Iran Test-Fires More Missiles in Persian Gulf; Rice Issues Warning

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
"Preemptive war" as a doctrine would never have been accepted without 9/11.

Really??
Did the Germans attack the United States?

Why are there so many ignorant people. Germany and Japan were allies and had an agreement that if one went to war the other would declare war on that nation also.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Go ahead and ignore those pesky facts WT!

Facts

Come on man, you are joking right? Am I on Candid Camera or Scare Tactics?
Sorry, but I'm not buying your conspiracy theories.

Here are some more facts about your main man George Bush.

Umm......we were talking about WWII and the Germans. Please focus and stay on topic. Geesh!

He was convicted. Its not a theory the more you post the lower your IQ seems. The Bush family were and are Nazi.

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by Keyhole

 

Here are the similarities you are referring to:

The clouds match too, different shading but im pretty sure they match.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


Is everyone aware that, as I believe it was said to me, either America gave the money to-the bomb to---or gave the plans to---Israel for the atom bomb? I live in America and while I am fins with all people...what the crap were we thinking? It would be awesome if there was a way to diffuse all bombs in a nice environmentally friendly way. Then if people wanted to fight- we force them to box. )

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

I really don't think you care about the truth, or history. If you did, you would know that Israel has never attacked any neighbors, but they have tried to gang up on her and say they will again. Iran in particular. And they will attack Israel soon. When they do, they will get wiped out. Nuclear. Prophesied for thousands of years. It is happening right now, in front of your eyes, if you care to see it.

centurion1211
The doctrine of waiting to be attacked before retaliating (and being smug about it) became obsolete with the development of weapons of mass destruction and long range delivery systems. Add to that the emergence of countries and terrorist groups that welcome their own deaths for religious reasons. All that means that we now have to try and stop them before they attack us. The cost of waiting to be attacked is now too great. Waiting for a mushroom cloud to rise over New York with millions dead is unacceptable. Although if that tragically were allowed to happen, I can imagine the "peace at any price" crowd saying, "It's only one city and we must have deserved it".

I'll try and keep this as simple as possible, hoping that maybe you'll understand. If you throw a stone at me, then you're going to get one thrown back at you.

Now maybe you're starting to get it.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by kindred]

Originally posted by StephenF
And this is exactly why I think Israel will hit Iran after the November elections...

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that Iran's missile test shows the need for an effective missile defense system, while rival Sen. Barack Obama said it shows aggressive diplomacy, combined with sanctions, is necessary.

Oh come on............

Missle defense system = Aggressive Diplomacy

Obama wants to starve them as well. McCain said nothing about starving them. (starve = sanctions in my little world)

McCain just didn't make it sound pretty for the press.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
A little history for you WT.

Thanks, but I don't need a history lesson from you especially since you use wiki.

My point that Germany never attacked American soil still stands.

Well, Germany did attack the U.S. using "unrestricted submarine warfare" (sink anything that floats). They also landed spies and sabotuers on U.S. soil from submarines. Trying to recall, but didn't they also shell the U.S. coast down in Georgia? So, I don't think you can really hide behind your statement.

Is it me or does admin-a-jhad start to look at lot like "little" kimmy in N.K.

I seem to remember little kim shooting of missiles day after day, upsetting many countries.

Iran keeps begging to be attacked.

One of these days, someone will take them up on it.

every country has a right to defend their citizens and their country.

The United States has a Right to defend its people (but lately it seems to be only defending its big Cats)

Israel has a right to defend its people (granted as much as i dislike the state of israel they seem to do a better Job defending their people then the greedy Arabs)

Iran has the right to Defend its self from the US and Israel and anyother threat.

every soverign country has the right to do so.

i would like someone to point out to me where it says a country cant test its weapons systems.
and where saying they will defend them selves at all costs is a war crime and just calling for others to attack them.

since this is the crap that i seem to be reading lately.

Iran says they will retaliate at the Heart of teleav (Israels capital) and nuclear power station and US forces in the Persion gulf if anyone should attacks them and we have people screaming Iran is being a threat,

when has saying one will defend what is theirs preocative?
when is ok for other countries to threaten to attack them and in some cases turn them into a nuclear wasteland.

double standerds sucks.


personaly, Good for Iran.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


Yes, this is the direction that many Americans have been brainwashed YET AGAIN into following. They all swallowed it with Iraq and now are going to swallow it again with Iran. Because they REALLY ARE A THREAT! NOT!

It won't matter how much you argue with some of the 'Kill Iran' supporters on this site, they honestly believe that it is an evil country and a big threat to us. That kills me because the same terminology is being used as was used by this very same administration for entering Iraq. We all know that they were a bunch of lies and fear mongering.

Yet even with that evidence people are going to jump right back on this band wagon and push for a war that would devastate the world economy.

You think gas is expensive now in the U.S.? Wait until this administration gets its wish and pushes us into another unwinnable war. Can you say $10 a gallon? Or even $15? That would take place within 6 months of entering Iran.

It's pathetic how people are so blood thirsty that they really don't think things through.

We need to get rid of this administration and soon. They are going to push us and this world into a complete and utterly devastating depression if they get their way. And boy George will simply sit there and stutter his way through another BS explanation with a grin on his face knowing that his financial future is secure while the bulk of his nation falls into complete poverty.

Originally posted by kindred

centurion1211
The doctrine of waiting to be attacked before retaliating (and being smug about it) became obsolete with the development of weapons of mass destruction and long range delivery systems. Add to that the emergence of countries and terrorist groups that welcome their own deaths for religious reasons. All that means that we now have to try and stop them before they attack us. The cost of waiting to be attacked is now too great. Waiting for a mushroom cloud to rise over New York with millions dead is unacceptable. Although if that tragically were allowed to happen, I can imagine the "peace at any price" crowd saying, "It's only one city and we must have deserved it".

I'll try and keep this as simple as possible, hoping that maybe you'll understand. If you throw a stone at me, then you're going to get one throwing back at you.

Now maybe you're starting to get it.

Since we're keeping it simple for you, let's use a police and crime metaphor.

If the police got information that a group of eco-nazis was planning to burn down your business because it wasn't "green" enough for them (didn't fit their ideology), do you think the police should:

a) wait for them to actually burn your place down and then go try to find them and bring them to justice?

or

b) actively work to stop the crime before they destroy your property?

Unfortunately, choice "a" is what would most likely happen in today's world. However, hopefully you can see that choice "a" really does you no good and costs you the most in the long run. The most you'll ever receive is the knowledge that if the catch the bad guys, they'll probably be convicted and sent to prison to "pay" for their crime. Meawhile, you get to start over - if you can.

Also, hopefully you can understand all the real parallels in the above metaphor. Here's some hints if you're still struggling with these concepts:

The police represent the U.S. by being armed and actively cruising around the areas were the criminals live and operate and telling criminals that they will be arrested if caught. The eco-nazis represent the iranians by knowingly being threatening and destructive based on their ideology (i.e. religion). They also have a willingness to share with and use other criminal elements (i.e. terrorist organizations).

Yes, the U.S. used 2 nuclear weapons to end a fight to the death world war over 50 years ago. We can see in the history books what happened and why and what the devastation from those weapons was like.

Precisely the reason we must keep states and groups with the will to use them and lack of fear of their own deaths from ever being able to acquire nuclear weapons.



[edit on 7/11/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by mrmonsoon


Could you please explain to me how testing your defensive weapons are begging to be attacked? Why are they testing them in the first place?

I'll tell you why. Because they feel threatoned! The police state for the world (the U.S.) is telling them that they can't have this or that. They can't have nuclear power for their people. Well, how else are they to get power to their people? They have limited powering resources and nuclear power seems to be the best option.

But noooooooo. Big brother says that they are a threat and that they will be crushed if they try to provide a better life for their people. Who are we to say what other people in their OWN country can do?

If they do get stupid enough to create a bomb and use it then they will be retaliated against. That's how it happens. All of this fear and war mongering is making me sick. What makes me sicker is the fact that people like you are swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Pathetic.

reply to post by centurion1211


Now this is a military view if I have ever seen one. Kill them first, regardless of the facts or how those facts have been manipulated by the powers that be. Just kill them. Killlllllllllllllllllllllll THEM! Then they can't kill us.

Yup, that's the least expensive way to go about it. Oh wait, maybe not. Maybe, just maybe, attacking YET ANOTHER COUNTRY that has NOT ATTACKED YOU would lead to an economic meltdown only dreamed about in nightmares. Actually, that is probably the ONLY true fact that would come of an attack on Iran. Oil would go through the roof. People that are complaining now about $4 plus per gallon would literally crap their pants the next time they went to a gas station after an invasion of Iran happened. They would rub at their eyes to make sure they are really seeing $10 plus per gallon. The poor would begin to starve meaning that they would begin to riot. The rich would have to literally hide in order to survive.

Okay, maybe I'm pushing it a bit on the riots. But what I am saying is this. First, we cannot win a war in Iran. We are already spread thin enough as it is fighting two wars where we were not attacked first on. Don't try to pull the Afghanistan supported Bin Laden thus they attacked us crap. That's a bunch of crap and you know it full well. WE PUT THEM IN CHARGE OF THAT COUNTRY in the 80's.

This subject sickens me. People who push to attack a nation and yet kill MORE innocent civilians just because they are scared.

When we are talking about millions of potential lives lost we can't use the flimsy theory that you present here. You simply cannot. It's a whole different ballgame.

Because if the criminal, Iran in your book, burned our business down (bombed us), we WOULD KNOW. That means we won't waste time and money on it. We would go after them and make them pay for their mistake. That is if we can. We have to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan first.

I also seem to keep forgetting that we may not know the full facts up front on an attack against us. The administration would tell us it was Iran and we would have to believe them. But later on it could come out that it was a malfunction at a plant and it was an accident. Sorry Iran. Didn't mean to kill 10 million of you.

I'm done.

Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by mrmonsoon

 

If they do get stupid enough to create a bomb and use it then they will be retaliated against. That's how it happens.

And that strategy would kill millions on both sides just to prove that you were wrong.

All of this fear and war mongering is making me sick. What makes me sicker is the fact that people like you are swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Pathetic.

Actually, what is truly pathetic is that there are appeasers and peace at any price people that are actually willing to risk the lives of all those millions, even though history has shown over and over again that appeasement does not work.

Originally posted by dariousg

Because if the criminal, Iran in your book, burned our business down (bombed us), we WOULD KNOW. That means we won't waste time and money on it. We would go after them and make them pay for their mistake.

"Go after them and make them pay". You, of course, realize what that really means. If not, "making them pay" would mean a full scale nuclear retaliatory attack on iran which would kill millions of their citizens, plus many in other countries affected by the fallout, etc. The global economy would crash for sure - not just maybe. Understand? Millions dead, world economy in ruins for sure.

You can actually in your mind call that the equal of a precision pre-emptive strike that would maybe kill a few thousand (most likely military) people and maybe also cause some economic problems?

Of course iran could easily defuse the whole situation by backing off their goal of building nuclear weapons. Another hint for the appeasement folks. You don't have to enrich uranium to weapons grade like the iranians are doing for nuclear power plants.

I'm done.

Good.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211


Man, what is it with you and the term "appeasement"? Do you understand the meaning of that, or did you hear it from Sean Hannity and think "Cool phrase! I'll just run around accusing anyone who doesn't think blasting Iran into the stone age as being an "appeaser"."

Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Now this is a military view if I have ever seen one. Kill them first, regardless of the facts or how those facts have been manipulated by the powers that be. Just kill them. Killlllllllllllllllllllllll THEM! Then they can't kill us.

I'm done.

Also ...

Sometimes world events forces a military solution on us. Should we have attempted to just negotiate with Japan after Pearl Harbor? Of course not. But your philisophy could put us in exactly the same position of having to react (still with the military) after being attacked - this time with WMD's.

Using the police metaphor again, I believe you'd still want the police to arrest the people planning to burn your business, even if it was based only on information the police had received (unknown if factual at the time) that they were planning to burn your place. IMO it would be insane to do otherwise.

reply to post by centurion1211


Does it mean Nuclear retaliation? Are we back to that as an only option? Seriously? I never said it is the only option. I said we, and every other ally, would have a LEGITIMATE reason to retaliate. Not like what you are preaching. You are saying this:

"Well, there's a CHANCE they could attack us. So, let's just go get them now. I don't care if they really won't attack us. It's better than waiting."

You see the ignorance here? You keep trying to say how history has shown this and that. I'm sorry, but the history I have seen has exposed other reasons BEHIND most of the wars that have supposedly been fought for the liberation of the country at hand. In the end it is usually about the resources of that land and how the invading country/s can best benefit from them. That is the fact.

Then the argument of "they're going to attack Israel. They have a bitter rivalry that goes back thousands of generations" doesn't mean that they are going to start with a nuclear attack. There is a reason that there is such bad blood between Israel and ALL OF THE OTHER MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES. It does not and should not involve us. Israel is picking their own wars by doing war games near their neighbors that already hate them.

Then, when one of those neighbors says that they are willing to fight by showing a little bit of defense on their own they are looked at as being aggressive. I don't get the logic there.

Then people point to Iran's leadership and start calling them nutjobs and crazy. Well, the same can be said about Israel's leadership and the leadership of almost any nation. It's how the media and administrations twist the views of their people that matters.

So, in the instance of good faith we should head into a third country with the full (well, 1/3) might of the U.S. armed forces and do some more good work in the name of freedom. Not only will we cement the hatred of the bulk of this planet towards the people of this very nation (the U.S.) but we will put the entire planet's financial future in jeopardy.

Yup, that's worth attacking them first just in CASE they feel like attacking Israel. Because you know they don't have what it takes to attack the U.S. directly. If you believe that then my argument is already won.

Originally posted by TruthWithin
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Man, what is it with you and the term "appeasement"? Do you understand the meaning of that, or did you hear it from Sean Hannity and think "Cool phrase! I'll just run around accusing anyone who doesn't think blasting Iran into the stone age as being an "appeaser"."

Yeah, I checked in my mirror and it is definately not me.

What's the problem with me using that word to describe the people that are so fearful of any "nastiness" that they would rather scurry around and try and hide their heads in the sand, hoping that the bad guys won't notice them and kill someone else instead? That's also the ultimate form of cowardice. Again, history shows in wars and in crime that the bad guys will actually notice you first because you're the easy target - and criminals are mostly cowards, as well ...

If the appeasement label is painful for you, maybe you should try doing something about that.