Should we launch an simultaneous attack on Syria and Iran?

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Ya and are we really just going to sit back and let Iran go nuclear? I find it analogous to allowing Hitler to rearm Germany after WW1, if we would have stopped him then before he got too powerful, then millions of lives would have been saved.

1. Iran does not have the missile technology to threaten us with anything let alone nukes.
2. This is a problem for Israel to deal with and I'm sure they'll get around to it as they have in the past.
3. The United States cannot bear the financial and military burden of an entire region..it simply is not possible. Going to war with an entire region would be economically devistating to the U.S. and because our economy is intertwined with the economies of the rest of the civilized world it would drag everyone else into a deeper and severe depression.
4. The United States cannot have a policy of isolationism which is what would come out of a pre-emptive strike on Iran. Syria is in a lot of hot water right now so the court of world opinion would probably be merciful if we were to go to war with Syria.
5. The U.S. could not wage a war against Iran and Syria individually. It is inevitable that if we attacked one the other would join the war to defend the other. I doubt the U.S. would be able to wage two wars at once especially with our troops spread out so thin and I wouldn't count on their armies waving a little white flag at the sight of our troops like the Iraqis. They have real biological, chemical, and possibly nuclear weapons and would use them under the circumstances.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Your sort advocate aggression. You are a threat to world peace. You also think it's comical to talk nuke about nuking everyone. You are as shallow & arrogant as Muslim extremists.
If you'd been born in an Arab country you be spouting their nonsense.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. And you are already spouting their nonsense so whats your point? And I am the instablity? Excuse me. In case if you didnt know you moron the terrorists attacked first. I wasnt a threat to the world peace until they pi$$ed america off. Not to mention that there is no such thing as world peace and their never will be. So get over yourself

 

[FinnMacCool]

America has always been a threat to world peace. Comes with being an arrogant super power haha

 

[SKILMATIC]

Since you are clearly an idiot, I've snipped most of the dumbass references to "liberals" and what you think "the liberals" believe, and only responded to those few statements resembling a coherent argument.

Well I may be an idiot, but then that makes you far worse cause you dont even know what the hell we are talking about let alone you dont even know what liberalism is anyway. Kinda funny isnt it? The person who proclaims an individual an idiot also eludes idiocy all over himself. :lol:

It's a matter of practicality. If you believe that the solution to every anti-American action anywhere in the world is to respond hyper-aggressively,

Your right "practical" is the key word. As we have done several times in the past we have used peaceful venues to appease insurecting situations to peaceful solutions. However, in this case a peaceful compromise isnt in our enemies vocabulary. So in essence this practicality isnt in no shape or form practical in this situation. Again let me make this very clear for you. Reason isnt in reason with these people for their whole upbringing and ideology is based on all or nothing. Compromise, if I am not mistaken isnt even in their language. Please understand that peaceful venues arent always an option in all cultures.

you fail to recognize that the American military and economy are not infinitely powerful. Furthermore, you are no different than those you claim to be opposing.

You mean to tell me money doesnt grow on trees? Are you serious? I couldve sworn a Jackson grew in my backyard the other day. Really I am no different than they? I didnt know I killed 2000americans with car bombs? Wow this is some insight that I needed to open my eyes to. :roll:

To use an analogy, if a kid is being bullied in school it might be a good idea for him to hit the bully back so that future bullying will stop. The fallacy, of course, is when the kid applies this to every situation and starts hitting everyone who crosses him. He then becomes a bully himself. This seems to be what you're proposing on an international level.

This analogy doesnt even make sense. You call retaliating bullying? You call exterminating an indellable threat to the society and life of mankind a bully tactic? Gee, Hitler wouldve loved you. I love the rhetoric, keep it coming.

Oh no, my argument is "so typical." Wow, your brilliant reasoning convinced me of the error of my ways. Wait, no it didn't.

Wait, yes it did. There we go I just had to finish that for you. Your welcome

Again, it has nothing to do with who is "responsible" for it,

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It doesnt???????????????????? Oh my God you went from being a mental case to down right pathetically embassilic. After this post you just basically retarded your very crediblity.

Do you deny that Americans are being murdered by car bombs and other forms of terrorism in Iraq today? Do you deny that Americans were NOT being murdered by car bombs and other forms of terrorism in Iraq prior to the invasion? Common sense indicates that if there aren't American soldiers in Iraq, American soldiers won't die in Iraq.

How can I deny that which I have already stated in my previous posts? Yes but then they would die here when another attack unravels becasue we didnt suppress te terrorists abraod. That is common sense. Yours although may sound practical will not always be the case as if we do that we give the enemy harbor and an open door right in our kitchen and home and its only a matter of time till they pose another strike.


Look, people like you are part of the enemy and I am suprised we dont extrapulate all of the liberals in the US. Liberals are the best friends terrorists have. Hows that for common sense? I refuse to debate with mental disorders and morons becasue they are simply not even worth a discussion casue they cant have one. They are full of the same BS and rhetoric. Thats why I predicted every single one of your arguments casue its all the same. I am really going to hope that you hit your head and snap out of this epidemic you are in.

 

[SKILMATIC]

The insurgency is just as strong as its ever been. You can tout the virtues of democracy all you want, but the fact is that the instances of terrorism in Iraq (which is supposedly why we're there) are just as high as ever.

And I say again. Would you rather have many minor insurgencies 9000miles away or a couple big insurgencies here at home? Please use common sense.

Demonizing one's enemies is as old as history. The fact is that most of Iraq's insurgents aren't evildoers who worship Osama Bin Laden and want to establish a worldwide caliphate. Most of them are ordinary Iraqis who want us out of their country. Their actions aren't honorable, but they are certainly understandable, at least from the perspective of those of us who aren't ethnocentric xenophobes.

Again this is more falsifications. Look mental case, 90% of the insurgents arent iraqi and over 90% of the casualties caused by insurgencies are iraqi citizens. So why would the iraqi people kill their own people? Again please attain common sense. It would really help you alot.

COSTS OF IRAQ WAR:
2,000 American lives
Hundreds of billions of dollars ($1,000 per American that could've been spent on education, medicine, food, or anything else)
Decline in America's worldwide reputation
Less American influence outside of Middle East
Troops stretched dangerously thin
Creation of a terrorist insurgency
Possible loss of an ally in Turkey

BENEFITS OF IRAQ WAR:
Emerging democracy (it remains to be seen if this is any benefit to America)
Possible gain of an ally in Iraq
Overthrow of a random dictator who posed no threat to us

Looking at these costs/benefits, it's clear that the war in Iraq clearly was NOT worth it. Similar cases can be made against invading Syria and Iran, only now we have the added bonus of ALREADY being bogged down in a quagmire.

And if you're going to respond to this, stick with actual logical arguments rather than statements about how much Duh Libruhls Hate Amurka.

This is just apparent to everyone that you have no idea whats going on over there nor ddo you know any facts. Keep reading the washington post. And btw there is no argument that has ever been submitted to prove that they love america and there is plenty to submit that they do. So I have no idea why you made that rediculous conjecture.

 

[Kandahar]

Your right "practical" is the key word. As we have done several times in the past we have used peaceful venues to appease insurecting situations to peaceful solutions. However, in this case a peaceful compromise isnt in our enemies vocabulary.

Who said anything about compromising? The insurgency will simply die down on its own if we withdraw, because their main recruiter (George Bush) will no longer be as effective at stirring up Iraqis.

So in essence this practicality isnt in no shape or form practical in this situation. Again let me make this very clear for you. Reason isnt in reason with these people for their whole upbringing and ideology is based on all or nothing. Compromise, if I am not mistaken isnt even in their language. Please understand that peaceful venues arent always an option in all cultures.

Ignoring the racist overtones of this paragraph, you need to understand that not all of the insurgents (or even most of them) are al-Qaeda lovers who want to destroy anything non-Muslim. The insurgency in Iraq is much more of a typical rebel movement, much like those we've seen elsewhere in the world, than it is like al-Qaeda.

You mean to tell me money doesnt grow on trees? Are you serious? I couldve sworn a Jackson grew in my backyard the other day.

Then what makes you think that Americans can afford to pay for the war in Iraq, let alone additional wars in Syria and Iran? What makes you think that they want to?

Really I am no different than they? I didnt know I killed 2000americans with car bombs?

Yes, you did. You killed 2000 Americans with car bombs by enabling this president to send American troops into harm's way.

This analogy doesnt even make sense. You call retaliating bullying?

When you "retaliate" against every possible sign of even the mildest aggression anywhere in the world, yes, you're bullying.

You call exterminating an indellable threat to the society and life of mankind a bully tactic?

Don't flatter yourself. Every war in the history of civilization has been fought against an enemy that its proponents claim is an indelible threat to the society and life of mankind. In retrospect, very few wars (perhaps only one) can legitimately make that claim. Your war is nothing special.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It doesnt???????????????????? Oh my God you went from being a mental case to down right pathetically embassilic. After this post you just basically retarded your very crediblity.

And this proves my point. You are unwilling to look at practical issues like the cost of invading two more countries, the limits of American military power, the situation on the ground in the country we're already in, the causes of insurgency, etc. You are ONLY willing to consider things like "whose fault it is" that car bombs are going off. You are an ideologue, and are more interested in feeling morally superior to everyone else than you are to actually solving the problem.

How can I deny that which I have already stated in my previous posts? Yes but then they would die here when another attack unravels becasue we didnt suppress te terrorists abraod.

This is one of the weakest arguments for the Iraq war I've ever heard. If "suppressing terrorists abroad" was our goal, we most DEFINITELY shouldn't have fought this war since Saddam Hussein was doing a much better job than we are of suppressing terrorists in Iraq.

That is common sense. Yours although may sound practical will not always be the case as if we do that we give the enemy harbor and an open door right in our kitchen and home and its only a matter of time till they pose another strike.

When's the last time there was an Islamic terrorist attack in Switzerland? How about Iceland? These countries do virtually nothing to "take the fight to the terrorists" or other such bullshit, yet they are almost terror free. How do you explain this?

 

[Kandahar]

And I say again. Would you rather have many minor insurgencies 9000miles away or a couple big insurgencies here at home? Please use common sense.

Again, stop with the implicit racism. Not all brown people think alike, and most Iraqis (including insurgents) don't have the same goals as al-Qaeda. Prior to the invasion there wasn't a single terrorist attack on American soil committed by Iraqis. There was nothing to suggest that such an attack was imminent. So how in the world does it prevent terrorism at home by creating it abroad?

Again this is more falsifications. Look mental case, 90% of the insurgents arent iraqi

This is a lie. Only 4-10% of insurgents are foreigners. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=110534

and over 90% of the casualties caused by insurgencies are iraqi citizens. So why would the iraqi people kill their own people?

The same reason that all rebel groups fight losing battles: to draw international attention. That doesn't make their actions honorable, but your refusal to even acknowledge the causes of insurgency is downright ridiculous.

This is just apparent to everyone that you have no idea whats going on over there nor ddo you know any facts. Keep reading the washington post.

:rofl I'll do that. You keep on NOT reading about current events.

And btw there is no argument that has ever been submitted to prove that they love america and there is plenty to submit that they do. So I have no idea why you made that rediculous conjecture.

If you could please translate the above paragraph to English, I'd be happy to respond. Thanks.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Who said anything about compromising? The insurgency will simply die down on its own if we withdraw, because their main recruiter (George Bush) will no longer be as effective at stirring up Iraqis.

You are simply the biggest idiot on here with the exception of a few other mental cases. However, first of all the insurgecy will never die unless they are all dead. Second of all the biggst recruiter every terrorist organization has are liberals and the ACLU. So get out of this country you embassilic idiot!

Ignoring the racist overtones of this paragraph,

Are you fvcking kidding me? Where in that post was anyhting racist? Again liberalism is a mental disorder.

(or even most of them) are al-Qaeda lovers who want to destroy anything non-Muslim. The insurgency in Iraq is much more of a typical rebel movement, much like those we've seen elsewhere in the world, than it is like al-Qaeda.

Again you are the biggest idiot. First of all, they are taught from day 1 that america is the worst nation on the planet and it is the most evil one too. If this is what you got taught day in and day out your whole life hell I woUld hate america too. Get these simple concepts through your head.

Then what makes you think that Americans can afford to pay for the war in Iraq, let alone additional wars in Syria and Iran? What makes you think that they want to?

Well if you mental disorders didnt whine so much about we went for oil we migt have been able to cash in alittle on it so that we can re fuel our economy but nooooooooo you whine babies would have a hissy fit then conject that that was the only reason we waged war. I seriously am getting sick of you idiots.

Yes, you did. You killed 2000 Americans with car bombs by enabling this president to send American troops into harm's way.

Hey everyone!!!! Lookie here what this retard said. He says I am the terrorist casue I let the president of a country whose constitution allows the persident to wage war to wage war in iraq and its my fault that i allowed bush to send 2000 troops to their deaths. BWAHAHAHAHA are you serious? o its no one elses fault but mine that the terrorists used car bombs and killed people. So it has nothing to do with the terrorists which is what you jsut said.

Everyone I just want you to know that this is what liberalsim does to people. He conjects that the terrorists are innocent non violent people who have every right to kill people for their radical beleifs. I love the rhetoric and the hypocrisy. Keep it up. You are just undermining you own credibility.

When you "retaliate" against every possible sign of even the mildest aggression anywhere in the world, yes, you're bullying.

Well I guess we were bullying Japan for retaliating didnt we? I guess we were bullying the whole axis powers for retalliating. Maybe you would like an apology from the jews?

Don't flatter yourself. Every war in the history of civilization has been fought against an enemy that its proponents claim is an indelible threat to the society and life of mankind.

Again idiocy at its best. The fact is most wars throughout documented history were caused by religion. Again your wrong.

And this proves my point. You are unwilling to look at practical issues like the cost of invading two more countries, the limits of American military power, the situation on the ground in the country we're already in, the causes of insurgency, etc. You are ONLY willing to consider things like "whose fault it is" that car bombs are going off. You are an ideologue, and are more interested in feeling morally superior to everyone else than you are to actually solving the problem.

And this prove my point that you know not a dam thing about anything.

This is one of the weakest arguments for the Iraq war I've ever heard. If "suppressing terrorists abroad" was our goal, we most DEFINITELY shouldn't have fought this war since Saddam Hussein was doing a much better job than we are of suppressing terrorists in Iraq.

No this is the weakest argument casue he wasnt suppressing he was coordinating and collaborating and funding. You are simply an idiot. Not to mention sadaam wanted nothing more than to commit harm to america.

When's the last time there was an Islamic terrorist attack in Switzerland? How about Iceland? These countries do virtually nothing to "take the fight to the terrorists" or other such bullshit, yet they are almost terror free. How do you explain this?

Switzerland has nothing to do with this argument. Please stay on topic. Is it not true that we got attacked on 9/11? Answer the question. Is it not true that before 9/11 we did virtually nothing to suppress terrorism aborad until now? Is it also not true that switzerland is neutral in every shape and form and has and hasnt had any ties in middle east whatsoever? To tell you the truth most of the people there dont even know that switzerland even exists. But I can gaurantee you that if al jazeera starts propogating everyhting they say about us and then say that about switzerland the opposition would be just as strong towards switzerland. But again that had nothing to do with any of these issues.

 

[Kandahar]

I see that your coherent arguments are becoming fewer and farther between. Your position is so intellectually bankrupt that you couldn't respond with more than "z0MG Librhuls = Stupid LOL!" to over half of my points.

Therefore, my rebuttal will once again only address those points resembling a coherent argument.

First of all, they are taught from day 1 that america is the worst nation on the planet and it is the most evil one too. If this is what you got taught day in and day out your whole life hell I woUld hate america too. Get these simple concepts through your head.

Iraq is not an Afghan madrass. The dislike of America is relatively new for Iraqis. While they were oppressed under Saddam Hussein and the state-run media told them America was evil, they hated their own government enough to see through most of this.

The reason we are being attacked by insurgents is because we are occupying their country. Period. It has nothing to do with us being the Great Satan empire of devil-worshipping infidels.

Well if you mental disorders didnt whine so much about we went for oil we migt have been able to cash in alittle on it so that we can re fuel our economy but nooooooooo you whine babies would have a hissy fit then conject that that was the only reason we waged war.

Wait...You're saying that the war in Iraq is so expensive because liberals (who control no branch of government) have somehow prevented America from "cashing in" on oil? Are you kidding? Is this honestly your best solution to paying for this war (and others in Syria and Iran)?

Well I guess we were bullying Japan for retaliating didnt we? I guess we were bullying the whole axis powers for retalliating.

Retaliating against attacks (or imminent attacks) is hardly the same as "retaliating" against a country that posed no threat to us for violating a UN resolution.

No this is the weakest argument casue he wasnt suppressing he was coordinating and collaborating and funding.

Saddam Hussein was quite hostile to terrorist groups in Iraq, because he recognized that they could easily turn against him. He most certainly wanted nothing to do with Islamist organizations, since most of them (including al-Qaeda) despised him for his impiety. The only role he ever played in terrorism was supporting Hamas...hardly a matter of American security concerns.

Switzerland has nothing to do with this argument. Please stay on topic. Is it not true that we got attacked on 9/11? Answer the question. Is it not true that before 9/11 we did virtually nothing to suppress terrorism aborad until now? Is it also not true that switzerland is neutral in every shape and form and has and hasnt had any ties in middle east whatsoever?

Well maybe *gasp* that's the solution! If we mind our own business, we won't be attacked by Islamic terrorists! It seems to have worked for Switzerland.

To tell you the truth most of the people there dont even know that switzerland even exists. But I can gaurantee you that if al jazeera starts propogating everyhting they say about us and then say that about switzerland the opposition would be just as strong towards switzerland. But again that had nothing to do with any of these issues.

What possible reason would al-Jazeera have for broadcasting hate propaganda against a neutral country?

 

[SKILMATIC]

Iraq is not an Afghan madrass. The dislike of America is relatively new for Iraqis. While they were oppressed under Saddam Hussein and the state-run media told them America was evil, they hated their own government enough to see through most of this.

No its not. The hatred from al jazeera has been spewing for decades you idiot! And the iraqi people hated us as well until we freed them. Not to mention when we left them to hang after the first gulf war they were very upset.

The reason we are being attacked by insurgents is because we are occupying their country. Period. It has nothing to do with us being the Great Satan empire of devil-worshipping infidels.

Again we went over this you mental case. The amount of attacks and casualties only represent 10% taken out on US forces. So again you have no argument.
The majority of attacks were taken out on the iraqi people. And the insurgents arent iraqis they are foreigners.

Wait...You're saying that the war in Iraq is so expensive because liberals (who control no branch of government) have somehow prevented America from "cashing in" on oil? Are you kidding? Is this honestly your best solution to paying for this war (and others in Syria and Iran)?

Please read my post. What does it say? Please let me know when you learn to comprehend reading. Thank you

Retaliating against attacks (or imminent attacks) is hardly the same as "retaliating" against a country that posed no threat to us for violating a UN resolution.

Hey, I am just stating what you just said. You said

When you "retaliate" against every possible sign of even the mildest aggression anywhere in the world, yes, you're bullying.

So I dont quite understand why now you are changing your words? It seems pretty clear what you said here. IYO you think 9/11 was a mild attack so would be pearl. So in essence you are a hypocrite once again.

Saddam Hussein was quite hostile to terrorist groups in Iraq, because he recognized that they could easily turn against him.

BS. Groups were for sadaam and sadaam was for them. Ehy do you think he funded them? You dont remember him sharing his shares of Car and Driver mag to al qaeda?

He most certainly wanted nothing to do with Islamist organizations, since most of them (including al-Qaeda) despised him for his impiety. The only role he ever played in terrorism was supporting Hamas...hardly a matter of American security concerns.

Again more BS. There was documents found in his palaces of conversations with several different terrorists groups that would supply an assassin to kill the president.

Well maybe *gasp* that's the solution! If we mind our own business, we won't be attacked by Islamic terrorists! It seems to have worked for Switzerland.

Ummm.. do you know anything about economy and what drives it world wide? Please tell me you just didnt submit that rediculous opinion? Please tell me you had a brain fart.

What possible reason would al-Jazeera have for broadcasting hate propaganda against a neutral country?

Exactly my point. Why would they? So why even bring up switz if they would never be in the picture anyway? Exactly. Thank you

 

[AK_Conservative]

its not the fact that we are occupying their country. Al Queda has been around b4 we occupied iraq and they always had strong negative feelings towards the United States. From ALL the interviews ive heard and read about (interviews of prisoners), the Biggest reason why the extremists jihadists are in spite of america is becuase of our ideology. Why was the twin towers destructed? the pentagon? Englands subway system? Its on western values they despise. Swizterland is no significane to al queda. Strategically, you must go through the dominate world powers to obtain their objective. Though, they will not previal! Thanks to Bush and our beloved military! :applaud

Now to the issue, I HIGHLY doubt Bush will invade Iran or Syria. Maybe in two decades or so, but not now. Bush knows we must finish this war properly.

 

[Kandahar]

its not the fact that we are occupying their country. Al Queda has been around b4 we occupied iraq and they always had strong negative feelings towards the United States. From ALL the interviews ive heard and read about (interviews of prisoners), the Biggest reason why the extremists jihadists are in spite of america is becuase of our ideology. Why was the twin towers destructed? the pentagon? Englands subway system? Its on western values they despise.

Thanks for the intelligent reply.

I don't see very much connection between the Iraqi insurgency and those other acts of terrorism you describe. Sure, there are elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq, like Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, but they don't represent the majority of the insurgency (only 4-10% of insurgents are foreigners according to the Christian Science Monitor). The Iraqi insurgency, on the whole, bares a lot more similarities to insurgencies in Latin America and Southeast Asia, than it does to al-Qaeda.

Swizterland is no significane to al queda. Strategically, you must go through the dominate world powers to obtain their objective.

That's my point. If we just left alone other countries that weren't a threat (like Switzerland does), there would be less motivation for foreign terrorists to attack us. It's not just the dominant world powers that are being attacked; France/Spain/Italy are also on the al-Qaeda shitlist, but Switzerland/Iceland/Sweden are not. There is a much stronger correlation between Islamic terrorist attacks and the perception of hostility toward Islam, than there is between Islamic terrorist attacks and freedom/democracy.

Now to the issue, I HIGHLY doubt Bush will invade Iran or Syria. Maybe in two decades or so, but not now. Bush knows we must finish this war properly.

I agree with you on this. While I dislike George Bush, I certainly don't think he's as brash as some of the people on this forum. He isn't foolhardy enough to invade two more countries when the security situation in the one we're already in isn't improving much (if at all).

 

[AK_Conservative]

Thanks for the intelligent reply.

I don't see very much connection between the Iraqi insurgency and those other acts of terrorism you describe. Sure, there are elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq, like Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, but they don't represent the majority of the insurgency (only 4-10% of insurgents are foreigners according to the Christian Science Monitor). The Iraqi insurgency, on the whole, bares a lot more similarities to insurgencies in Latin America and Southeast Asia, than it does to al-Qaeda.



That's my point. If we just left alone other countries that weren't a threat (like Switzerland does), there would be less motivation for foreign terrorists to attack us. It's not just the dominant world powers that are being attacked; France/Spain/Italy are also on the al-Qaeda shitlist, but Switzerland/Iceland/Sweden are not. There is a much stronger correlation between Islamic terrorist attacks and the perception of hostility toward Islam, than there is between Islamic terrorist attacks and freedom/democracy.



I agree with you on this. While I dislike George Bush, I certainly don't think he's as brash as some of the people on this forum. He isn't foolhardy enough to invade two more countries when the security situation in the one we're already in isn't improving much (if at all).

No, you misunderstood my point on switzerland. What i ment to get across was the fact that EVEN if switzerland had something to do with the middle east, it would be no significance to them. A devistating attack to a small country is not nearly as bad as a pin prick in the heart of a super power!

 

[robin]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. And you are already spouting their nonsense so whats your point? And I am the instablity? Excuse me. In case if you didnt know you moron the terrorists attacked first. I wasnt a threat to the world peace until they pi$$ed america off. Not to mention that there is no such thing as world peace and their never will be. So get over yourself

No it is you, by your own definition that are talking their nonsense by advocating attacking 1st. I mean how many Iranians or Syrians do you think are terrorists ? Yet you think its' OK to attack their country !
As I said the only reason your sort aren't spouting your hateful generalisations & support for your kind of terror in Arabic, is merely down to an accident of birth.
You've killed 25000 in Iraq yet they had nothing to do with 911.
Why don't you attack anyone in case they are terrorists. Better include the UK as there are terrorists here then.
Oh & the USA as there will be sleeper cells there.
Don't you ever wonder why there are so many people upset with the US & Israel ?
How about the families of the nine children killed when the Israelis dropped a one ton bomb from an F16 on an appartment block to kill a Hamas leader ?
We Brits didn't go bombing appartment blocks in Ireland.
Sharon is a terrorist.
How about the 2 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan ?
Refugees because of zionism.
Then there's the 500 mile "security wall ?" the Israelis are building mostly on Palestinian land ?
& don't come the crap about... I'm an appologist for the terroists.
I despise terrorism. The difference between you & I though is... I despise it coming from either side.

I hope you get a chance to see the three part BBC series "Elusive peace:Israel and the Arabs"

 

[Kandahar]

No, you misunderstood my point on switzerland. What i ment to get across was the fact that EVEN if switzerland had something to do with the middle east, it would be no significance to them. A devistating attack to a small country is not nearly as bad as a pin prick in the heart of a super power!

If I understand you correctly, your argument is that Switzerland's size - not its foreign policy - is what insulates it from terrorist attacks. It that is the case, then why are other countries with little military power (such as France) such prime targets for Islamic terrorists? France hasn't really been a "superpower" since the end of WWI, yet it pursues a foreign policy that the Islamists perceive as openly antagonistic toward Islam. As a result, it suffers from more terrorist attacks than a democratic country such as Japan that is more of a "superpower" but has relatively little to do with the Middle East.

 

[cnredd]

If I understand you correctly, your argument is that Switzerland's size - not its foreign policy - is what insulates it from terrorist attacks. It that is the case, then why are other countries with little military power (such as France) such prime targets for Islamic terrorists? France hasn't really been a "superpower" since the end of WWI, yet it pursues a foreign policy that the Islamists perceive as openly antagonistic toward Islam. As a result, it suffers from more terrorist attacks than a democratic country such as Japan that is more of a "superpower" but has relatively little to do with the Middle East.

Ummmm...

Terrorist attacks in France?

Can we be more specific please....

 

[SKILMATIC]

If I understand you correctly, your argument is that Switzerland's size - not its foreign policy - is what insulates it from terrorist attacks.

To insulate means to keep in or harbor(ie. wool is a good heat insulator). The proper word for your sentence would be "keeps." Just a little help.

It that is the case, then why are other countries with little military power (such as France) such prime targets for Islamic terrorists?

Well for one they have western ideologies and they are also a democracy. Also they are the 4th largest economical power in the world out of 225 other countries. They also have a military. And france is by no means perfect at all. The islamists have actually had more beef for a much longer time with france than us. However, they take it out of the FFL. Also no one is a superpower except for us. There hasnt been another superpower since the Cold War.

As a result, it suffers from more terrorist attacks than a democratic country such as Japan that is more of a "superpower" but has relatively little to do with the Middle East.

Which only proves my argument that you cant reason with these people becasue they are narrow minded and unreasonable. They care nothing for freedom and western ideology. Also japan is only a superpower over france in economical venues but militarily france is more powerful.

 

[AK_Conservative]

To insulate means to keep in or harbor(ie. wool is a good heat insulator). The proper word for your sentence would be "keeps." Just a little help.

Better yet, Isolates. Though to some people, keep and isolates are big words! :rofl

 

[RightinNYC]

Let's all take a deep breath and not jump to calling each other names.

Hooooooooooooooo ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Okay.

Anyways, I think that action may have to be taken against Syria soon. They've crossed the last straw with their recent actions.

1) Involvement in taking in Iraq's weapons before the US invasion
2) Historically strong support for terror
3) Involvement in fighting in Iraq now
4) Actions in Lebanon, including the recent involvement of the royal family in the assasination of Lebanese leaders.

It's pretty clear that Syria needs to be dealt with.

Iran, on the other hand, is a different story. Iran is much larger than Iraq, much more mountainous, and more heavily populated. A ground invasion in Iran would make the US casualties in Iraq pale by comparison, and frankly, I don't think the public would support that, even if the military wasn't overly stretched now. Iran is showing some reason in their recent actions, and has a lot more to lose than Syria.

Some other points from posts that I wanted to address:

Yes, only 4-10% of the insurgents are foreign fighters, however, those 4-10% are the ones who are blowing themselves up and doing the vast majority of planning, weapon procurement, and killing. Without them, the insurgency would quickly disband.

The $200 billion spent on the war (and that's around $670 per American, not $1000) is not "wasted money." Think about where that $200 billion that has been taken from the government treasury goes: To the soldiers fighting, to the US companies that build war supplies, to the reconstruction companies that are building schools and roads, etc... Much of that money comes back to the US in the forms of income taxes and benefits to our economy through the spurring of growth in dozens of industries.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Better yet, Isolates. Though to some people, keep and isolates are big words! :rofl

True. I cant argue there. Or hows a few more vocab words. Sequester, and segregate? Both mean to isolate.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Erhm..France hasn't experianced a terrorist attack attributed to Islamic extremisim since 1996 and it wasn't even on French soil. Why? Because the French are smart enough to skip the beurocratic hogwash, keep track of suspicious individuals, detain individuals suspected of terrorism who stay detained without charge or civil privelege until the French government says otherwise. It amazes me that the world is in such an uproar over Guantamino..France has been implimenting equivelant policy for almost 10 years. France is more of a military superpower than Japan..Japan's superpower status derives from it's intillectual and economic value. Japan doesn't even make most of it's weapons, tanks, etc..most of the current Japanese force is made up of war machines given to Japan by the U.S. per request to defend itself from China. Al Qaeda targets nations with influence in the court of world opinion..not tid-bit nations like Switzerland precisely because they have no influence.

 

[gwynn]

No.
It neither makes sense strategically nor economically.

As stated before, attacking either one would likely result in war with both. With Iran being a member in good standing in OPEC and producing roughly 1/7 of all OPEC oil, the consequences go beyond things like troop casualties and world opinion. With there being no real concentrated effort on weaning the US of off it's oil dependency, I do not see how it could afford such a disruption to worldwide oil supplies. An invasion of Iran would not only take thier oil supplies of the market indefinitely, but may result in cuts from all OPEC and Arab League countries.

It would further split the US armed forces, and weaken any potential threat against other rogue nations. It would also do more than pretty much any other action the US could take to push Islamic youth and young adults into the arms of terrorist recruiters. Not just those in the area, but those living and/or born abroad as well. Sort of like the London subway bombers.

If Iran really wanted nuclear weapons they could have had them in the late 80's. Fortuneately, everyone in the state department knows this and also knows that Iran is just posturing on the nuclear front. They would probably also tell you that the only way to get Iran ( and all other Islamic nations in the area ) to forever discard any nuclear ideas would be to disarm Isreal of their nukes.

Of course Iran and Syria are not the only nations that insurgents are coming from, nor are they the only ones which sanction and sponsor terrorists. They just happen to be convenient whipping boys because they aren't traditional US allies.

 

[dragonslayer]

Now that elections have taken place and the constitution has been ratified in Iraq and considering the fact that intel suggest that much of the logistical and financial support to the Iraqi insurgency is coming from Syria and Iran, should we use Iraq as a launching point for a Blitzkrieg style attack in a simultaneous maneuver against Iran and Syria?

What a bunch of Bush Bull ***t. Are you crazy? We should be protecting ourselves from terrorists, not creating them. You are obviously one of those writers from NeoConservative thinks tanks that are in places like this to lie and confuse.

what ever intel your talking about is just as reliable as the crap Powell spoke of before the united Nations. Cheney is probably tryiing to distract us, but no matter Dickey boy is going to prison. Mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction, Remember?

 

[FinnMacCool]

How can Iran be aiding the insurgency when they are full of the same people who we are currently supporting?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Yesterday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised suicide bombings and said Israel should be "wiped off the map." Hours later, a suicide bomber killed 5 Israelis and wonded 30 more. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Islamic Jihad is headquartered in Damascus, Syria, and is believed to recieve funding from Iran. Islamic Jihad said the bombing was to avenge the killing of one of its leaders earlier this week. It has claimed responsibility for four suicide bombings in Israel since the Gaza pull out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051027..._stFXas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-