# Compassion versus Military Action - Which Will End Global Terrorism?

• News
Smurf
sid_galt said:
My reaction? It has come to late. The US has borne Iranian theocracy too long. The same goes for the Iranians.

Honestly I can't see why anyone would oppose an attack on Iran even if it is nuclear.
Oh I'm not opposed to an attack on Iran, even if it were nuclear. I'm opposed to the ensuing News Headline that reads "USA kills millions for no ****ing reason"
1. Iran is a threat to the world.
2. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. A dictatorship can have no rights.
What about the people that live there? Do they have rights?

Last edited:
Smurf
pattylou said:
Pre-emptive invasion: Agreed, a complicated question. For my generation, who had not lived through the Cuban missile crisis and so on, but had grown up on the idea that the US promoted peace and tolerance (I recall one issue after another - Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis, etc) being dealt with honorably - or at least the attempt to do so. Anyway, for me (and I assume others) the act of preemption (ultimately shown to be ill conceived) obliterated what it meant to be an American. I felt very grieved for years, as I realized the American Identity was being forced into a new mold.

But certainly in history there were times when pre-emptive acts were considered --- although never acted upon.
The USA has not launched a pre-emptive attack in decades (if any, I can't think of one off the top of my head). The war in iraq was preventive if anything at all.

In my mind pre-emtpive war is perfectly fine.

For example - someone is flying a squadron of bombers towards NY, and the US launches a pre-emptive attack to destroy those bombers.
There was no imminent threat to the US before the invasion of Iraq. The justification for Iraq was to prevent possible future attacks on the US, there was no imminent threat, therefor it was preventive war, which is never acceptable.

Homework Helper
Smurf said:
The USA has not launched a pre-emptive attack in decades (if any, I can't think of one off the top of my head). The war in iraq was preventive if anything at all.

In my mind pre-emtpive war is perfectly fine.

For example - someone is flying a squadron of bombers towards NY, and the US launches a pre-emptive attack to destroy those bombers.
There was no imminent threat to the US before the invasion of Iraq. The justification for Iraq was to prevent possible future attacks on the US, there was no imminent threat, therefor it was preventive war, which is never acceptable.
I agree a pre-emptive war is acceptable. If enemy troops are assembling on your borders or en route to set up on your borders, you'd be a fool to give them them the choice of when to start the war.

Actually, the justification for Iraq was as a pre-emptive war to avert an imminent threat. The fact that there was no imminent threat points to incompetence of the Bush administration, not that the concept was wrong. There's one key rule for pre-emptive wars - don't be wrong!

Being wrong transcends all motivations and all political affiliations. You're wrong on something that big, you should count on being fired.

Or maybe that's being a bit harsh. It's probably a mistake to just consider Hussein an idiot. It's possible he was very smart - a lot smarter than Bush and his staff. It's not an entirely outrageous thought. Say what you may about Hussein's morals, but the only big mistake he made was a grave miscalculation in deciding to invade Kuwait. Before Kuwait, conditions were steadily improving in Iraq and Iraq would most likely be one of the richer, more powerful nations in the Middle East today without the repercussions from Kuwait.

Smurf
BobG said:
I agree a pre-emptive war is acceptable. If enemy troops are assembling on your borders or en route to set up on your borders, you'd be a fool to give them them the choice of when to start the war.
Basically. Yes.
Actually, the justification for Iraq was as a pre-emptive war to avert an imminent threat. The fact that there was no imminent threat points to incompetence of the Bush administration, not that the concept was wrong. There's one key rule for pre-emptive wars - don't be wrong!
The justification used was that Saddam has WMD. This is a justification for preventive war. The fact that the Bush administration lied and used the word pre-emptive doesn't change that it was a preventive war. It just means they were less honest with the people in trying to scare them into thinking saddam was an imminent threat. The fact that they lied about the WMD in the first place makes the act even more dispicable.

Being wrong transcends all motivations and all political affiliations. You're wrong on something that big, you should count on being fired.
I don't agree with that. You can be wrong, so long as you're not irrational. If a squadron of bombers were flying towards Paris from Germany I would fully expect France to destroy them as soon as possible. If it later turns out there was a bug in their navigation computers and they didn't know where they were, I won't turn around and condemn France for destroying them

(Yes I realize this example is illogical, but it illustrates the point)

The invasion of Iraq was based on irrational justification, wrong or not doesn't matter. The fact that a reasonable person would not have had the same conclusion makes it unforgivable.

Oddly enough, if they had been right, it wouldn't really have mattered that they were irrational in getting their, so long as they don't try it again.

2CentsWorth
Is Iran a threat? How do we define this? Because of nuclear related activities? Aside from being reminded of the number of countries that already have nuclear weapons, it is only a threat if the country is being aggressive towards us, isn't it? And wouldn't that describe the US more than Iran where this relationship is concerned?

In the meantime, the US might remember that there is a signficant pro western population within Iran. Could it be that the Iranian government is egging the US into aggressive behavior, thus removing any support of the west by it's people? Please tell me the Bush administration isn't going to be out smarted by Middle Eastern leaders again.

Homework Helper
2CentsWorth said:
Is Iran a threat? How do we define this? Because of nuclear related activities? Aside from being reminded of the number of countries that already have nuclear weapons, it is only a threat if the country is being aggressive towards us, isn't it? And wouldn't that describe the US more than Iran where this relationship is concerned?

In the meantime, the US might remember that there is a signficant pro western population within Iran. Could it be that the Iranian government is egging the US into aggressive behavior, thus removing any support of the west by it's people? Please tell me the Bush administration isn't going to be out smarted by Middle Eastern leaders again.
I would base the idea of whether a country is a threat or not by the likelihood of it causing problems for its neighbors or others. The types of weapons they have determine the magnitude of the threat. If a country has shown the desire to invade its neighbors, it's a threat. Nuclear weapons turn a threat into a huge threat. Nuclear weapons don't help a country invade its neighbors, but it eliminates the threat of retribution.

Nuclear proliferation is a separate problem. The more countries that rely on nuclear weapons, the greater the likelihood of at least one of them resorting to using them. The US-USSR was a high stakes game where things got pretty dicey at least once (the Turkey-Cuba missile crisis). India-Pakistan is another scary situation where two nuclear powers have regular confrontations.

Iran developing nuclear weapons would be a bad thing, with a decent chance for bad consequences, depending upon what happens in Iraq (a traditional Iran foe). It increases the chances for disaster, but I don't think it necessarily makes a disaster likely. I'd still consider nuclear weapons in North Korea more dangerous than nuclear weapons in Iran.

In the Mind of Religious Extremists

One could attempt to understand the reasoning and motivation behind Middle East terrorism, by considering how the extreme religious right in the U.S. might react if strict covenants of Christian beliefs were thought at risk. One could do so with two deeply held beliefs in the U.S. religious movement: abortion, and nudity (w/ prostitution).

Imagine just for a moment HOW the religious right would react to the sight of abortion clinics on every street corner of many towns, and nudity and prostitution legal and widely available throughout cities and communities. There would be real TROUBLE. How many of you recall what happened to abortion clinics back in the 80s and 90s? We had real fanatics here, and clinics have nearly all but closed, and nudity material today is hidden and comes in a sealed wrapper.

Some in the Middle East are fanatical that their land is a holy land, and for how it may be used. It's not like Saudi Arabia is a democracy or anything, nor are its citizens allowed any input on policy, nor sharing of the wealth from sale of the oil.

When one views that region's living conditions and lack of freedom's in this light, and compares it against the U.S., it becomes a little easier to understand the increasing popularity of its religious fanatism.

Brains will be braun most any day of the week. Put your thinking caps on!

Entropy
1. Iran is a threat to the world.

Yep, everyday I wake up in terror, fearing that Iran will invade Florida.

2. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. A dictatorship can have no rights.

What you fail to understand is that Iran is a sovereign nation, meaning that it's people accept it's authority. If their people truly wanted a different government then they would rise up and overthrow the government, trust me, civilians outnumber the army 100 to 1. Dictators can only keep power through fear, if the civilians are too scard to rise up and take responcibility for their own country then it's their choice to remain under a dictatorship.

Gold Member
BobG said:
Nuclear proliferation is a separate problem. The more countries that rely on nuclear weapons, the greater the likelihood of at least one of them resorting to using them. The US-USSR was a high stakes game where things got pretty dicey at least once (the Turkey-Cuba missile crisis). India-Pakistan is another scary situation where two nuclear powers have regular confrontations.

Iran developing nuclear weapons would be a bad thing, with a decent chance for bad consequences, depending upon what happens in Iraq (a traditional Iran foe). It increases the chances for disaster, but I don't think it necessarily makes a disaster likely. I'd still consider nuclear weapons in North Korea more dangerous than nuclear weapons in Iran.
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory is that this is the best deterrence to war. In view of this theory, India and Pakistan may likely have a cold war, with small conventional skirmishes at best. The fear has always been whether a leader will come to power who isn't rationale and has access to the red button. From this perspective I agree with 2CentsWorth that I'm more concerned about Bush than the Iranian government. And as for Iraq and Iran, the more recent conflicts in history were perpetrated by Saddam to create an external enemy diversion to his own abuses and domestic issues. Sound familiar?

North Korea is more desperate, but not irrational, and lacks a long-term capability beyond a nuclear strike. These countries want these weapons to protect themselves from the bully on the block. I'm not worried about attacks from either country as long as they are not first threatened by the U.S. and backed against a wall. My only concern might be that NK could sell nukes for food, or Iran could sell nukes to OBL -- But doubtful, because NK wants to keep their nukes, and Iran is rational (despite what people want to believe) and would not help terrorism to this extreme IMO.

Fear mongering is a tool perfected by the Bush administration, and the real root of current instability in the world.

Antiphon
SOS2008 said:
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory is that this is the best deterrence to war. [...] The fear has always been whether a leader will come to power who isn't rationale and has access to the red button. From this perspective I agree with 2CentsWorth that I'm more concerned about Bush than the Iranian government.

SOS, you and 2cents have lost the right to be taken seriously here anymore. Why don't
you head back to the DU where this kind of bile is welcomed. And if on
the off chance you're actually serious then please seek help. The roots
of this virtual political hate speech are psychological, not philosophical.

North Korea is a problem, but it's just China's counterweight in the region.
And as insane as Kim might be, he's no Muslim. The Islamic thugs running
Iran have stated over and over again their desire to incinerate Israel and
the US. Unlike some of the terminally naive left-wingers in here, I believe
them.

Gold Member
Antiphon said:
SOS, you and 2cents have lost the right to be taken seriously here anymore. Why don't
you head back to the DU where this kind of bile is welcomed. And if on
the off chance you're actually serious then please seek help. The roots
of this virtual political hate speech are psychological, not philosophical.

North Korea is a problem, but it's just China's counterweight in the region.
And as insane as Kim might be, he's no Muslim. The Islamic thugs running
Iran have stated over and over again their desire to incinerate Israel and
the US. Unlike some of the terminally naive left-wingers in here, I believe
them.
There you go, making assumptions about other members again. I'm quite certain I have studied politics and global affairs more than the average person, including you. And I'm quite certain it is not for you to say what member can be taken seriously, or who should head where.

Let me clarify -- I am not saying NK is not of concern, nor that proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good thing. I'm just saying to put it in proper perspective, and in your case you might try putting yourself in another's shoes. If you were an Iranian, would you not fear the U.S. more than Americans fear Iran? The problem here in the U.S. is lack of understanding and therefore susceptibility to fear mongering, which the Bush administration excels at. We need a real foreign policy in which we've ascertained what is a true threat--when, where, why, and not just have knee-jerk reactions to everything, particularly military ones.

Smurf
Antiphon said:
SOS, you and 2cents have lost the right to be taken seriously here anymore. Why don't
you head back to the DU where this kind of bile is welcomed. And if on
the off chance you're actually serious then please seek help. The roots
of this virtual political hate speech are psychological, not philosophical.
Believe me. So have you.
North Korea is a problem, but it's just China's counterweight in the region.
And as insane as Kim might be, he's no Muslim.
What does that mean? Does not being a muslim make someone less violent? As non-muslim as Kim might be he is still a dictator WITH nuclear weapons and WITH the capability of getting them TO AMERICA - UNLIKE Iran you bloody racist.
The Islamic thugs running Iran have stated over and over again their desire to incinerate Israel and the US. Unlike some of the terminally naive left-wingers in here, I believe them.
HAVE THEY STATED
that they want to do it in a way that will cause millions of innocent deaths and ruin the land forever?
HAVE THEY STATED
they are willing to do it at any cost, even if it means their own complete destruction.
HAVE THEY STATED
that they don't care about any of the consequences, both international and domestic, of nuking a country for no reason.

I don't think they have.

Maybe the israeli's and american's should try solving their problems with something other than force for once. Who knows, it might even work. I mean, all those wars obviously didn't if you're still scared of israel getting attack. Just a suggestion.

Since N Korea has already been discussed before, I move on to the topic of Iran. If I were Iran, I would be interested in developing energy alternatives to oil. It is a finite resource, and in the meantime I would want to export as much as possible to Americans who are short term thinkers. Then, if in time there is an ability to make nukes, all the better to have protection from US aggressions. Is there a country that wants to use nukes anymore than any other country, or would you say nukes are used for insurance?

If Americans had a better understanding of other countries, cultures, beliefs, etc. the so called war on terror would not be such a mess. The same applies to our foreign policy.

Antiphon said:
SOS, you and 2cents have lost the right to be taken seriously here anymore. Why don't you head back to the DU where this kind of bile is welcomed. And if on the off chance you're actually serious then please seek help. The roots of this virtual political hate speech are psychological, not philosophical.
I hardly think it's bile to fear that Bush might be crazy enough to use nukes without real provocation. I mean, look at recent history: Bush has already invaded Iraq without reason. He has shown his unwillingness to consider the opinions of other world leaders and of his own people. His religious beliefs are such that he undoubtedly believes Muslims to be heathens unworthy of existence. He has threatened force against Iran if they continue to do anything even remotely suspicious with materials which are even remotely connected to atomic energy/bombs. Given this information, how can you not fear that Bush might be capable of launching the world into a nuclear world war? At the least, he's as dangerous as Iran or North Korea. At the most, we're already dead.

North Korea is a problem, but it's just China's counterweight in the region. And as insane as Kim might be, he's no Muslim.
I hope I misread this: you seem to be saying that the "Kim" isn't a danger just because he happens not to be a Muslim. To me, this is equating danger with Muslims, which is precisely the sort of attitude that is destroying America.

The Islamic thugs running Iran have stated over and over again their desire to incinerate Israel and the US. Unlike some of the terminally naive left-wingers in here, I believe them.
Unlike some of the terminally naive right-wingers in here, I believe that Bush is as much a danger to us as are the Iranians, if not more so. It seems to me that you're expressing a desire to incinerate Iran. How is this any better than their supposed desire to incinerate the U.S. and Israel?

Antiphon said:
SOS, you and 2cents have lost the right to be taken seriously here anymore. Why don't
you head back to the DU where this kind of bile is welcomed. And if on
the off chance you're actually serious then please seek help. The roots
of this virtual political hate speech are psychological, not philosophical.
You have the right to take them seriously or not as do they you, no rights have been lost here.

You can trace the roots of modern political hate speech to the extreme ranting right-wing media that essentially started with Rush Limbaugh. Once Clinton got into office they had a focus for their hate. The ranting right-wingers gained popularity and acceptance into the mainstream media.

http://www.rackjite.com/5media.htm [Broken]

Listen to Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh, and then tell me with a straight face that the left started this hate speech. Read the transcripts of these shows through the nineties. If you can then say with a straight face that the liberal left started the hate speech then I guess maybe it is possible to lose ones right to be taken seriously.

Antiphon said:
North Korea is a problem, but it's just China's counterweight in the region.
And as insane as Kim might be, he's no Muslim. The Islamic thugs running
Iran have stated over and over again their desire to incinerate Israel and
the US. Unlike some of the terminally naive left-wingers in here, I believe
them.
Could you provide some names, dates, and quotes from these so called "Islamic thugs" so that we so called "terminally naive left-wingers" can discern for ourselves what seems to be in your opinion a foregone conclusion?

Last edited by a moderator:
Mentor
***Just a reminder to everyone, please try to address the content of what the user has posted and refrain from personal opinions of the poster.*** Slinging mud, cheap shots, and snide remarks will put you on the road towards a ban here.

Antiphon
Bile said:
I hardly think it's bile to fear that Bush might be crazy enough to use nukes without real provocation.

This is lunacy. And anyone who really thinks this is a lunatic.

The only way its not lunacy is maybe if we have a diagreement
about what constitutes a valid provocation. Ok.

But to think he would actually use nukes without provocation is
is to ascribe a depravitry to the man which is out of all touch with reality.

Sorry if this is perceived as personal- it's not.

Antiphon said:
This is lunacy. And anyone who really thinks this is a lunatic.

The only way its not lunacy is maybe if we have a diagreement
about what constitutes a valid provocation. Ok.

But to think he would actually use nukes without provocation is
is to ascribe a depravitry to the man which is out of all touch with reality.

Sorry if this is perceived as personal- it's not.
Like the 'valid provocation' he claimed to justify his attack on Iraq? It would seem Bush is very much out of touch with reality. The problem with Bush as with other neocons is they speak with God too much. Nothing wrong with that in itself but I fear Bush thinks God talks back to him.

edward
Uniter not a divider

There is a lot of political critical mass boiling here. As far as any action against Iran goes look at the facts.

In 2004 China and Iran signed a $75 billion dollar oil deal that allows China to develop one of Iran's major oil fields. China needs oil that's a given. They tried to buy Unocal but were met with too much political opposition. YET: China holds over$200 billion dollars in U.S. treasury bills. We have to keep selling T-bills to China to finance the war in Iraq.

American companies have been allowed to move the production of products to China that we cannot live without. (everything from can openers to electronic equipment *read some labels)

China has a trade surplus with the U.S. of over $650 billion dollars. Any military action by either the USA or Israel is going to be opposed by China and at the current time China is holding all of the cards, and the toys, and the microwave ovens, and the coffee makers, and the air conditioners, and the clothing, and just try to find a consumer item that is not made in China. As far as Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon goes, they don't even need the blasted nuclear power plants. if they use the centrifuges (supplied by Halliburton along with technical help from Pakistan) and a supply of raw materials, they can build nukes anyway. So what happens next? Absolutely nothing but big talk and big threats from big mouth politicians. Last edited: The Smoking Man Antiphon said: This is lunacy. And anyone who really thinks this is a lunatic. The only way its not lunacy is maybe if we have a diagreement about what constitutes a valid provocation. Ok. But to think he would actually use nukes without provocation is is to ascribe a depravitry to the man which is out of all touch with reality. Sorry if this is perceived as personal- it's not. Then what is the program that now has the USA persuing mini-nukes: Mini Nukes Reporter: Graham Phillips Producer: Graham Phillips Researcher: Paul Grocott 20 May 2004 A new generation of nuclear weapons – mini nukes is being planned by America. According to the US military, they need miniature nukes in the war against terrorism So they’re designing bunker busting weapons that can burrow down into the Earth carrying a mini- nuke which would wipe out some rogue dictator’s control centre or destroy stores of chemical and biological weapons. And the military says, because these mini-nuke bunker busters will go off underground, the nuclear fall out from them will never escape. But the mini nukes have a lot of critics amongst them physicist Richard Slakey who says they won’t be able to burrow deep enough and more worryingly that the radiation fallout cannot be contained. http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/catalyst/stories/s1112492.htm You do remember the Bunker buster that came down in the market in Iraq? What they seem reluctant to use is an ICBM. This does not mean they are averse to using nukes. The Smoking Man said: Then what is the program that now has the USA persuing mini-nukes: http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/catalyst/stories/s1112492.htm You do remember the Bunker buster that came down in the market in Iraq? What they seem reluctant to use is an ICBM. This does not mean they are averse to using nukes. No doubt as they did with napalm they'll 'relaunch' it with a new brand name so they can then deny using nukes. edward Mini Nukes This reminds me of the good old days back during the cold war when both the USA and Russia had nukes small enough to be carried in a backpack. I wonder what ever happened to all of those little nukettes. Antiphon said: This is lunacy. And anyone who really thinks this is a lunatic. The only way its not lunacy is maybe if we have a diagreement about what constitutes a valid provocation. Ok. But to think he would actually use nukes without provocation is is to ascribe a depravitry to the man which is out of all touch with reality. Art is right. If maybe (but not really) possessing weapons of mass destruction and being a "dictator" are the only criteria used by the Bush administration, then I definitely can't rule out the possibility. These criteria, which appear to have been the ones used in Iraq, are certainly enough to justify, in this administration's collective mind, the invasion of North Korea and Iran. An attack on either of these countries carries the well-known threat of nuclear war. Thus, attacking either of these countries except at actual, great, need is really a conscious decision to begin nuclear war. Sorry if this is perceived as personal- it's not. Not a personal attack? This may have been a mistake on your part, but you wrote "Originally posted by Bile..." outsider Antiphon said: Then you haven't heard much from those who are well informed about the history of Islam. The Arabian peninsula was Roman Catholic before it was Muslim. So was Constantinople before Muslims sacked it and renamed it Istanbul. Their next goal is Europe, to be followed by the US. let's stop right here... there is this huge misunderstanding that started when this whole fiasco began. When we see HOLY WAR, some people tend to think that this war is based on beliefs as to wipe out a religion. This makes no sense at all to a normal human being. Strategically, there is no prize in making a war over such a thing. This is a war of beliefs perhaps against CAPITALISM. George Soros has deflated and collapsed economies by flipping currency. America runs many parts of the Universe that humans have the ability to control(this includes space). I'm not antiAmerican, but I can see how a country or group of individuals would get upset watching this occur. Perhaps 911, in their opinion, was a pre-emptive attack? Warning shots? I'm just saying this so ANTIPHON may possibly see an alternative perspective. antiphon said: I'm sorry you see this. I see an aggressive expansionist religion whose violent advocates justify any means to achive it's expansion and have sworn to obliterate all of Western civilzation because it stands in their way. if it is possible for you to turn the table around, I think it is America which is trying to expand across the globe. Globalization & the UN are based on American ideals. Yes, these are good... but you don't realize that if you bring this down a notch... we can look at another scenerio closer to home: let's see... as a conservative righty, you don't want change in your country... This idea of weak Freedom of expression/ Gay tofu munching fags mentality is going to run the country down the toilet. You hate how they think everything is so happy and easy. They're all over the internet and I hear they are on their way to your town... A wall of "fags" start marching to your house to save your son (who doesn't yet know he's a fag)... and if you have a daughter all the bisexual fags are coming to get her... What do you do? you fire a warning shot... they tell the cops... the cops do nothing because it's your house... so they move in anyway because somehow, they know your son is gay and your daughter is horny :) Your son/(daughter) loves it! :rofl: All the lefties start making propoganda saying how much your son/daughter loved it and your son/daughter even stands infront of a camera and SX DX saying.. Hi Mom.. look no hands! Perhaps they used weapons to force compliance, but the news says that Gay is the Way! How would you feel about that? Helpless father... who couldn't protect his own family from leftist beliefs. You are a failure. To summarize if you didn't read carefully: Rightists in America = Terrorists and the Lefties = George & Co. Unfortunately it seems like it takes a lefty to see the real big picture. IMO some people with certain beliefs have a larger brain capacity or something... seriously antiphon said: I'd need to know who they were before I rendered a specific judgment about them. The loss of innocnet life is greivous. The loss of Jihadi fighters is a numerical and strategic success. unfortunately, you have it backwards. I tend to attribute most things GWB says to being HIS plan of attack and reasoning. I'm always wondering how he and his group have so much insight on the opponent. Don't tell me that it is some kinda intelligence agency... if it were that, they would have been able to plan a real attack to snuff out the candle in one shot rather than fanning a feather at it. antiphon said: I'm dissapointed to see you skewer your own argument above about relying on bad intelligence. Apparently it's ok for you to rely on it when it tells you what you want to hear. did your daddy teach you that? if there is any proper intelligence coming back to the Bush Admin, it is getting skewed before it gets released... trust a guy who used to write press releases (yes that's me) Fear is different from knowing the score and spelling it out like it is. It doesn't matter to me whether I am killed by a heart attack or an Iranian nuke. But it matters greatly to me that the world not be taken over by that particular death-cult. like maybe the NAZIs related to GWB & Family and Arnie, the last action hero? antiphon said: Pattylou, I honestly don't want to frighten you. I honestly think you do... but I, also, don't think it worked :tongue2: antiphon said: Time and time again, the clarion call of the frightened has been to sue for peace in the face of agression. This is a losing strategy. Let, me tell you this BUDDY, I was probably a bigger bully than you will ever hope to be... I learned to think... and I think YOU have the losing strategy. People who are against war are not all too weak or afraid to fight. They understand that fighting does not trump anything. It is the lowest common denominator. When you go to kindergarten, the teacher teaches all kids not to fight. C'mon! I would have you by the neck...(haha.. you loved that didn't you?... that's the game you think you could win... I bet you not... you love the way I challenge you and get your blood boiling mad... but you have no idea that it only puts you right where I want you... So you have no idea what you would be up against, would you? so don't do it. Children learn to get along, why can't adults? Antiphon, please take whatever degree you have and eat it... *passes bbq sauce* You are going back to kindergarten! I will be your Kindergarten Cop :rofl: and you are going to love it Last edited: outsider btw... ANTIPHON, it says in your Location: Above the Fray... I believe you all "all up in there"... so you are also among the hypocritical... you certainly are right. outsider edward said: There is a lot of political critical mass boiling here. As far as any action against Iran goes look at the facts. In 2004 China and Iran signed a$75 billion dollar oil deal that allows China to develop one of Iran's major oil fields.

China needs oil that's a given. They tried to buy Unocal but were met with too much political opposition. YET:

China holds over $200 billion dollars in U.S. treasury bills. We have to keep selling T-bills to China to finance the war in Iraq. American companies have been allowed to move the production of products to China that we cannot live without. (everything from can openers to electronic equipment *read some labels) China has a trade surplus with the U.S. of over$650 billion dollars.

Any military action by either the USA or Israel is going to be opposed by China and at the current time China is holding all of the cards, and the toys, and the microwave ovens, and the coffee makers, and the air conditioners, and the clothing, and just try to find a consumer item that is not made in China.

As far as Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon goes, they don't even need the blasted nuclear power plants. if they use the centrifuges (supplied by Halliburton along with technical help from Pakistan) and a supply of raw materials, they can build nukes anyway.

So what happens next? Absolutely nothing but big talk and big threats from big mouth politicians.
WOW! Thank You Edward...
The only thing about a debt is that you can decide to not pay it. I don't know if China realizes how worthless those Tbills are if US decides they have enough arms and spaceships to save the significant and just let everyone split the bill. Yes this way of thinking does take a leap.. but space... the final frontier... these are the voyages... yeah I'll stop now.

The guy who borrows all the money... has all the money... who is going to take it from him?

The Smoking Man
outsider said:
WOW! Thank You Edward...
The only thing about a debt is that you can decide to not pay it. I don't know if China realizes how worthless those Tbills are if US decides they have enough arms and spaceships to save the significant and just let everyone split the bill. Yes this way of thinking does take a leap.. but space... the final frontier... these are the voyages... yeah I'll stop now.

The guy who borrows all the money... has all the money... who is going to take it from him?
The rest of the world when they revalue the dollar to the level of the Lira.

outsider
The Smoking Man said:
The rest of the world when they revalue the dollar to the level of the Lira.
in your opinion, how likely is that?

Smurf
on their current course, unavoidable.

The scenario for a war against Iran goes like this.

Scare the American people again, maybe another terror attack. Link it to Iran.

Now because our conventional force are still bogged down in Iraq, and since Iran has a real army, we start by Strtegically nuking power plants, cities, and evereything else except the oil fields. Then we can move in and have a much smaller population, therefore a much smaller insurgency. This way Haliburton and Chevron can maximize profits.

This may be simplistic but just remember who is the president is.

outsider
Skyhunter said:
The scenario for a war against Iran goes like this.

Scare the American people again, maybe another terror attack. Link it to Iran.

Now because our conventional force are still bogged down in Iraq, and since Iran has a real army, we start by Strtegically nuking power plants, cities, and evereything else except the oil fields. Then we can move in and have a much smaller population, therefore a much smaller insurgency. This way Haliburton and Chevron can maximize profits.

This may be simplistic but just remember who is the president is.
how were you able to come up with this ingenius plan?

The Smoking Man
outsider said:
in your opinion, how likely is that?
Extremely likely.

The world has so far switched about 20% of their holdings from USD to EUROS.

You've made a LOT of bad decisions over the decades since the world declared the dollar to be the world currency and there has been a massive switch out of the fear the currency has no backing.

The Smoking Man
outsider said:
how were you able to come up with this ingenius plan?

The big lie is being concocted already.

We have gone from announcements of Iran and Iraq making peace with one another and working co-operatively to fight terrorism to announcements of arms shipments and insinuations that the Iraqis are dragging their heels on the constitution and putting too much of their religion into it.

Both countries are being condemned for making ovations of peace.

Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
Extremely likely.

The world has so far switched about 20% of their holdings from USD to EUROS.

You've made a LOT of bad decisions over the decades since the world declared the dollar to be the world currency and there has been a massive switch out of the fear the currency has no backing.
Mostly since 2000...and if you look at this possibility in conjunction with new ties between various countries, such as Iran with China and Russia (as I think you mentioned previously) it should be quite disconcerting to Americans. But no, we continue our record spending (energy bill, highway bill) our poor trade agreements (CAFTA), and of course a foreign policy of aggression.

edward
outsider said:
WOW! Thank You Edward...
The only thing about a debt is that you can decide to not pay it. I don't know if China realizes how worthless those Tbills are if US decides they have enough arms and spaceships to save the significant and just let everyone split the bill. Yes this way of thinking does take a leap.. but space... the final frontier... these are the voyages... yeah I'll stop now.

The guy who borrows all the money... has all the money... who is going to take it from him?

The U.S. will never have enough arms and spaceships, especially arms. If we don't have the arms China will send their repo man. If we want to build more arms to prevent this ... we sell more T- Bills to China.

All China has to do is stop all shipments of goods to the USA. In six months we will be on our knees. We no longer have factories that make consumer goods, or haven't you noticed.