For our confused friends on the left:

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Would you have supported a war in Iran as opposed to Iraq?

I've heard alot of talk from our friends on the left that they don't support the war in Iraq because Saddam doesn't support terrorism (which I disagree with but that's besides the point) So, my question is would you have supported an invasion of the known state sponsor of terrorism Iran? Or is it war in general that you have a problem with or is it the U.S. military that you have a problem with? I prefer to think the ladder but let's see what you guys have to say about the subject.

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

Would you have supported a war in Iran as opposed to Iraq?

I've heard alot of talk from our friends on the left that they don't support the war in Iraq because Saddam doesn't support terrorism (which I disagree with but that's besides the point) So, my question is would you have supported an invasion of the known state sponsor of terrorism Iran? Or is it war in general that you have a problem with or is it the U.S. military that you have a problem with? I prefer to think the ladder but let's see what you guys have to say about the subject.

I would not be infavor of a war with Iran. If you think the War in Iraq is bad, multiply that by a large "holy ****" factor and you would probably have a War in Iran. I tend to adopt a neutral stance when it comes to other countries, because we can't expect other nations to respect our sovereignty if we don't respect theres. Not that I support dictators or anything, but I dont support "nation building" or even just the removal or a dictator, because of views I dont particularly want to express here. I don't have a problem with war really, just offensive wars. I prefer to attack a known enemy rather than a nation that supplies money and a haven for the ones who attack us; sounds dumb, I know, but it comes down to slippery slope (which also sounds dumb and naive, I know). As I see it, it would become easier and easier to get us to go to war, just point a finger, produce some legit looking documents, and send in the marines. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I think there are better ways to go about diplomacy than using war as the means to the end.

(convaluted, but I think I can answer a specific question. I know my views are hazy on the subject, I'm sure some of yours are too....)

(And for Navy Pride, don't take this to mean I'm a lefty, I consider my self an independent. I figured since I'm anti-war I should speak up.)

 

[Deegan]

I expect you are going to see a lot of this, "the ends don't justify the means" I don't agree with that, and history has debunked this fantasy time and again, but we shall see.

 

[CollectiveConvergence]

What would the legal justification for an attack on Iran be? Do we have any? I would venture to say: No. The invasion of Iraq was the short sighted implementation of this administration’s pre-emptive death, oops I mean war policy. Nevertheless, legal justification, based on Iraq’s so called “violations” of UN Security Council resolutions seems to be excuse enough. So why not adopt a similar policy with every potential nuclear danger worldwide, it would be great for our economy, think of the jobs it would create. What’s another 100 billion or so?

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

I expect you are going to see a lot of this, "the ends don't justify the means" I don't agree with that, and history has debunked this fantasy time and again, but we shall see.

I was talking about using War as a tool of diplomacy, like whacking someone with a bat to make them comply with you, but lets do a thought exercise:

1) We have a problem with Iraqi insurgents, we can't find their bases or root them out.
2) As the means to our end (ridding ourselves of the insurgency) we decide to go on a barbaric campaign using brutal tactics and torture to get the insurgents locations and stop people from joining them (No this is not some veiled TimmyBoy style lead in to a future rant, I'm talking real torture, blowing out kneecaps, killing family members, etc.).

Lets just assume, because of course this would not work, that the insurgency is wiped out and Iraqi is relativly peaceful. However, in the process of the campaign we have killed over a third of the population and left thousands of children homeless or parentless. Were the ends justified by the means?

If I had to murder a man to achieve world peace, sure I would do it, one mans life is not alot compared to world peace, but the thing is I would be assured of the outcome I desire. When you use war as a diplomatic tool the outcome is almost never what you want. The question is: do you know what the end will be?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What would the legal justification for an attack on Iran be? Do we have any? I would venture to say: No. The invasion of Iraq was the short sighted implementation of this administration’s pre-emptive death, oops I mean war policy. Nevertheless, legal justification, based on Iraq’s so called “violations” of UN Security Council resolutions seems to be excuse enough. So why not adopt a similar policy with every potential nuclear danger worldwide, it would be great for our economy, think of the jobs it would create. What’s another 100 billion or so?

Legal justification? How about the fact that they're supporting and financing the insurgency we're already at war with Iran. Where you say Bush is short sighted I say that you're the one who doesn't see the big picture.

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

Legal justification? How about the fact that they're supporting and financing the insurgency we're already at war with Syria and Iran. Where you say Bush is short sighted I say that you're the one who doesn't see the big picture.

Come on, dont be baited. This is the same crap we've been over a hundred times, let it go, it happened end of story.

 

[Deegan]

I was talking about using War as a tool of diplomacy, like whacking someone with a bat to make them comply with you, but lets do a thought exercise:

1) We have a problem with Iraqi insurgents, we can't find their bases or root them out.
2) As the means to our end (ridding ourselves of the insurgency) we decide to go on a barbaric campaign using brutal tactics and torture to get the insurgents locations and stop people from joining them (No this is not some veiled TimmyBoy style lead in to a future rant, I'm talking real torture, blowing out kneecaps, killing family members, etc.).

Lets just assume, because of course this would not work, that the insurgency is wiped out and Iraqi is relativly peaceful. However, in the process of the campaign we have killed over a third of the population and left thousands of children homeless or parentless. Were the ends justified by the means?

If I had to murder a man to achieve world peace, sure I would do it, one mans life is not alot compared to world peace, but the thing is I would be assured of the outcome I desire. When you use war as a diplomatic tool the outcome is almost never what you want. The question is: do you know what the end will be?

I don't expect they will continue on their path of nuclear weapons, that is once we show we are deadly serious. I expect that the people will rise up, and demand that the government comply with the non-proliferation act. It only takes one mad man to create a world wide panic, N.K has shown us this, and we must learn from those important lessons. Iran cannot be allowed to become the next N.K, and that is certainly something worth fighting for!

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

I don't expect they will continue on their path of nuclear weapons, that is once we show we are deadly serious. I expect that the people will rise up, and demand that the government comply with the non-proliferation act. It only takes one mad man to create a world wide panic, N.K has shown us this, and we must learn from those important lessons. Iran cannot be allowed to become the next N.K, and that is certainly something worth fighting for!

What exactly has NK done? Nothing more than ef over their own citizens, we let the go on all the time. If they try something shifty, I'm all for dropping the hammer hard, but doing something because they MIGHT do something shifty? Nope.

Do you really think that people in Iran will rise up and say: "Hey they just invaded us! Lets sign a non-proliferation treaty and kiss and make up!". Hell no, they will strap bombs on and blow themselves up on our troops, they will get out the AK's and RPG's and fight back because we invaded their country. I think you misjudge the people of Iran. Most of them SUPPORT the govt. there.

(Besides, what are you talking about, Kim Jong Ill caused world panic? As I recall we ignored him and decided to invade Iraq....)

 

[CollectiveConvergence]

Come on, dont be baited. This is the same crap we've been over a hundred times, let it go, it happened end of story.

It wasn't that long ago that we were supporting Iraq at least with arms aid in a war against Iran. It just seems the redundancy of these actions has gotten us no where; I'm not trying to bait. I'm seriously looking for valid justification for further violent involvement as opposed to taking diplomatic measures. War has not been the most cost affective solution to international problems, which even after the fact seem to recreate themselves.

 

[Deegan]

What exactly has NK done? Nothing more than ef over their own citizens, we let the go on all the time. If they try something shifty, I'm all for dropping the hammer hard, but doing something because they MIGHT do something shifty? Nope.

Do you really think that people in Iran will rise up and say: "Hey they just invaded us! Lets sign a non-proliferation treaty and kiss and make up!". Hell no, they will strap bombs on and blow themselves up on our troops, they will get out the AK's and RPG's and fight back because we invaded their country. I think you misjudge the people of Iran. Most of them SUPPORT the govt. there.

(Besides, what are you talking about, Kim Jong Ill caused world panic? As I recall we ignored him and decided to invade Iraq....)

We have not ignored him, we were forced to accept the fact that he has WMD's and would certainly use them had we had invaded. That is miles from ignoring the regime, it's common sense. We also have China to worry about, and they hold the key to dealing with N.K, and we should continue to pressure them to do so.

 

[SKILMATIC]

I would not be infavor of a war with Iran. If you think the War in Iraq is bad, multiply that by a large "holy ****" factor and you would probably have a War in Iran. I tend to adopt a neutral stance when it comes to other countries, because we can't expect other nations to respect our sovereignty if we don't respect theres. Not that I support dictators or anything, but I dont support "nation building" or even just the removal or a dictator, because of views I dont particularly want to express here. I don't have a problem with war really, just offensive wars. I prefer to attack a known enemy rather than a nation that supplies money and a haven for the ones who attack us; sounds dumb, I know, but it comes down to slippery slope (which also sounds dumb and naive, I know). As I see it, it would become easier and easier to get us to go to war, just point a finger, produce some legit looking documents, and send in the marines. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I think there are better ways to go about diplomacy than using war as the means to the end.

(convaluted, but I think I can answer a specific question. I know my views are hazy on the subject, I'm sure some of yours are too....)

(And for Navy Pride, don't take this to mean I'm a lefty, I consider my self an independent. I figured since I'm anti-war I should speak up.)

And this just proves my point that liberals are mental cases. Iran unlike iraq only has the means to build a nuclear arsenal instead of building a massive army and military so therefor if we went into war with iran it wouldnt be that difficult. The only thing is Iran is bigger and more populated. But most of the insurgents in Iraq are from Iran and syria so theres really no getting out of that factor. And your right your whole post sounds really dumb at least you know that yourself.

The fact is if our mission is to remove a dictator and then setup a better means of gov then thats what will happen just like it did in iraq. Look, just becasue there are insurgents doesnt mean things arent going smoothly. Whenever you do anything there will always be people who dont agree with you(an opposition) its just the way the world is. I mean we could create a new ammendment saying "all child predators if convicted guilty will be jailed for life without a retrial." And there will be people who would actually disagree with that. I mean do you people have any idea what we have done for the iraqi people? We just didnt free them. We have opened iraq up to the world and now Iraq has the opportunity to establish new business partners and can now be an ally to most of the world. Tourism will flourish, their economy will boom from it, they will also have the US right on their side just like kuwait does. The iraqi people will have pwers they never had before because they are allies with us.

 

[Kandahar]

There would've been more justification in terms of terrorism for invading Iran than Iraq in 2003. There would've also been more justification in terms of bringing democracy to Iran than Iraq (since Iranians would've been more willing participants), but I would've opposed such an invasion for other reasons.

1. In 2003 there was still a chance that the reformists would peacefully oust the hardliners. Things didn't turn out that way, but at the time I would not have wanted to needlessly rally an entire nation around a hardline government that it otherwise despises.

2. Occupying of Iran would've costed even more money and troop commitment than occupying Iraq, simply because of its larger geographic size.

3. There would've likely been a prolonged insurgency had we invaded Iran, much like the one in Iraq.

4. Our troops would've been much more at risk from WMD than they were in Iraq, because Iran actually had such weapons.

5. A prolonged occupation of Iran (like Iraq) would needlessly deplete American power worldwide.

6. While there might have been some short-term tactical benefits to getting rid of the ayatollahs (such as stopping another country from gaining nuclear weapons), the long-term strategic benfits are much more difficult to identify. The benefits simply would not have outweighed the costs, much like most other wars.

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

And this just proves my point that liberals are mental cases. Iran unlike iraq only has the means to build a nuclear arsenal instead of building a massive army and military so therefor if we went into war with iran it wouldnt be that difficult. The only thing is Iran is bigger and more populated. But most of the insurgents in Iraq are from Iran and syria so theres really no getting out of that factor. And your right your whole post sounds really dumb at least you know that yourself.

Thank you for ignoring the last part of my post, perhaps I should have directed it at you too. I'm not a liberal. I dont base my opinions on party lines, and I dont hold to stupid "liberal" or "conservative" ideals. If I sound liberal when talking politics (not issues, politics) its because I happen to personally dislike alot more republican politicians than democratic politicians. Just because I'm not for you doesnt mean im "against" you. I dont understand your logic in this, we can beat them to a pulp, so we should? It doesnt matter if they go nuclear because, they can't get the bombs to us, last time I checked they dont have ICBMs, and I would like to try more diplomacy before we go off the handle and invade. I hope you have don't have enough faith in our intelligence services to believe they can stop an arab from getting a full blown nuke into the US. Even if we did invade Iran and stomp the **** out of their military (which, I have no doubt, we can do easily), so what? As I said before, the people would not sit and go: "hey, we just got invaded, lets do what the invaders want". The majority of the people would strap on some ammo belts and attempt to go rambo on US troops. We would never pacify the country, and the potential damage to regional stability would be catastrophic. The potential payoff is not worth the potential damage in my eyes.

To sum up: I have no doubt we would be able to do some serious ass kicking in Iran, I'm just worried about potential repercussions and rebuilding. I think we should at least make sure we can get Iraq back on track first before we try it in a country sure to have a worse situation.

The fact is if our mission is to remove a dictator and then setup a better means of gov then thats what will happen just like it did in iraq. Look, just becasue there are insurgents doesnt mean things arent going smoothly. Whenever you do anything there will always be people who dont agree with you(an opposition) its just the way the world is. I mean we could create a new ammendment saying "all child predators if convicted guilty will be jailed for life without a retrial." And there will be people who would actually disagree with that. I mean do you people have any idea what we have done for the iraqi people? We just didnt free them. We have opened iraq up to the world and now Iraq has the opportunity to establish new business partners and can now be an ally to most of the world. Tourism will flourish, their economy will boom from it, they will also have the US right on their side just like kuwait does. The iraqi people will have pwers they never had before because they are allies with us.

Yes saddam was bad, yes I'm glad hes gone, yes most of the Iraqi people are happy he is gone, but are they really that much better off? They pretty much have the same chance of getting killed currently as under saddam. Does it matter that they die "free", do they care?

As I said before, I dont think dictator removal by outside force is an effective measure due to alot of thinking on my part which requires extensive and confusing explanation. Suffice to say it makes sense to me, and hey, it's a "free" country, I can say what I want.

An open Iraq is nice, but nobody wants to go there now. Maybe ten years down the line when the country settles down (or maybe after the civil war) people will come to Iraq. So in the long run, maybe it will be better for the Iraqi people, but it certainly wont help us in getting things done around the world. Do you enjoy having to put up with **** like "arrogant americans" and "imperial americans" and all that other crap? I know I don't, and its the same on the International government level. Nobody likes us anymore, and you may say: "well then **** 'em, we don't need 'em" but the truth is we do need their cooperation. We are part of an international community and nobody likes a bully.

 

[JKD COBRA]

Legal justification? How about the fact that they're supporting and financing the insurgency we're already at war with Iran. Where you say Bush is short sighted I say that you're the one who doesn't see the big picture.

Trajan - you have to understand where these people are coming from. They don't think like the majority of the country. When they are faced with an enemy, they think "how can we appease them", "how can we make them like us?" They don't think "how can we stop a threat to make everyone safe."

You have to understand that the liberals think that it is our fault that terrorists hate us. We caused the attacks. Therefore, if all we would do is pull out of Iraq, the attacks would stop and they would like us. If all we would do is give up and leave them alone, they wouldn't hate us anymore.

But, nothing could be further from the truth. You don't win a war with appeasement, and you don't stop terrorism by trying to make them like us.

When liberals see a terrorist attack, they don't see an act of war. They see an act of violence that needs to be analyzed. They think that we need to find out 'why' they are doing it, because it must be our fault.

Once you understand that, you can see why they think completely backwards.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Thank you for ignoring the last part of my post, perhaps I should have directed it at you too.

Your quite welcome my friend.

I'm not a liberal. I dont base my opinions on party lines, and I dont hold to stupid "liberal" or "conservative" ideals.

Really? Are you sure?

If I sound liberal when talking politics (not issues, politics) its because I happen to personally dislike alot more republican politicians than democratic politicians.

And in todays world that makes you a liberal.

Just because I'm not for you doesnt mean im "against" you.

This makes no sense. So if you dont like child predators then you? Riiighht

I dont understand your logic in this, we can beat them to a pulp, so we should? It doesnt matter if they go nuclear because, they can't get the bombs to us, last time I checked they dont have ICBMs, and I would like to try more diplomacy before we go off the handle and invade. I hope you have don't have enough faith in our intelligence services to believe they can stop an arab from getting a full blown nuke into the US. Even if we did invade Iran and stomp the **** out of their military (which, I have no doubt, we can do easily), so what? As I said before, the people would not sit and go: "hey, we just got invaded, lets do what the invaders want". The majority of the people would strap on some ammo belts and attempt to go rambo on US troops. We would never pacify the country, and the potential damage to regional stability would be catastrophic. The potential payoff is not worth the potential damage in my eyes.

Huh? Did you even read one thing in my post? Also to answer your question I dont have enough faith in our intelligence to stop all traffic into the US. I mean we cant even stop the 10000 mexicans from coming over here in a day, so you realy think we are going to stop 1 nuke coming over here that could happen in any moment and time? Well thats all nice and all about being rambo but to tell you the truth when they strap on ammo belts there will be a 2000pd bomb on their porch to greet them before our ground force arrives. Its obvious to me that you know very little of modern warfare. The onlt potential damage would be to us if we stood back and did nothiong of the potential problem which is what we did before 9/11 happened. History repeats itself incase you havent learned yet and in your book it will just turn out to be another chapter of attrocity after attrocity.

To sum up: I have no doubt we would be able to do some serious ass kicking in Iran, I'm just worried about potential repercussions and rebuilding. I think we should at least make sure we can get Iraq back on track first before we try it in a country sure to have a worse situation.

Now this made more sense than your previous posts. I totally agree with this. I think we should finish up in iraq before we go into iran and syria. This way we can use iraq as a strategic front and a land base. They can also help us in intelligence and translation.

Yes saddam was bad, yes I'm glad hes gone, yes most of the Iraqi people are happy he is gone, but are they really that much better off? They pretty much have the same chance of getting killed currently as under saddam. Does it matter that they die "free", do they care?

Of course they care. Over 80% shows they do.

As I said before, I dont think dictator removal by outside force is an effective measure due to alot of thinking on my part which requires extensive and confusing explanation. Suffice to say it makes sense to me, and hey, it's a "free" country, I can say what I want.

Yeah I guess your right. I guess outside force in removing Hitler, Mussilini, and Hirohito isnt an effetive measure.

An open Iraq is nice, but nobody wants to go there now. Maybe ten years down the line when the country settles down (or maybe after the civil war) people will come to Iraq

Well thats what I mean of course. You really think I would take a family trip out there to check out the tourist attraction of the Sadaam statue that got toppled? C'mon dude please attain common sense.

So in the long run, maybe it will be better for the Iraqi people, but it certainly wont help us in getting things done around the world.

And how do you figure this?

Do you enjoy having to put up with **** like "arrogant americans" and "imperial americans" and all that other crap? I know I don't, and its the same on the International government level.

Ok and your point is?

Nobody likes us anymore, and you may say: "well then **** 'em, we don't need 'em" but the truth is we do need their cooperation. We are part of an international community and nobody likes a bully.

I do agree that we need some of the international community to be allied with us but the fact is we already do. I mean we have so many allies its rediculous. So I dont quite get the point?

 

[SKILMATIC]

Trajan - you have to understand where these people are coming from. They don't think like the majority of the country. When they are faced with an enemy, they think "how can we appease them", "how can we make them like us?" They don't think "how can we stop a threat to make everyone safe."

You have to understand that the liberals think that it is our fault that terrorists hate us. We caused the attacks. Therefore, if all we would do is pull out of Iraq, the attacks would stop and they would like us. If all we would do is give up and leave them alone, they wouldn't hate us anymore.

But, nothing could be further from the truth. You don't win a war with appeasement, and you don't stop terrorism by trying to make them like us.

When liberals see a terrorist attack, they don't see an act of war. They see an act of violence that needs to be analyzed. They think that we need to find out 'why' they are doing it, because it must be our fault.

Once you understand that, you can see why they think completely backwards.

I love this guy and his taste in cars presumes that. Welcome to debate politics my fellow genius. I also welcome you to my org the CSTPofA THE COMMON SENSE THINKING PEOPLE of AMERICA.

 

[Vandeervecken]

We should have invaded, or depopulated through a liberal use of weapons, our real enemy. The prime movers behind Islamic terror in the world for the last 60 years. The prime movers behind 9-11. I refer of course to Saudi Arabia. But of course the Bush family has strong business ties with the House of Saud so that is out of the question.

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

nice and all about being rambo but to tell you the truth when they strap on ammo belts there will be a 2000pd bomb on their porch to greet them before our ground force arrives. Its obvious to me that you know very little of modern warfare. The onlt potential damage would be to us if we stood back and did nothiong of the potential problem which is what we did before 9/11 happened. History repeats itself incase you havent learned yet and in your book it will just turn out to be another chapter of attrocity after attrocity.

How ironic, did YOU read MY post? I was describing a period of time after the military forces of Iran are crushed, much like the Iraqi insurgency, but more violent and better organized. I seriously doubt our military leaders will condone putting a 2000 lb bomb through every door in Iran. Thats what we here in the good old US of A call "genocide". Last time I checked we thought this is a bad thing.

Now this made more sense than your previous posts. I totally agree with this. I think we should finish up in iraq before we go into iran and syria. This way we can use iraq as a strategic front and a land base. They can also help us in intelligence and translation.

Stop twisting my words. I want to see if Iraq can be rebuilt in order to see if we could even rebuild Iran after the invasion, not so that we can use it as one big base. The point is why start another war when we can't even finish the one we've got. I see also you ignored the part about "repercussions", you know, like WWIII and all that.

Of course they care. Over 80% shows they do.

Have you asked the dead ones? Do the people who die care if they died free?

Yeah I guess your right. I guess outside force in removing Hitler, Mussilini, and Hirohito isnt an effetive measure.

Different situation from the one I was using. I meant removal of a dictator basically for arbitrary reasons. Not in the case of WWII which was a completely different set of circumstances. This is why I said i didn't want to get into this topic, its hard to articulate. Just ignore this and lets go back to Iran. (call it a cop out if you want, but I dont want to hijack the thread)

And how do you figure this?

Ok and your point is?

I do agree that we need some of the international community to be allied with us but the fact is we already do. I mean we have so many allies its rediculous. So I dont quite get the point?

The point was explained if you read the whole paragraph at once instead of deconstructing it part and parcel. The IMPORTANT countries in Europe and Asia are not getting along well with us, and another act of aggression would only heighten the tension between them and us. My point was if the current anti-american trend continues we will have a hard time getting anything done one an international scale because some countries will have nothing to do with us.

 

[SKILMATIC]

How ironic, did YOU read MY post? I was describing a period of time after the military forces of Iran are crushed, much like the Iraqi insurgency, but more violent and better organized. I seriously doubt our military leaders will condone putting a 2000 lb bomb through every door in Iran. Thats what we here in the good old US of A call "genocide". Last time I checked we thought this is a bad thing.

Very funny how you think modern warfare is genocidal. I cant teach you everything about modern warfar becasue there is so much to know and learn. But to paraphrase for you so that laymans can understand, there are things called satellites that can show very clear pictures of someone picking their nose to, yep you got it, puting on ammo belts and picking up a weapon. When we see this from our survailence aircraft(which is virtually invisible) and satellites we send either bombers or other air striking force to take out the potential threats in war. After this is acheived then our ground pounders go in and clean up the mess and to make sure that area is cleared out of insurgents. Now we also have whats called smart bombs that can drop within a yard radius. We donthave to drop a bomb on every porch. Just the ones where there are known insurgents. Please learn simple things first before speaking.

Stop twisting my words. I want to see if Iraq can be rebuilt in order to see if we could even rebuild Iran after the invasion, not so that we can use it as one big base. The point is why start another war when we can't even finish the one we've got. I see also you ignored the part about "repercussions", you know, like WWIII and all that.

Are you that big of a mental case? Where have you been the last 2 fvcking yeas? You mean to tell me the US just occupied Iraq just for sh!ts and giggles? We have been busting our a$$es to rebuild their infrastructure and to help setup a gov which we have completed that task about a year ago and the gov we are still working on. So to answer your insignificant question, Yes we can rebuild Iraq and we have already accomplished that. And didnt you know after both WW's we rebuilt most of the world? We were the ones along with others who rebuilt most of Europe. If we can rebuild a whole continent we can surely rebuild a country the size of california and the POPULATION size of 65% of california. :doh

Have you asked the dead ones? Do the people who die care if they died free?

This makes no sense. What does that have to do with what I just said? Please loose the liberalism.

Different situation from the one I was using. I meant removal of a dictator basically for arbitrary reasons. Not in the case of WWII which was a completely different set of circumstances. This is why I said i didn't want to get into this topic, its hard to articulate. Just ignore this and lets go back to Iran. (call it a cop out if you want, but I dont want to hijack the thread)

No no no dont even try to doctor up what you meant in the first place. You mental disorders are totally and completely pathetic. I just debacled your whole argument in every shape, fassion, and form. Yeah lets ignore this cause you basically have no debate in anything. A matter a fact you miles well ignore every post you make. :lol:

The point was explained if you read the whole paragraph at once instead of deconstructing it part and parcel.

Huh? Can you please eloquently explain to me how you can deconstruct a post? I am alittle puzzled here where this happened? Was there a bull doxer in this epic?

The IMPORTANT countries in Europe and Asia are not getting along well with us,

O really so the most powerful and richest country in Europe isnt getting along with us? The countries of Spain, France, Germany, Greece, etc etc dont call us allies and we dont come to each others defense in the UN? Also you mean to tell me that the second best economical power in the world isnt on our side? The third economical power in the world isnt doing business with us? The only Asain countries that hate us are the small southeast countries and N Korea. China doesnt completely hate us. Please learn about foreign affairs before you come and have a debate with me on this. I would completely appreciate it. Thank you.

 

[JKD COBRA]

I love this guy and his taste in cars presumes that. Welcome to debate politics my fellow genius. I also welcome you to my org the CSTPofA THE COMMON SENSE THINKING PEOPLE of AMERICA.

Thank you very much skilmatic, I really appreciate the kind words. When I saw your avatar I knew you would be a good guy. Not many people have a picture of the widebody supra in their avatar. The name of that supra escapes me right now, but I have seen all of the specs of it. My specialty is the 03 SVT Cobra. The car in my avatar is the Saleen SR Widebody.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Thank you very much skilmatic, I really appreciate the kind words. When I saw your avatar I knew you would be a good guy. Not many people have a picture of the widebody supra in their avatar. The name of that supra escapes me right now, but I have seen all of the specs of it. My specialty is the 03 SVT Cobra. The car in my avatar is the Saleen SR Widebody.

Your certainly welcome. Yes, I love the 2jz and it has been an awesome car and proven that time and time again. Saleen and Cobra have also proven that they are very well proven in the racing field. Although I am a car lover period I would have to conjecture that I love the old mustangs better. The old cobras were better IMO. However, 03 Cobras(blown) are putting out somehting like around 400 right?

I love my 97 LE it is a colectors car and it hasnt depreciated in value at all since I bought it. It came with 380rwhp stock and I have been able to modify mine to over 800rwhp. I love the saleen sr becasue it reminds me of a supra. As you can tell one of my favorite cars is a supra. My dad just purchased a 05 Mustang GT. That is also a very beautiful car.

Well I will be looking forward to the logic you will bring to this forum and my ears will sing becasue I hear more common sense in the forum. Thankgod there are more people like you and I in this country or else we would be a socialist republic.

 

[FinnMacCool]

No I would not support a war with Iran as opposed to Iraq buts its kinda funny you brought that up because if we were fighting a war with Iran we would be killing the same people who we are currently supporting. Kinda like the whole we are at with Eurasia and EastAsia ( or the other way around) is an ally thing yes?

Well I will be looking forward to the logic you will bring to this forum and my ears will sing becasue I hear more common sense in the forum. Thankgod there are more people like you and I in this country or else we would be a socialist republic.

Perhaps liberals and conservaties balance each other out? Conservatives keep us from becoming socialist while liberals like me keep us from becoming nazis? Not that I have any problem with socialism except that it wouldn't work. (I'm still exploring the idea of a democratic socialist government)

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

Very funny how you think modern warfare is genocidal. I cant teach you everything about modern warfar becasue there is so much to know and learn. But to paraphrase for you so that laymans can understand, there are things called satellites that can show very clear pictures of someone picking their nose to, yep you got it, puting on ammo belts and picking up a weapon. When we see this from our survailence aircraft(which is virtually invisible) and satellites we send either bombers or other air striking force to take out the potential threats in war. After this is acheived then our ground pounders go in and clean up the mess and to make sure that area is cleared out of insurgents. Now we also have whats called smart bombs that can drop within a yard radius. We donthave to drop a bomb on every porch. Just the ones where there are known insurgents. Please learn simple things first before speaking.

Very funny how you assume I think modern warfare is genocidal. Let me ask you something, if we have this awesome capability to see into houses and monitor every builidng in every city and put 2000 lb bombs (which would do more than just kill the insugents btw) ontop of them before they can even leave the house to ambush our troops, why aren't we doing it in Iraq? I think your confusing my words. I am not talking about taking out national military forces or insurgent forces in known camps, because I know we have to capability to bring the firepower approaching the wrath of god to bear on them, I am talking about the type of insurgency we see in Iraq, where insurgents are sheltered by sympathetic natives. In order to wipe them out by dropping bombs on them we would have to drop a bomb on every (or every few depending on the yield of the bomb) building in Iran. THAT would be genocide.

Are you that big of a mental case? Where have you been the last 2 fvcking yeas? You mean to tell me the US just occupied Iraq just for sh!ts and giggles? We have been busting our a$$es to rebuild their infrastructure and to help setup a gov which we have completed that task about a year ago and the gov we are still working on. So to answer your insignificant question, Yes we can rebuild Iraq and we have already accomplished that. And didnt you know after both WW's we rebuilt most of the world? We were the ones along with others who rebuilt most of Europe. If we can rebuild a whole continent we can surely rebuild a country the size of california and the POPULATION size of 65% of california.

We've rebuilt Iraq? Thats quite a stretch, even for you. I know we have been TRYING to rebuild Iraq, but effort does not equate to success. Yes I know all about the Marshall plan, but this ain't it. Even IF we had all their infrastructure rebuilt and their economy jump-started again, I still wouldnt count Iraq as fully "rebuilt" until the insurgency is eliminated. Thats my point, its an ongoing process and I dont think we could handle two such situations at a time without it being the single largest resource sink in history.

No no no dont even try to doctor up what you meant in the first place. You mental disorders are totally and completely pathetic. I just debacled your whole argument in every shape, fassion, and form. Yeah lets ignore this cause you basically have no debate in anything. A matter a fact you miles well ignore every post you make.

Don't gloat when you havent "debacled" anything. My reasoning doesnt apply in situations where the dictator has become an aggressor, I said as much, and this is a different situation. We're just talking past each other here and I'm tired of it.

Huh? Can you please eloquently explain to me how you can deconstruct a post? I am alittle puzzled here where this happened? Was there a bull doxer in this epic?

Hohoho you're hilarious buddy. You know exactly what I meant. The meaning of the paragraph was clear if you read it all together instead of taking it bit by bit to try to make me look like a fool. (I have a bet with myself as to how you'll respond to this, don't disappoint me)

O really so the most powerful and richest country in Europe isnt getting along with us? The countries of Spain, France, Germany, Greece, etc etc dont call us allies and we dont come to each others defense in the UN? Also you mean to tell me that the second best economical power in the world isnt on our side? The third economical power in the world isnt doing business with us? The only Asain countries that hate us are the small southeast countries and N Korea. China doesnt completely hate us. Please learn about foreign affairs before you come and have a debate with me on this. I would completely appreciate it.

Did I say they aren't still working with us? No, I said that we are not getting along well together. Please read my sentences carefully before you go off on a tangent like this. We are fought on all international issues from all quarters and it won't get better if we go off and invade another country.

Thank you.

No, thank you Mr. Spinmachine.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Very funny how you assume I think modern warfare is genocidal.

Well you were the one who conjected it not me. I was just simply saying what you said.

if we have this awesome capability

Its not a matter of "if"(God you are so dopy) it is a matter of we do you idiot!

why aren't we doing it in Iraq?

Well we are.

I am talking about the type of insurgency we see in Iraq, where insurgents are sheltered by sympathetic natives.

Well why didnt you say this in the first place? Why tell me a bunch of mumbo jumbo that makes no sense and we have waisted time talking about something you never meant which didnt make since in the first place? Do you see what liberalism does to someone? I hope you are now seeing it wage its etropic state of being on your mind.

Anyways back to the topic. Now you bring up a very good point. If we have this technology then why not use it in this reference? Well the problem with that is for one they arent staying with sympathetic iraqis they are staying with the iraqis enemies(which btw sometimes they are there own people much like we have our ward churchill's here). However, again the problems with that is we only have so many satellites and there are 25million people across the land area of california that borders some 4 countries(i think it may be more countries). So in essence we cant catch everyone and we cant watch everywhere. Hell we cant even watch our own borders let alone theirs. So to ask this is kinda pointless anyway. Do you understand this? Or can I help you anymore here? Just trying to get you to understand thats all.

We've rebuilt Iraq? Thats quite a stretch, even for you. I know we have been TRYING to rebuild Iraq, but effort does not equate to success. Yes I know all about the Marshall plan, but this ain't it. Even IF we had all their infrastructure rebuilt and their economy jump-started again, I still wouldnt count Iraq as fully "rebuilt" until the insurgency is eliminated. Thats my point, its an ongoing process and I dont think we could handle two such situations at a time without it being the single largest resource sink in history.

This whole paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. So what you just said was(unless this isnt what you meant to say) that becasue there are still insurgents(iraqi and american enemies) inside iraq that they arent rebuilt? Well hate to burst your bubble but we have insurgents here in the united states and we arent rebuilt or buiilt? You see where I am going with this?

Don't gloat when you havent "debacled" anything. My reasoning doesnt apply in situations where the dictator has become an aggressor, I said as much, and this is a different situation. We're just talking past each other here and I'm tired of it.

Well I am by no means gloating I am simply stating facts and for some apparent reason you have problems understanding them. O and btw you talk past yourself. I love how you bloviate to yourself. Its quite the spectacle.

Hohoho you're hilarious buddy. You know exactly what I meant. The meaning of the paragraph was clear if you read it all together instead of taking it bit by bit to try to make me look like a fool. (I have a bet with myself as to how you'll respond to this, don't disappoint me)

Ok and how much was the bet cause I would like to place one too:rofl

O wait did you win?

Did I say they aren't still working with us? No, I said that we are not getting along well together. Please read my sentences carefully before you go off on a tangent like this. We are fought on all international issues from all quarters and it won't get better if we go off and invade another country.

Well usually when people dont get along they dont work well with each other so in essence your wrong again. No I dont say we have the best relationships but we do have some type of a good relationship enough to continue business with them.

No, thank you Mr. Spinmachine.

Hey, theres no spin involved in "deconstructing" your posts :rofl

Just kidding.