Are we going to WAR with Iran now too?

[Man Who Fights Like Woman]

Originally posted by machinehead: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/KURSK/index.html

Well, consider me corrected. The torpedo explosions were the result of a glancing collision. I don't see that this backs up the initial assertion that this is one of the three events known only as US secret policy.

[PurpleXVI]

It also rather alters it from TOP SECRET CONSPIRACY UNDERSEA ASSASSINATION to: "Idiots screw up and ram each other, some die."

[robertthebard]

Actually, it changes it from accidental torpedo detonation, or random explosion to collision, which aren't all that uncommon apparently. Here's a concept for you; oops, I was mistaken. I realize it's hard to do, but hey, people would be a little more inclined to talk with you w/out getting nasty if you could pull it off.

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by robertthebard: Actually, it changes it from accidental torpedo detonation, or random explosion to collision, which aren't all that uncommon apparently. Here's a concept for you; oops, I was mistaken. I realize it's hard to do, but hey, people would be a little more inclined to talk with you w/out getting nasty if you could pull it off.

I never addressed the Kursk thing before in this thread. So what did I say that I need to admit I was wrong about?

I hate to keep pointing it out, but you keep misreading my posts and saying I've said things that I haven't. It's really not conducive to having a sensible debate.

[Man Who Fights Like Woman]

No it doesn't, that's exactly what it was. It was an accidental torpedo explosion as a result of a collision. Unless you think a massive explosion must result from every ship collision, which isn't so.

Now, if you could learn to read what people say, then they would be more inclined to talk with you.

[robertthebard]

Yep, my bad, simple enough mistake. See, it's pretty easy. Of course, I had to re-read almost the whole discussion.

As to whether people are inclined to talk with, or at me, it's really not that big an issue for me. I don't feel the need to "win" a debate about things that I can't possibly hope to control, and therefore don't feel the need to attempt to run somebody, or their government, or their military into the ground.

I will, however, feel free to state my opinions about what we should do, and have, and whether a Cessna can sink an aircraft carrier, or whether two subs collided makes little difference to my opinion, if any. If, as has been pointed out, Russia, or China are inclined to help Iran, then why not with nukes? Or is this an impossibility as well?

In regard to something that Man said, and that I missed earlier; I think everybody should thumb their noses at the UN. They are an almost totally ineffectual organization, and if you read through my posts where I discussed them in this topic, I've made no secret of the contempt I have for them. Why else suggest that they move to Iran? In all the rush to beat me up about believing that we should attack Iran, if the situation warrants it, some of my points seem to get overlooked, but I have a problem with reading comprehension.

In so far as I'm concerned, I have expressed my opinions about what we should do. I have no intention of backpedalling from them. If the situation warrants a war, then it's time to do it. If we are going to go to war with Iran, then we need to go to war with Iran, not this pussyfooting around thing we're doing with Iraq.

We spent a lot of money after WW II helping to rebuild Japan. I think the best bet, if we do end up going to war, is to destroy what needs to be destroyed, and leave them to pick up their own pieces for a change. BTW, we put some humanitarian aid into Europe after the war too. As much as people would like to think that we are just the schoolyard bully, flexing muscle we don't have, we do help rebuild, even if destruction, such as what happened in England, wasn't our doing.

However, don't let me stop your US bashing. It's become something of an international past time, until something bad happens and somebody needs help. It's the same song and dance.

Oh, and BTW, Man, I read the article that machinehead posted. It may have been a torpedo that exploded on the Kursk,but it exploded due to the collision. At least, that's what the seismagraph thing would seem to suggest. I believe it was touched on in the article.

It also rather alters it from TOP SECRET CONSPIRACY UNDERSEA ASSASSINATION to: "Idiots screw up and ram each other, some die."

Hmm, wonder who said that?

[Felix The Assassin]

I just lay out as many more than one sided facts as possible.

I have served my nation for over 25 years now. I have seen things. I have experienced first hand, that my nation does not do as it says, and is quite the bully that other nations despise us to be.

There are secrets that will never be revealed. There are events that have been washed away from history.

I do not trust....

[robertthebard]

Nooooooo.....They got Felix....

[PurpleXVI]

I think it's rather unfair to call what we say "US bashing."

We may attack your government and their policies, your military, it's competence and it's policies, but we are not attacking the country as a whole. We're not bashing the American people who, to their credit, for the most part seem to disagree with their government and to realize that the competence level isn't as high as could be desired. Though I'll note it's rather hilarious that all of the scandals in the Bush government are still getting less people riled up than Clinton's blowjob. Crazy people.

And yes, the UN is wholly ineffectual. Either we should arm it and make it capable of enforcing it's rules and judgements, or we should dismantle it. It's fulfilling no function that could not be fulfilled otherwise. The only parts that are helpful are the humanitarian aid sections, so I suppose we can keep those. Aside from that, it's just a giant cheerleading squad with a cool logo.

If you feel there are any of your points that I've overlooked or not addressed, Robert, feel free to list them again and I'll see whether I can come up with any counter-arguments or whether, shock and horror, we might actually agree on something.

And, uh, if you notice... (West)Germany and Japan were competently rebuilt, both were big fans of the US, and still seem relatively positive towards your country. For one thing, I'm detecting a lack of German or Japanese anti-US terrorism. See, if you stay and rebuilt the country, you're saying: "Alright, sorry about all the shit we knocked over while taking out your top dudes, we didn't mean to hurt you guys on the ground." and a lot of people will forgive the sincerity there.

If you just come waltzing in, blow up half the country's infrastructure, and then leave, they're not going to change, they'll elect the same sort of people, or worse, and go right back to where they were before. Plenty of suffering people will be easy prey for terrorist recruiters as they have little to lose and giant grudges.

I'm not going to argue that reconstruction would be the Right Thing to do, but it's definitely the pragmatic course of action. The reason it hasn't worked in Iraq is, well, the fact that quite frankly it's been handled with zero competence. I forget the numbers, but staggering billions of dollars have been pocketed or wasted, no-bid contracts have been offered to friends of the administration and worse. In Afghanistan it could have worked, except that they just never got a lot of the money they were promised, it got routed into the pointless Iraq war instead.

The lack of proper reconstruction allowed the Taliban to gain a foothold among some people, and the lack of troops(I'll refrain from commenting on where they've ended up.) seems to be making pushing them back a bit of a challenge. And again, the competence level is a bit lacking among the troops and their commanders, while it's not as common as in Iraq, we're still getting occasional stories of amazing screw-ups like US aircraft bombarding weddings and such.

At least Afghanistan has been free of Abu Ghraib-ish incidents, however.

And, sad as it is, the US has been the world's bully for the last many decades or so. Sure, the USSR, while it existed, wasn't much better, but "someone else did it too!" is hardly an excuse. The US has been shoving around smaller nations and destroying their democracies just to further it's policies. The amount of times where the US has funded coups or other sorts of forceful regime change to remove elected, democratic governments in favour of dictators who often tortured thousands is just horrifying.

Sure, if a leader is committing a genocide or declaring war on you(Or your allies, of course.), by all means, take him out for the sake of his people or for your own safety. I won't argue against that, but in any other case, let the country go it's own way, don't interfere. A forceful revolution from the outside won't change as much as deeply as a slow evolution from the inside will, or a revolution from the inside, for that matter. It's like the old "teach a man to fish," thing. If you don't let a country develop their own democratic tradition, they won't quite "get" it as deeply, it won't become part of the culture, it won't stay, you'll have to be there constantly to prop it up.

And, uh, hate to point it out to you, but you DID go to war with Iraq, full-scale, and you're losing. What's non-pussyfooting war? Slaughtering every man, woman and child? Because, well, oh, wait, no, you ARE killing Iraqi civilians and Iraqi soldiers on a pretty regular basis, I suppose you'll also need to slaughter their pets and livestock, then?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Ziroc: 1. Do you believe Iran needs to be stopped? If yes, How you YOU get them to stop without resorting to an attack? 2. If the US and or Israel attacks all the nuke sites in a surprise attack, what do you think the backlash will be from not only Iran, but other countries such as Russia and China? 3. If Iran is attacked, how do you think Iran would respond personally? 4. Do you believe we are dangerously close to a World War? 5. Would Iraq fall into a full civil war with Iranian forces coming over?

1. Yes. There's no moral justification for it, any sovereign should be allowed to have the toys others do. But Ahmadenitard is a crazy person who vocally talks about the need to bring about Armageddon and who subscribes to the point of view that Muslims will be saved when Armageddon does come. Note that he also believes that Armageddon will NOT come until the Muslims go to war with the Jews.

2. Censure, fist waving, hand wringing.

3. Declare another jihad. Big whop.

4. I believe we are in a world war. We just don't know it yet. Over the next several decades christianity and muslinism will war with each other, and either muslims must change or one of the two religions must perish.

5. Iraq is in a full civil war and Iranian forces are already coming over. Call a spade a spade, quit pretending it's not what it is.

So, here's how I'd do it. Remember Reagan and Khadafi? Yep. Stealth bomb all their nuke sites one night (note for some you'll need the MOAB bunker busters) and also make sure and hit one of Ahmadinetard's close relatives. Killing Khadafi's son worked wonders for making him STFU, should work as well with Iran.

[ 02-12-2007, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]