<font color=skyblue>In agreeance with TL's last statement, I feel that the only reason that we are actually losing anything is that we have too many men on the ground and not enough planes flying overhead bombing the crap out of targets. Repeating what I heard Neil Boortz say once, we are playing too nicely. Its time to actually use the power we have which would save American lives.

All this money that is being wasted over there because we are trying to make it look like we are strategically working to protect innocent lives, but then the enemy is arming its children with guns and planting bombs in the vehicles of its own innocent people anyway, so who are we saving with all that money?

Best to just get tougher and end this nonsense with some air raids. </font>

[ 02-12-2007, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

If we bomb their civilians they'll just get more pissed and we'll get more terrorism. You can't get a proper victory without sacrifices, that's the way of it. If you want to win a war of aggression and conquer a country(And yes, the US is trying to conquer Iraq and install a new government.), then unless you want to deal with a long-lasting insurgency, you have to sacrifice some men. You have to turn the other cheek, when they get killed, you have to accept that you cannot just run in, guns blazing, and slaughter everyone who looks a bit guilty.

You cannot retaliate against an insurgency except on very, very rare occasions when you KNOW a location has only insurgents. You can shoot back when they're shooting at you, but you cannot pursue.

EDIT: Ha ha, Larry, you edited your post just as I wrote this. Seems like we either had the same thought or you're psychic.

And please, do not refer to them as "The Muslims." Not all Muslims are doing this, call them the Radical Muslims, the Fanatical Muslims, the Muslim Extremists or even refer to a specific sect or organization. But do not just say that "The Muslims" are arming their children. How many Muslims in your neighbourhood are arming their children? How many are maniacs with bombs strapped to their chests? I'm willing to wager that even if you've got an extremist ranter or two, most of them are quiet, normal people who treat you like any other human being as long as you return the courtesy.

It's like saying, when the Lord's Resistance Army uses child soldiers, that The Christians are using child soldiers! The Christians are a bunch of rebels who force children to kill! How does THAT sound? It's the exact same thing.

[ 02-12-2007, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

I think that the current state of affairs over Iran closely resembles the state of Germany at the start of WWII. The Iranian leader is all against Israel and the Jews, and I believe him very capable of committing genocide, if he were able to. He is not stable and he continually holds rallies to gain the support of his people, much like Hitler did and to the same effect.

That brings me to the UN. Look at the League of Nations, before WWII they gave in to Germany to prevent a war and countries took up the policy of appeasement. If I remember correctly, this didn't stop the war, it helped Germany get started and gave them the confidence they needed to continue with their plans. Now the UN doesn't wanted a war in Iran and are letting Iran proceed with their nuclear program, again, the use of appeasement. The League of Nations failed for a reason and it is the same reason the UN has become useless.

I believe if the world lets Iran continue with this, they will gain the confidence to attack and carry out their plans. If the allied nations had stepped in when Hitler started up, I believe that WWII could have been much shorter and not had as many casualties. I believe the same thing when it comes to Iran, they are headed down a dangerous path and I believe that unless someone intervenes, it will escalate out of control.

Iran is also currently supplying weapons to both Afghanistan and Iraq to support the insurgents. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are never going to be destroyed as long as operations continue only in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have no bases of operation in Iraq and Afghanistan and are always coming and going from within neighbouring countries where they are hidden and safe. They are being supplied with everything they need to continue their war from these countries. As long as these factions have support from their neighbours they will never be exhausted of supplies or men. I don't think it will ever be possible to fully defeat these factions. I'm not sure where I was going with this, so I'll leave it as it is.

I believe that Iran must be stopped, they are a threat.

Do you have proof that Iran is supplying insurgents in Afghanistan? There seems to be some suggestion, but still no direct proof, that they are supplying insurgents in Iraq, but no proof that I have heard of that they are supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I think we should really calm down with the rhetoric and pony up with some actual evidence. We can say all we want about nukes, but none of us know for sure. Hell, seriously, even that big comment about "wiping out Israel" was proven to be a mistranslation. Does anyone have any other quotes along those lines? I think it would, you know, be helpful, if someone supplied that.

Iran will not attack Israel either, because Israel has nukes, and everyone knows it. If Israel is on the verge of being wiped out, the Middle East will become a giant radioactive crater. Now imagine if you've got two states, and either one of them being attacked will mean the other one goes as well, what do you get? Enforced peace. Yes, exactly, if Iran and Israel both have nukes, the Middle East will become more stable.

Additionally, I'd like to say that comparing Iran to Nazi Germany is an insane overreaction. No one is on any policy of "appeasement," everyone wants to stop them having nukes except for the people who helped them get them. They're being allowed to proceed with a CIVILIAN nuclear program because the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty permits them to, because it's legal.

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/iran_images.html

Look at this, how does this look? Does it look like a third-world hellhole run by a genocidal maniac? No, it looks like a Western country where the girls have slightly different fashion.

Yeah, cause they've currently adopted "Jihad Lite" and we don't want them to go to "Jihad Dark Roast."

/sarcasm off

[ 02-12-2007, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Currently you've got a small, extremely small, minority of extremists pissed at you. How would you like those extremists, often underfunded and badly equipped, to be joined by a large number of relatively well-to-do middle and upper class people who lost their relatives to American bombing campaigns?

I'm sure it's real fun when they're joined by some more technical expertise and funds. Or hell, just more warm bodies to drive cars loaded with explosives.

I've no clue what you're getting at, though, do you honestly believe they're doing their worst already? That they've already recruited every Muslim?

Personally I haven't really noted the "War Against Terror" to do much good at stopping terrorism, except now it's American soldiers instead of American civilians dying, and it'll cost extra to bury them because there's shipping involved post mortem.

Fine. Tell them ahead of time we're going to be bombing their nuclear facilities, then it's in their hands.

And what the "War on Terror" does is change the venue. Apparently idle muslims like to bide their time by orchestrating outlandish attacks on our soil. Realizing they need a hobby war, we gave them one.

So, in truth it's not "American soldiers instead of American civilians" dying, but rather a few soldiers and lots of indigenous muslims dying. We simply made the decision that if some innocent population had to be at risk, better them than us.

Is it evil to decide that rather than our civilians dying some random other innocent countries' civilians (in this case, Iraq) should do the dying? Maybe. Will our government venture down the path of evil if American lives are at risk? Will our civilians by and large allow it and support it? Yes and Yes.

Underfunded, and badly equipped? I guess so, since they don't have sophisticated fighter jets. But they seem to have no trouble procurring explosives for car bombs, and suicide bombers. I don't know the going rate for explosives these days, or any day, for that matter, but common sense tells me that they aren't cheap, especially when the seller, if they are actually buying them, knows what they will be used for.

Subsequently, I'd like to see a link to the mistranslation of what the Iranian president said, or was reported to have said, and I'd like to know who re-translated it to say something else. Nothing that I have seen reported supports the claim that he wasn't calling for the extermination of Israel/Jews in general. I have also never seen anything that supports a claim that he didn't say the Holocaust never happened. I do know that that view, while not prevalent, exists, even here, in the US.

I can also see how that claim would indeed bolster additional support for his rantings from other, less inclined nations. Not that I doubt, but in this case, a little supporting evidence would be nice, since it runs so contrary to everything that I have read.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPKpf...elated&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K273...elated&search=

[ 02-12-2007, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

My god what a stupid stupid man. If someone that dumb with his head that far up his ass can get air time, then hell, I'm going to grow up and be the president of Europe.
I have alot to say about this thread, but little time since it's the exam season. At any rate, I don't think that an attack on Iran is in US' best interest. Sure, there are people who are really itching for it, but Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. These guys actually have something to lose.