crap they dont particularly want- sort of like the Girl Scouts. We're a long way from perfect, but we're hardly a ravaging horde sweeping across the face of the Earth bringing death and misery to the happy utopias of the 3rd world.

America is driven by something many times worse and destructive - greed.
Further, it is actually worse than ravaging hordes. At least we can see the ravaging hordes. In your country, everyone lives in a matrix, under a false belief of freedom, while your own leaders plan your own murder. What is worse living in Nazi Germany or in Afghanistan?

Iran doesn't need 10% of what America has, they only need 2 or 3. There are abundant examples of how quickly this can be accomplished. Pakistan did it from scratch even. If it took decades for these programs to succeed then every nuclear power in the world including North Korea began their work in the 1950s and 1960s? The American program was done in under 20 years and that was the first one ever. The Russians duplicated it practically no time at all because they didn't have to discover it themselves. I believe that you have attempted to understate the danger to support your position, or at the very least that you are not aware of how quickly a nuclear program can develop with the proper support, as demonstrated historically.

No, actually Pakistan had a lot of support by China. According to some sources Iran could have some nuclear weapons in two years. As it would be essentially building them from scratch, they will be very low-yield weapons. From 0.5-5kt, which they would have to test. Now, that would be an insignificant nuclear threat even if Iran had the ability to deliver the load to US. However, suppose Iran did defy all odds and delivered the weapon. If at this moment the missile was not intercepted by ABM systems. The damage it would cause would be minimal. The US retaliation would be so punitive it would completely annihilate Iran.

While the Iranian government may not the most mature or enlightened government in the world, they are not a horde of suicide bombers as you are depicting them as. They are a sovereign nation that want to exist in this world as much as you do. They know fully well an unprovoked nuclear attack on US is suicide.

I think you are forgetting that Iran already has a capable chemical and biological weapons arsenal for a long time. If Iran had the ability and intention to deliver them. Why hasn't it? You cannot punish someone for a crime they haven't committed. Yours fears are irrational, and they are only irrational, because from where you derive these fears is propoganda. We have seen this already from your blind faith in the MEMRI article.

The reason my point is not hypocritical is because I do not suggest that America's possession of nuclear weapons is a good thing. I explicitly state that I do not wish to halt the spread of nuclear weapons in order to secure the dominance of already armed nations, but to pave the way for a reversal of the dangerous proliferation which has brought this planet to the edge of oblivion in the past.
I believe that stopping the spread of these weapons is a necessary first step to halting production in armed nations and ultimately allowing the nuclear age to expire. If I did not wish for the half of nuclear development to lead to the disarming of America's stockpile as well, I would in fact be a hypocrite.

This planet would only suffer nuclear oblivion if US, England, France, China, Russia and Israel went to nuclear war between each other. Irans contribution would be negligible. So please get that clear.

1 region divided by 3 different relgious groups with nuclear weapons and histories of religiously motivated war with eachother, plus a radical theocracy in one of those nations equals nuclear war.

And I reiterate that although oil motivated the Iraqi war it was a little more complex than a simple oilgrab. America can't just run into Iran and pocket the oil, so how much they have is not truly relevant, especially when the US economy can not readily be looted for much more than it already has been in Iraq.
Bush put the money ahead of the legitimate priorities for America- go figure.

And I reiterate, don't overcomplicate it. Iran is the 2nd biggest supplier of oil in the world. As you've said Iraq was fought for oil, then it should make sense to you, that Iran is going to fought for oil too.

We have allies and interests in the region which we could not defend with the presence of those weapons. Furthermore the development of nuclear weapons has always been followed by further attempts to develop a means of delivery (ICBMs, Submarines, etc).

Then it's your allies problem; not yours. Iran does not even have space launch capability, so nevermind ICBMs anytime in the foreseeable future.

It's only schizophrenia if I have more than one personality. *breaks into song* "schizophrenia: how many of ya got it? How many mutha******s can say they psy-chotic?" Sorry, i couldn't help myselves.

Actually, considering all those contradictions in your ideas, multiple personality disorder could be a possibility( ) However, schizophrenia is not MPD, schizophrenia is a psychotic mental disease that severely distorts reality and disables the ability to reason due to either halluncinations or delusions of grandeur or persecution. A schizophrenic common characteristics is a paranoia of people plotting against them. Much like your position on Iran.

First of all you really need to do something about hose Indians it sounds like

.

I am not sure if I should take you seriously. I think at least some part of you believes that.

More imporantly, this problem is not about job competition, it's about innocent people being vaporized and others starving to death because of the economic and environmental affects of a nuclear war, and its not going to wait until 2075- it could easily be real in 2025. (Even if it were to wait until 2075, would it somehow be OK just becaue you wouldn't be around to suffer?)

You are going to see a nuclear war within the next five years if you do not tame the out of control America.

All the more reason to get on this problem now while A. Peaceful sollutions are possible. B. there is a chance of taking LIMITED military action (bombing reactors etc) which would not justify the risk of nuclear war in Chinese/Russian retaliations. What did France do to Israel when they took out the oshirak (spelling?) facility? Nothing.

US is not talking about a limited war against Iran. They are talking about an invasion. Further, this would be the third consecutive invasion. Hitler did that, and it resulted in a worldwide war. What do you think will happen this time?

If US is the stabalizing force in the world, what would happen with a destabalized US? What kind of effect would US's neo-imperialist doctrine have? Do you want to find out? For a proponent of pre-emptive policies, it amuses me, that you cannot ancitipate what would happen if US invaded Iran.

[edit on 25-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Just to add a bit of brevity to the subject.....


You know how they just came out with the JFK Reloaded video game where YOU are Lee Harvey Oswald trying to kill Kennedy from the depository......would that be insane for a company to create a game that was about the United States attacking Iran...before it actually happened???? It would be like one of those games you play online with other people like Castle Wolfenstein.

[edit on 25-12-2004 by BANGINCOLOR]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I am just stating a truth. If you had emotional maturity, you would not be playing and tossing about ideas that involves the loss of innumerable lives.

I'm still waiting for something concrete. You're entitled to your opinion, but how do you justify trying to make it a standard of judgement that can apply to me?
In objective terms, your statement was not truth at all. Maturity is not an objective measurement. What is the unit of measure for that? What is the cutoff score? Which countries recognize that system and which have their own? Is it metric in Britain?
To the ancient Spartans, a mature person would probably be one who could embrace and excell in warfare. Did that make a "mature" Spartan right?
The closest thing to an objective measurement which comes into play is the measurement of how much harm I have done to people. I have done no harm, and by the most objective measure available on this subject I have done nothing wrong. If you would define a mature person as one with the good sense to do what is right because it is right and not to do what is wrong, then by that subjective standard which many would find reasonable, I have been mature.
In short, your statement boils down to "My subjective opinion is that you should not talk about people dying". Its a prefectly fine statement to make- it just has no bearing on me.

So to choose an evil, you fabricate an evil greater than it, to make the original evil seem lesser. Have you heard the saying "two wrongs do not make a right"

The situation addressed by that saying is not similiar to the situation we are discussion. The saying says that the comission of one evil does not justify the comission of a second. My opinion is that the prevention of a great evil can justify the comission of a minor one. These two statements do not contradict eachother because they deal with different situations. If we read into the saying you brought up, it suggests that the total amount of wrong being done should be minimized. This is exactly the point I have been backing. Your statement can be said to support my position when thought through to its logical conclusion.

Your accussation that I have fabricated a greater evil to justify war is incorrect as well. First and foremost, I have presented quotes from Iranian officials which support the belief that the greater evil exists. Additionally I have clearly expressed my belief in war as a means, not an end. If what I would call the ends of the war becomes only the means to getting the war, then what would the end of the war be? Unless I have said anything that suggests that I see war as an end unto itself then your statement is baseless. In words which you have used previously, it could be said that your unfounded fear that I would conspire to support a war just for the sake of war is a sign of paranoid schizophrenia.

Your own intellectual misgivings of killing innocent people are irrelavant. I cannot verify that.

My dad always said that what's fair is what's the same for everyone. If my point of view is unverifiable and irrelevant but the implications of my point of view are relevant, then the same would go for you. By that standard your opposition to war is unverifiable and irrelevant and all that remains is that you do not support war on Iran. I could then suggest that you may be a terrorist sympathizer. The standard you have applied to my arguement has proven unreliable when applied to yours; it is a fallacy, useful only as a dirty trick for redefining the opponent's case and creating weaknesses which are not inherent to the opponent's logic.

What I can verify is what you express in words or action. And you are expressing encouragemant for war, and nor are you oblivious to the realities that war entails the loss of innocent lives.

You are stating your opinion of my case, not my case. Your emotional attatchment to the implication of lost lives has overshadowed the primary concern of my case- that those lives are being lost to prevent greater losses, or that if that is not the case then war is not justified and the lives should not be lost at all. Long story short, you are twisting my meaning by focusing on a very small part of my statement.
I support war when it is the least horrible of strategic options. I also support the amputation of limbs when it is the least horrible of medical options. If you intend to say that I support senseless killing then you must also be prepared to say that I support senseless dismemberment. Of course you can not make that case because it is likely that you too support amputation, and if the two positions were equivalent then your lack of support for war would be a contradiction. I defy you to answer this in a logical way- I have you.

Now, I ask you, what do you stand to lose if you do not go to war?

In a vacuum, nothing. I have friends who would be spared great danger. I too at one time would have been in harms way in the event of war. I have no reason to support war. I have been painstakingly clear that I do not support war in and of itself. I support it only when it is the most humane alternative on the table. War between America and Iran is better than nuclear war between Israel and Iran for example, but IF possible it is better than both of those if we grant Iran redundant assurance of security through treaties, missile defense systems, and an international liason at NORAD. I would support the most human option available, but including war if that were it.
It bears mentioning that I discuss such things as that as much as I discuss war. Politics, diplomacy and the various facets of providing for national security all interest me. Strategic thought is not exclusively brutal and militant by nature- it just sometimes carries that aspect along with others.

No, actually you have and still are endorsing physical war against Iran. It is no longer a game.

I have answered this point and will not again until you present some sort of logical support for your arguement. I am not here to say "did not" "did so" with people who are not making an honest attempt to convince me of anything. As I have said before- I am still waiting for something concrete.

No, war is not wrong. It can be very necessary at times. However, it should only be exercised after all other options have been exhausted. As a last resort. You are far from convincing me that this war against Iran is necessary. On the contrary, you are closer to convincing me of the opposite.

Its too soon to know one way or another. There are other options to be attempted with Iran. There are always other options. Even just asking nicely, as stupid as that might sound to some politicians, is an option to be persued first. That being said, war could become necessary if Iran insisted on being hostile.

So I put forth the question again: Why do you feel it is necessary to go and invade Iran, knowing that hundreds of thousands will perish, and it will perturb or infuriate people all over the world and further fuel the hatred of people for your country.

That's a ridiculous question for you to ask. You are asking me why I believe something that I do not believe. You might as well ask me why I married Michael Jordan.
Discussing the prospects for war and peace and how they might play out has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting the war. I'm a huge Oakland Raiders fan. Once I suggested to a friend that they would do so badly that they would be kicked out of the National Football League. Did I want my favorite football team to get kicked out of the league just because I discussed it?

You fear nuclear war? Yet have no idea that the actions of your country could be the cause of global nuclear war. Now, would that not be extremely foolish?

You are either being naive or simply setting aside obvious concerns for the purpose of making this arguement hard on me. To sit still while a radical muslim theocracy gains nuclear weapons within range of Israel could just as easily trigger a nuclear war. It is highly likely that a small and proportional action could prevent this war.
Consider the function of deterrence for a moment. Don't you think it would be worth it to China and Russia to let Iran fall and punish America in a non-nuclear way? The Russians were up to their elbows in Vietnam but they didn't nuke us for that did they? This is not a new game. Super-powers run all over the world setting fires in eachother's back yard all the time. They fight like hell to put it out, and if all else fails they bargain with eachother. Neither one is gonna push it over the edge if they can help it because its not good for either side. That's why you have to act early, before people get comfortable. Remember the Cuban missile crisis and the Russian demand for us to remove missiles from Turkey? That was very hard for them to accomplish because the missiles had already been in place and we were used to it. If they had pulled some sort of stunt early on and forced us to bargain around ever putting them into Turkey it would have been a hell of a lot easier and they wouldn't have been playing nuclear-chicken with us over it.

It is thoughts that become action. You are actually supporting a war against Iran, and it is your thoughts that translate into action. Reality is nothing more than a reflection of your own mind. You create reality from moment to moment with your thought and then manifest it with action.

Well why don't I just slap a cooking pot on my head and sling my shotgun over one shoulder and march off to Iran to bag me a terrorist. I'll have my own little war on Iran. I'm not a Tibetan monk- I can't manifest a chocolate chip cookie, much less a war.
Even if we were going to assume that it was possible to manifest whatever we talked about, I've talked about persuing the least horrible option. The war consideration follows on the heels of that, because if war is the least horrible option it should be fought well and ended quickly.

There is active action and passive action. In this instance, an active action would be joining the forces to invade Iran. A passive action would be giving your approval for the invasion of Iran, like a vote for your presidential candidate, and just like every vote counts, every thought counts as well.

Not true. A million thoughts go unacted upon every day and they dont do anything to anybody. The other night I suddenly had the impulse as I lay down to get back up and go buy beer, but I didn't. My BAC didn't rise, I didn't gain weight, and the liquor store didn't get any money. There was no affect.
Speaking has an effect of course. It tries to get people to think the way you do. For example when I sit here saying that war isn't a good thing and that we should avoid it if possible but should not totally rule it out because there are dangers associated with being too passive as well, the affect I am having on the world is to promote that we should do whatever is least harmful in total.

Hence, why I said, you're either lying or very confused, because in the end while you shy away from the killing of innocent people and talk about how war is ugly, nonetheless you act FOR it.

You have still not met my challenge to produce a quote from me where I have said we should go to war with iran just because we could. You continue to assert that I am pro war when i have made it abundantly clear that I will back the least harmful sollution whatever it may be. Anything from asking nicely to launching a fullscale nuclear attack on somebody- whatever is the most likely course for saving lives is what I support. You have completely disregarded this because I entertain the possibility that war -might- be necessary. You also seem to be attributing other peoples opinions to me, because I have never said anything approaching many of the points which you have accussed me of advancing.

So again, are you lying, or are you just confused? Or is it the third reason? Is it blind faith?

So you still want to know WHY I did something that I didn't do?

Bless you. Now tell me, where were you during the time your own government were weaponizing Saddam Hussain and ignored his gas attacks on Kuwait?

All of that sounds like your generations' failure, not mine. I had other things to worry about during the Iraq-Iran War. I did nothing for the first 3 years. I spent the 83 and 84 sleeping and pooping. I spent 85 and 86 learning to walk talk and function. I spent 87/88 in kindergarten. If the grownups failed to vote out Reagan and kick Saddam's butt back then I can't be blamed.

What are you doing now where your own government is involved in the systematic torture of the Iraqi people and the genocide of Iraqis today?

You may as well ask me what I'm going to do with the arm that is growing out of my arse. We -aren't- conducting a genocide in Iraq and I suggest that you check your dictionary if you have any doubt about that.
As for systematic torture, are you referring to the chemical weapons we used on the Kurds, or all the women we raped, or the use of power tools for interrogations of people who were rounded up by police who get paid according to how many arrests they make? Oh dang, there I go getting us and Saddam mixed up again. Our brand of "torture" for "inocent iraqis" begins with taking them alive after a firefight, then we put them in a prison where unfortunately they are subject to the same prison conditions that many American inmates deal with such as sexual abuse and violence, then we release the vast majority of them. And you know, if the CIA took somebody to a secret prison in Cuba and strapped his nuts to a car battery, thats really freakin horrible, but at least you can't say that we're doing it for no friggin reason. Where do you think we're getting these people from- Disneyland? They are armed terrorists who were captured in combat. Of course they have rights as humans, of course they shouldn't be tortured, but you can't make the case that they are innocent or that we are torturing them for no reason. What am I supposed to do, rebel against my government for being too hard on violent criminals. There's a significant difference between this and most moral causes.

What about the Israelis and Chinese who also using mass torture against human people? Do you have any plans for them?

Unfortunately, as you have pointed out, we can't just start a war with China. It boils down to what course of action does the most good. I believe all we can do with China is impose heavy economic penalties (they definately dont deserve most favored nation status while they are torturing people).
As for Israel, I'm all for pulling their economy out from under them or covertly backing regime change if they dont come around. If they didn't have nukes I'd be game for open war if need be, but again- least total damage.
It's a difficult standard but its one that should be rigidly enforced by nations as influential as the US and UK. Human rights abuse is unacceptable and should be punished and dealt with in any way necessary.

Finally, who died and made you global police man? The Iraqi people do not want you, nor do the Iranians, so what are you doing? Tyranny?

I'll tell you if you promise not to get mad.... it was the British Empire.
The Iranian people don't have to want us there. If they dont want us there I suggest they tone down the hostile talk and think start looking for peaceful sollutions with America. You have to remember that I'm not actually in charge of America- I just should be. This current administration is going to kick the snot out of Iran if they dont get righteous in a hurry, and thats only half wrong (because the administration should be seeking alternatives).
As for the Iraqis 1. They dont want us to stay, but they did want somebody to get rid of Saddam. 2. There were reasons beyond the concerns of the Iraqi people. If they had been able to keep their local tinpot maniac from destabilizing the region we wouldn't have had to come put their house in order for them.

However, don't you think your own problems should take precedence over the worlds problem? What about the oppression of the American people by the state?

Good point. We should really stay home and build a utopia and just let the third world arm itself to the teeth with nukes and anything else they want. If you think the state is oppressing the American people just wait till you see what sort of demands a nuclear-armed terrorist would make. Besides, I haven't been oppressed by a coke user named Bush since last April, and it wasn't the president- just some poor dumb marine with a chickenhawk mouth and sparrow arse.

So you feel you are compelled to commit wrong because your friends have as well? Classic. So, if your friends jumped off a cliff in line, would you too?

Don't be stupid. This item is contingent on the first. If my friends are in danger because they are doing something which I believe is right, I ought to be willing to share that danger with my friends for the twofold reason of supporting my friends and supporting what I believe is right.

Heresay or documented fact? I need to know this before I address this any further.

cns.miis.edu...
This first link shows that Iran in fact is in possession of the Sunburn, however it does not specify nuclear warheads or Russian control I hopefully be able to provide additional information at some point when it is not 3 AM, as it currently is.

Again, heresay or documented fact? Further, how does that address my point that Iran does not have a credible nuclear deterrent against US?

I'll dig up the quote for you when it isn't 3AM. That one was firmly documented. The quote I provided further in that post answered why Iran's program can not be trusted to remain strictly deterrent.

First and foremost, there is no Iraqi government. Iraq is now illegally occupied by US. Please get that clear.

You are relying on semantics as a defense against a greater point. Iran is disturbing the peace and security of the people of Iraq. They are creating violence in Iraq. They are backing insurgents who are executing aid workers. What is so hard to understand about that?

Second, US was actively involved in the weaponization of Pakistan, Taliban, Iraq and among other nations. So, if you are going to claim that Iran is some kind of evil nation on the grounds of it's support for Taliban and Iraq, then you will also concede that US is an evil nation for the same reasons. So as they say; charity begins at home.

You have several times demanded evidence for claims I have made yet you provide none for the claims that you make. Although I have not researched the Pakistani nuclear program in depth my understanding was that it was developed from the black market- entirely from scratch.
Additionally you attempting to make supporting evidence an arguement in and of itself. I am not saying that Iran is the root of evil and deserves to be invaded just because they backe the Taliban and other such regimes. I'm saying that their support of the Taliban shows that they have aspirations to control outside of their own borders. Yes this correlates to American actions- not the point right now. The point is that Iran's actions show hostility.

Note, I said credible source, not the nexus of Middle East Propoganda from which this story has originated:

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.

Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization. MEMRI's headquarters is located in Washington, DC with branch offices in Berlin, London, and Jerusalem, where MEMRI also maintains its Media Center. MEMRI research is translated to English, German, Hebrew, Italian, French, Spanish, Turkish, and Russian.

It disturbs me how you could be so hopelessly gullible. Come on, don't let them insult your intelligence like that. Yet, for the sake of argument, let's suppose it was true. It would show that one man in Iran wants to destroy western civilization. How is that representative of Iranian foreign policy?

You have said nothing what so ever to challenge the credibility of the quote. Your quote from their site seems to be entirely irrelevant. You have presented a hollow quote and called me gullible. You have proven so far to be incredibly weak and immature in debate and if this persists the discussion will not. So, if its not too much trouble for you, say something of substance and find something other than petty insults to come at me with. This is just getting disgusting.

Further, again forgive me to state the obvious, but how would Iran do that? I think we've already established it has no nuclear or ICBM capability.

I have already answered this point. You have completely disregarded my answers regarding Iran's proximity to US allies and strategic interests. You have also disregarded my statement that they could equip submarines with these weapons in order to deliver them. You ignored my statement that obtaining nuclear weapons has always been followed by a development of more advanced delivery systems. The link below contains information on Iranian missile programs by the way. Last but not least, you have ignored the obvious answer that a weapon can be smuggled into a target area.
www.nti.org...

No, it is not an idle threat. It is an actual threat, that I have no doubt will be carried out. But you missed something glaringly obvious:

In a speech to the residents of the city of Hamedan on July 5, 2004, Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei said: " We, the Iranian people, within the borders of our country, will cut off any hand that harms our scientific, natural, human, or technological interests. We will cut off the hand that is sent to invade and work against our people's interests. We will do this with no hesitation�. If the enemy has the audacity to harm and invade, our blows against it will not be limited to the borders of our country� If someone harms our people and invades [our country], we will endanger his interests anywhere in the world."

The Iranian leader is not threatening the people of America, but exercising it's solemn right to defend itself against any invading forces. The real threats are actually being made by US without provocation by Iran. What do you have to say for this?

Simple- you've mixed and matched statements and completely failed to give a meaningful answer to their threat to launch attacks aimed at destroying western civilization. You can decieve yourself all you want- you're one of only a few people I know who doesn't understand that an arms race between Israel and Iran is destabilizing to the region and to the world as a whole. You are one of the only people I know who does not understand that Iran has a hostile agenda. I'm not going to argue with the wall here, if you have decided that America is evil and that no other nation has any hostile intent then I will leave you to enjoy whatever dillusion makes you happy.
Of course when its all over it really doesn't matter what you and I conclude because war isn't about who is right- it's about who will be left. The growing conservative tendency of the American electorate seems hell-bent on being the one that's left, whatever the cost. That is probably going to include punking a lot of small nations and repeatedly telling people who believe as you do where they can go and what they can do when they get there. Don't blame me- I'm not the president yet.

Source please?

I'll tell you what- you start providing sources, you start backing up your statements, and you start arguing along logical rather than emotional lines, and do it without resorting to childish insults. If you can meet those very basic requirements I'll do some more research and we'll continue with a reasoned debate. Otherwise I feel that I have no business stooping to your level.

I thought you were joking above, but you are actually being serious. Are you prepared to truly question yourself of the possibility of being brainwashed with propoganda? As soon as you identify it, it will lose it's power.

Liberal handbook, page 3, paragraph 2: If you can't actually attack the credibility of a statement you should generically label it as propaganda and refuse to make any sort of concrete logical statement or arguement on which you might be directly engaged and defeated.
You should be sure you get next year's copy as soon as possible. I'm pretty sure that paragraph will disappear considering how badly it worked in the Kerry campaign.

You just admitted it in the previous posting that this war is not for WMD or liberation, it is for oil. Now you are talking about WMDs again. Are you coming or going?

Again you are twisting my meaning and you know it. This is why you have failed to include a quote in your post. If you're noticing a marked deterioration in my attitude as this post continues then I appreciate that you are at least paying attention. Your weak and dishonest debating tactics are making me sick.

As I said earlier, you appear to be confused.

More psuedo-condescending babble from a simple mind.
I've had enough of your crap. You are ignored.

Vagabond

You argued well, and made good points, many of them. I'm not going to go into a cut and paste frenzy to prove it, but they were there. What I want to say to you regarding Iran is this - They destabilize the region, granted, but name one state in the region that doesn't destabilize the region. The whole damn middle east crawls with dogmatic, blowhard, religious zealots. Smarter men than myself, all throughout history, have advocated staying the hell out of the area. It's a clash of religion on the magnitude of tectonic plates colliding, and American interests would best be served by avoiding the situation entirely. If Israel were to suddenly disappear, or Iran or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Syria, due to the beligerence of their neighbors, I would rather our soldiers not be in the affected area. Better to serve as clean up crew than range marker, no?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
If Israel were to suddenly disappear, or Iran or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Syria, due to the beligerence of their neighbors, I would rather our soldiers not be in the affected area. Better to serve as clean up crew than range marker, no?

A point well taken.
As I have said previously I have a love-hate relationship with my values. My views are a very unstable balance between ruthless, objective material assessment of situations and very strong convictions about what is right and wrong. I often see strong advantages on two mutually exclusive courses of action for this reason.
On the ruthless side I say that the only way to be involved in the middle east is to conquer those people and over time destroy their identity and the tensions in that region. Short of that, my ruthless side says just stay out and let them kill eachother. So by that standard I certainly agree with you.
Unfortunately I must debate with myself over the moral implications of our action in the middle east. Sooner or later somebody is going to have to make that a civilized and safe place to live and eliminate the violence hatred, dogma, extremism etc which dominates the region. Even if I were to back that point of view there are serious moral delimas in how to do it. Limited knowledge of what will work and such will make it difficult to know if the end justifies the means. Even peacemaking in that region would necessarily be brutal- but how much brutality is necessary to accomplish good things and what is the most humane way?

It's just not a simple issue. At this point for most people apathy can become the overwhelming emotion and leaving them alone because the obvious choice. This is disguised in a great many ways. Some people like to fall back on the relativist arguement- who are we to assert any judgement, standards, goals, etc for anyone else? That makes a very convenient excuse to completely ignore existing problems.
Others take the nationalist route- "screw them, its not our job and its not our problem. Let them sleep in the bed they made".
Then of course some are completely psychotic. I am always shocked how many people legitimately believe that we should just nuke anyone in the middle east who steps out of line.

Ultimately the answer is can not be absolutely known to a mortal. My personal opinion is that it's best to do -something- even if you aren't completely right. Nobody is completely righteous, but I don't believe that is morally OR materially sound to stand idle in the face of the situation in the middle east.
If I were pressed for the best sollution I could imagine without taking great pains to research and consider, I would say that we ought to pick a successful state over there as a base and support them economically, diplomatically, militarily etc and gradually help them to expand their influence by any means necessary. The Ba'athists were natural allies to the super powers, but the cold war really ruined the future of the middle east. A pan-arab state, even a socialist one, would be very good for stability, especially as economic success created incentives for peace. This would likely include both covert subversion of certain states and military standoffs with others in order to reach the desired end, but short of a major war on the order of Korea or greater I believe it would be worth while.

At any rate, I think this topic has run its course for me. It's a complex and controversial issue which tends to produce frustrating exchanges and failures to communicate. I hate the ignore button- it takes a hell of a topic and a hell of an ugly exchange to have me resort to that thing.

More psuedo-condescending babble from a simple mind.
I've had enough of your crap. You are ignored.

Round 4, and knocked out already. I am still going to address your points, but first I want to surmise your position on Iran in this debate.

You have not produced any evidence or convincing arguments that Iran is a threat to you.

You have not produced any evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons or is building them.

Yet as you still are inferring war against Iran. As your reasons for this solicitation of war are not founded in an honest, rational and objective assessment of the real situation, therefore it holds true that my original allegations are true, that they are based on irrational fears bred by state propoganda. You have also called yourself a "victim" in this war before the "Iraqis" even though you're not even involved in the war, further showing how deluded you are on this. In laymen terms: You're brainwashed.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

In short, your statement boils down to "My subjective opinion is that you should not talk about people dying". Its a prefectly fine statement to make- it just has no bearing on me.

I said "emotional maturity" there is nothing subjective about that. It's what separates the men from the boys and the women from the girls.

So to choose an evil, you fabricate an evil greater than it, to make the original evil seem lesser. Have you heard the saying "two wrongs do not make a right"

Your accussation that I have fabricated a greater evil to justify war is incorrect as well. First and foremost, I have presented quotes from Iranian officials which support the belief that the greater evil exists.

What you have presented is an opinion of someone in the National Guard in Iran(not the represenative government) Even that originates from a very questionable source. If this is your standards of evidence, no wonder you are running away from this debate.

Your own intellectual misgivings of killing innocent people are irrelavant. I cannot verify that.

If my point of view is unverifiable and irrelevant but the implications of my point of view are relevant, then the same would go for you.

Your point of view changes from paragraph to paragraph. If there was award for the most contradictions per post. You would probably win it. How can you expect me to take the opinions of someone who seems to lack intellectual and moral integrity seriously?

If you intend to say that I support senseless killing then you must also be prepared to say that I support senseless dismemberment. Of course you can not make that case because it is likely that you too support amputation, and if the two positions were equivalent then your lack of support for war would be a contradiction. I defy you to answer this in a logical way- I have you.

Isn't it very conveniant for people like you to support war and then later call the civilian losses collateral damage and feel sorry for them. The irony is you actually knew this will happen all along.

So therefore you must have a lot to lose if you do not go to war. Right?......

Now, I ask you, what do you stand to lose if you do not go to war?

In a vacuum, nothing.

.....Wrong.

I support it only when it is the most humane alternative on the table. War between America and Iran is better than nuclear war between Israel and Iran for example

A nuclear war between Israel and Iran does not impact the homeland of America. So there is still nothing much to lose. Further, Iran does not have a credible nuclear detterent against Israel either(it does not even have nuclear weapons )

If there is anyone in the region that poses a great risk of nuclear war; it's Israel. So perhaps we should be arguing a US pre-emptive strike on Israel, eh?

but IF possible it is better than both of those if we grant Iran redundant assurance of security through treaties, missile defense systems, and an international liason at NORAD. I would support the most human option available, but including war if that were it.

Missile defence is still not a proven credible defence against nuclear missiles.

I am not here to say "did not" "did so" with people who are not making an honest attempt to convince me of anything. As I have said before- I am still waiting for something concrete.

Ok, now this is just ridiculous. You are arguing FOR the proposition that we should go to war with Iran. I am arguing AGAINST. That is what we've been doing all this time

No, war is not wrong. It can be very necessary at times. However, it should only be exercised after all other options have been exhausted. As a last resort. You are far from convincing me that this war against Iran is necessary. On the contrary, you are closer to convincing me of the opposite.

Its too soon to know one way or another. There are other options to be attempted with Iran. There are always other options. Even just asking nicely, as stupid as that might sound to some politicians, is an option to be persued first. That being said, war could become necessary if Iran insisted on being hostile.

Which other options? All I'm hearing is the neo-cons hawking on about war with Iran. A proposition that you are supporting.

That's a ridiculous question for you to ask. You are asking me why I believe something that I do not believe. You might as well ask me why I married Michael Jordan.

So why did you marry Michael Jordan? Actually the question is very pertinent. It's actually the same question as "What do you stand to lose by not going to war" except I have mentioned the stakes this time.

Did I want my favorite football team to get kicked out of the league just because I discussed it?

Ad-nauseum:

To give you the short answer to your main point though, it's simple. We dont want anybody to die, but we're not going to sit around thinking happy thoughts while some overzealous religious hatemonger is building nuclear weapons to point at us. I'll admit I had my misgivings over Iraq- there were other options, but one way or another Iran is a probelm we must solve. If there is some creative away around vaporizing them I'd be happy to try it, but this only ends one way- with religious zealots not aiming nuclear weapons at us.

If you want to live in a country where everyone sits around repeating slogans about brotherhood while an enemy prepares to castrate them, I suggest you try India- preferably 40 to 50 years ago if you can get your hands on Titor's Time Machine (i hear its on E-bay). Bhai this, Bhai that- it saved plenty of lives in their war with China.

You are either being naive or simply setting aside obvious concerns for the purpose of making this arguement hard on me. To sit still while a radical muslim theocracy gains nuclear weapons within range of Israel could just as easily trigger a nuclear war. It is highly likely that a small and proportional action could prevent this war.

A limited nuclear war between Israel and Iran is insignificant compared to a global nuclear war between Russia, China and US.

Consider the function of deterrence for a moment. Don't you think it would be worth it to China and Russia to let Iran fall and punish America in a non-nuclear way?

How do you suppose they do that? Put sanctions on US

Iran is no vietnam, it has the 2nd largest oil supplies in the world and is the most powerful non-aligned country in the region. It upsets the power dynamics for Iran to fall. Nor will US's neo-imperialism go unnoticed. Russia has already slammed US diplomatically. As I said, if you put your hand into a hornets nest, not only do you risk getting stung, but also killed.

And I do not buy your crap(that you in turn got from US propoganda) that Iran is a nation of barbarians.

Not true. A million thoughts go unacted upon every day and they dont do anything to anybody. The other night I suddenly had the impulse as I lay down to get back up and go buy beer, but I didn't. My BAC didn't rise, I didn't gain weight, and the liquor store didn't get any money. There was no affect.

I said thoughts that become action. When a thought is acted upon it manifests as action.

Speaking has an effect of course. It tries to get people to think the way you do. For example when I sit here saying that war isn't a good thing and that we should avoid it if possible but should not totally rule it out because there are dangers associated with being too passive as well, the affect I am having on the world is to promote that we should do whatever is least harmful in total.

Exactly my point. So every expressed thought counts. If you actually were not arguing for the war, rather arguing against it, you would have an effect on everyone you speak too. It creates a snowball effect. So if you are really against this administration you call rogue, if you spoke against it and it's policies, you would be weakening the support for it.

This is why I am trying to convince you how irrational your fears are and how you have been duped with propoganda to support state policies. Deny propoganda.

All of that sounds like your generations' failure, not mine. I had other things to worry about during the Iraq-Iran War. I did nothing for the first 3 years. I spent the 83 and 84 sleeping and pooping. I spent 85 and 86 learning to walk talk and function. I spent 87/88 in kindergarten. If the grownups failed to vote out Reagan and kick Saddam's butt back then I can't be blamed.

So is this the conveniance you call upon again, because you were child then, so that you should forget what happend? As I've shown you, the policies have remained the same for decades.

You may as well ask me what I'm going to do with the arm that is growing out of my arse. We -aren't- conducting a genocide in Iraq and I suggest that you check your dictionary if you have any doubt about that.

Actually, you are commiting genocide in Iraq and there is a lot of evidence and facts to prove that. You are treating those innocent Iraqis like prisoners in their own country and have killed hundreds of thousands of them. In addition you have conducted systematic torture of the Iraqis.

What about the Israelis and Chinese who also using mass torture against human people? Do you have any plans for them?

Unfortunately, as you have pointed out, we can't just start a war with

China. It boils down to what course of action does the most good. I believe all we can do with China is impose heavy economic penalties (they definately dont deserve most favored nation status while they are torturing people).

Well they don't deserve it, but your state thinks they do. Again, why are you supporting such a states policies. In the end it all comes down to you. You talk about noble intentions and policing the world, but you don't do anything about your own state. That just makes you sound like a complete hypocrit.

As for Israel, I'm all for pulling their economy out from under them or covertly backing regime change if they dont come around. If they didn't have nukes I'd be game for open war if need be, but again- least total damage.

Israel only has nuclear weapons because of US in the first place. US did absolutely nothing to stop Israel's nuclear program. In addition US weaponized Israel, giving it millitary aid worth $90+ billion over the last 50 years. Israel receives $3 billion per year in military aid. It's entire airforce is comprised of F-16's built in US. US also supports it politically.

Again, the path leads to your own country again. You concede China and Israel have abysmal human rights records. Yet your government has no problem with it.

The Iranian people don't have to want us there. If they dont want us there I suggest they tone down the hostile talk and think start looking for peaceful sollutions with America.

The only hostile talk I see is from the American side.

You have to remember that I'm not actually in charge of America- I just should be. This current administration is going to kick the snot out of Iran if they dont get righteous in a hurry, and thats only half wrong (because the administration should be seeking alternatives).

You are actually going to get a broken nose by Iran, and I sincerely hope Russia intervenes and breaks your arms and legs too. Someone is going to stand up to America and it's NWO. You won't last too long that's for sure.

As for the Iraqis 1. They dont want us to stay, but they did want somebody to get rid of Saddam. 2. There were reasons beyond the concerns of the Iraqi people. If they had been able to keep their local tinpot maniac from destabilizing the region we wouldn't have had to come put their house in order for them.

There is a saying "out of the frying pan and into the fire"

Good point. We should really stay home and build a utopia and just let the third world arm itself to the teeth with nukes and anything else they want. If you think the state is oppressing the American people just wait till you see what sort of demands a nuclear-armed terrorist would make. Besides, I haven't been oppressed by a coke user named Bush since last April, and it wasn't the president- just some poor dumb marine with a chickenhawk mouth and sparrow arse.

So you can arm yourself with nukes, lasers, chemical, biological and genetic weapons, even space based weapons. And the third world can't? Right, whatever.

Don't be stupid. This item is contingent on the first. If my friends are in danger because they are doing something which I believe is right, I ought to be willing to share that danger with my friends for the twofold reason of supporting my friends and supporting what I believe is right.

But you just said you don't actually believe the war in Iran was right. It was oil I have you recorded as saying. However, then you said, that because your friends were involved in it, you could not live with the guilt of staying home while they face the hardships of war. So the anaology I used is very appropriate.

Heresay or documented fact? I need to know this before I address this any further.

cns.miis.edu...
This first link shows that Iran in fact is in possession of the Sunburn, however it does not specify nuclear warheads or Russian control I hopefully be able to provide additional information at some point when it is not 3 AM, as it currently is.

Yet, please do provide additional information to substantiate this, because so far it sounds like a rumour. However, I hope for the sake of Iran, that it does have sunburns.

You are relying on semantics as a defense against a greater point. Iran is disturbing the peace and security of the people of Iraq. They are creating violence in Iraq. They are backing insurgents who are executing aid workers. What is so hard to understand about that?

The greater point is that Iraq security and peace has been disturbed already by US. Iraq does not legally belong to either US or Iran, but now that US has illegally occupied it. Iran is within it's right to "liberate" the Iraqi people.

You have several times demanded evidence for claims I have made yet you provide none for the claims that you make. Although I have not researched the Pakistani nuclear program in depth my understanding was that it was developed from the black market- entirely from scratch.

Well then research it. It is widely known among strategic and political analysts that Pakistan's nuclear program was helped covertly by China. In fact not only helped, but there was blatant proliferation of nuclear technology as well nuclear missiles.

Additionally you attempting to make supporting evidence an arguement in and of itself. I am not saying that Iran is the root of evil and deserves to be invaded just because they backe the Taliban and other such regimes. I'm saying that their support of the Taliban shows that they have aspirations to control outside of their own borders. Yes this correlates to American actions- not the point right now. The point is that Iran's actions show hostility.

America is also supporting many hostile nations. Does this show America's hostility?

You have said nothing what so ever to challenge the credibility of the quote. Your quote from their site seems to be entirely irrelevant. You have presented a hollow quote and called me gullible. You have proven so far to be incredibly weak and immature in debate and if this persists the discussion will not. So, if its not too much trouble for you, say something of substance and find something other than petty insults to come at me with. This is just getting disgusting.

Mate, I have been incredibly weak in this debate? Yet you are the one running away? I must say you have very fine debating skills, instead of addressing the points, you just rant or call on redundant philosophical concepts.

The fact of the matter here is; you are trying to pass of an article from an uncredible source as evidence. It speaks volumes for your standards of proof.

I have already answered this point. You have completely disregarded my answers regarding Iran's proximity to US allies and strategic interests.

What does that anything to do with homeland America? Nothing. If you are not at risk, what does it matter to you that some American bases get hit?

You have also disregarded my statement that they could equip submarines with these weapons in order to deliver them. You ignored my statement that obtaining nuclear weapons has always been followed by a development of more advanced delivery systems.

Iran does not have intercontinental naval power. There is only a limited amount of countries with true blue water and intercontinental capability.
That is why I ignored it.

The link below contains information on Iranian missile programs by the way. Last but not least, you have ignored the obvious answer that a weapon can be smuggled into a target area.
www.nti.org...

You are obviously very ignorant of the intracacies of developing ICBMs. There are only three countries in the world: US, China and Russia(and soon France) that have ICBM's with can carry a payload of a ton for 10,000km. India's missile capability is more advanced than Iran, it also has geostationary space launch capability, but it's most powerful IRBM has a maximum range of 3000km. Israel missile capability is also much more advanced than Iran and it also has space launch capability, but it's most powerful IRBM has a maximum range of 4000km.

So Iran is not going to get an ICBM anytime in the near future. Again, more paranoid delusions.

Simple- you've mixed and matched statements and completely failed to give a meaningful answer to their threat to launch attacks aimed at destroying western civilization.

Mixed and matched what? You were trying to pass this of as evidence that Iran is threatening the US. Where in fact this leader is responding to a threat by the US to invade Iran.

You can decieve yourself all you want- you're one of only a few people I know who doesn't understand that an arms race between Israel and Iran is destabilizing to the region and to the world as a whole.

The region is already destabilized and risks collapse with US's invasion of Iran. Israel is the only nuclear power in the region and due to weaponization by US is the most powerful country. In fact Iran getting nuclear weapons will stabalize the region as it deters Israeli aggression and secures the non aligned arabs.

You are one of the only people I know who does not understand that Iran has a hostile agenda. I'm not going to argue with the wall here, if you have decided that America is evil and that no other nation has any hostile intent then I will leave you to enjoy whatever dillusion makes you happy.

And you are one of those people that blindly supports the American state in everything it does domestically and internationally.

Source please?

I'll tell you what- you start providing sources, you start backing up your statements, and you start arguing along logical rather than emotional lines, and do it without resorting to childish insults. If you can meet those very basic requirements I'll do some more research and we'll continue with a reasoned debate. Otherwise I feel that I have no business stooping to your level.

So that basically means you don't have a source?

Liberal handbook, page 3, paragraph 2: If you can't actually attack the credibility of a statement you should generically label it as propaganda and refuse to make any sort of concrete logical statement or arguement on which you might be directly engaged and defeated.
You should be sure you get next year's copy as soon as possible. I'm pretty sure that paragraph will disappear considering how badly it worked in the Kerry campaign.

So you are not even willing to consider you might be brainwashed? Hopeless.

You just admitted it in the previous posting that this war is not for WMD or liberation, it is for oil. Now you are talking about WMDs again. Are you coming or going?

Again you are twisting my meaning and you know it. This is why you have failed to include a quote in your post. If you're noticing a marked deterioration in my attitude as this post continues then I appreciate that you are at least paying attention. Your weak and dishonest debating tactics are making me sick.

Do you have your own handbook for losing debates? Chapter 3, Paragraph 3: When losing an argument, start talking crap or start ranting, and hope the opponent forgets their argument.

I have not fogotten it. You said, and you would be especially foolish to claim you didn't, as it's recorded in this topic - that this war was fought for oil and not for liberation and WMD. Then later you start talking about WMD again. As I said, you're confused.

P.S -- Also 3 AM

[edit on 25-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Indigo_Child

What did you gain here by this exchange? I must commend Vagabond for his patience with you.

You took a person that wanted an honest exchange of ideas and twisted, twisted, twisted his words until he left in utter frustration. You added nothing to the exchange except acerbic comments and personal insults.

The second part of your name describes you perfectly. Grow up.

:shk:

Originally posted by jsobecky
Indigo_Child

What did you gain here by this exchange? I must commend Vagabond for his patience with you.

You took a person that wanted an honest exchange of ideas and twisted, twisted, twisted his words until he left in utter frustration. You added nothing to the exchange except acerbic comments and personal insults.

The second part of your name describes you perfectly. Grow up.

:shk:

We all know you're an extemist bush supporter. I am not surprised you feel that way. And you know what? I don't care either.

[edit on 26-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]