Bush says Iran is source of Deadly Bombs

[Black Dog]

So basically, you recommend continuing with current practices.

The same status quo that Jerry has elsewhere cited as the source of terrorism.

Of course, "colonizing" these countries would have enormous costs in tyerms of lives and treasure. I doubt most people (particularily the tax-cut fetishists of the right) would be willing to to take that burden on. Of course, it also bears mentioning that Argus put this idea forward ages ago and also put forward the reason why it wouldn't work:

The reality of the world today is somewhat different than it was a century ago. If you make a given nation, ie, the US, UK, France, Spain, etc, the colonial master of another state then they are now responsible for the well-being of the inhabitants of that state. Now perhaps people in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries didn't know or care about the welfare of people in their colonies, but that has all changed. People in democratic countries wouldn't tolerate starvation, widespread lack of educational and medical services, or injustice in a colony their nation was ruling. If the US was to be given control of, say Liberia, do you really doubt the situation there for the average Liberian would drastically improve? Sure, the US would exploit Liberia's raw resources for it's own benefit, as well, but Liberians would be infinitely better off than they are now.

[JerrySeinfeld]

So basically, you recommend continuing with current practices.

The same status quo that Jerry has elsewhere cited as the source of terrorism.

Of course, "colonizing" these countries would have enormous costs in tyerms of lives and treasure. I doubt most people (particularily the tax-cut fetishists of the right) would be willing to to take that burden on. Of course, it also bears mentioning that Argus put this idea forward ages ago and also put forward the reason why it wouldn't work:

The reality of the world today is somewhat different than it was a century ago. If you make a given nation, ie, the US, UK, France, Spain, etc, the colonial master of another state then they are now responsible for the well-being of the inhabitants of that state. Now perhaps people in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries didn't know or care about the welfare of people in their colonies, but that has all changed. People in democratic countries wouldn't tolerate starvation, widespread lack of educational and medical services, or injustice in a colony their nation was ruling. If the US was to be given control of, say Liberia, do you really doubt the situation there for the average Liberian would drastically improve? Sure, the US would exploit Liberia's raw resources for it's own benefit, as well, but Liberians would be infinitely better off than they are now.

I totally agree - that is why I mentioned the international community would "have a fit" and that we need to do it using the sonofabitch system.

But you're right: we used to go to war with countries. Now we categorize and divide sects of battle. We go to war with SADDAM or "the government of that country - not the PEOPLE" (lol). The fashion in which the left has splintered war into "our shitty downtrodden soldiers (who we SUPPORT - sic) versus a few select people over there" instead of our nation versus their nation has created a situation where we can never justify "war". Perfect platitude for the left - unfortunately it's incorrect. We need to conquer those nations.

[moderateamericain]

First off, this topic really got way out of hand, quite a few flames here. I know you are all passonate about what your talking about but tone it down guys/gals haha. Theres discussion and theres throwing insults.

I cannot speak intelligently about whether or not Iranian commandos are training seperatist in bomb making and supplying them. But lets think about the logic of this for a minute. If canada and mexico entered into a treaty to attack the United States. (assuming it would be possible) Do you not think the US would send commandos into Both countries to organize resistance? Iran feels total threatened by the United States, and while we are not shooting yet we most definetly have them in the cross hairs. If the United states wanted to bomb Iran back into the stone age we could do it easily and without breaking a sweat, the Steath bombers/fighters could destroy every military compound in Iran in 48 hours. This is beyond contestation. However, to take and hold Iran would be the worse political/military mistake in US history. And very well could be the downfall to our superpower status in the world finacially. If president Bush is really hell bent on attacking Iran do so in the way Bush Sr. attacked Iraq in gulf war 1. Bomb the piss out of it, and take the border area to create a demilitarize zone. I do not advocate any type of shooting war with Iran, but we are crashing towards it like a tidal wave. The American people are helpless to stop it, outside of outright revolution, which isnt happening.

What I can speak intelligently about, has been relayed to me by my brother, He is currently stationed in RAWAA iraq a village, on the border of Syria. His check points have been catching Syrian nationals smuggling in bomb making materials into Iraq. Now if anyone doubts the validity of that, i expect you know someone who is on the ground in iraq right now who can refute that statment. otherwise i dont care what some website says.

I also want to comment on something somebody said earlier on overwhelming force and just smash Iran with the hammer. If i recall Colonel Powell advocated something similar to that and had it smashed down. The truth of the matter is this in my opinion.

If you are trully left with no choice but to invade a country and remove its government. the following rules should be applied

1. overwhelming force, dont do anything fancy just over run them as quick as possible

2. REMOVE YOUR TROOPS, democracy cant be built at the end of the gun

3. financially support whatever type of government is set up until stabilization occurs. Does it really matter if it becomes a communits government? Communist are too busy killing there own people to worry about us.

4. Recgonize the state. Doing so will give it legitimacy, in doing so you look more like a liberator and less like a conquerer.

[Black Dog]

we used to go to war with countries. Now we categorize and divide sects of battle.

As is your wont, you put entirely too much stock in rhetoric and precious little into actions.

We go to war with SADDAM or "the government of that country - not the PEOPLE" (lol). The fashion in which the left has splintered war into "our shitty downtrodden soldiers (who we SUPPORT - sic) versus a few select people over there" instead of our nation versus their nation has created a situation where we can never justify "war". Perfect platitude for the left - unfortunately it's incorrect. We need to conquer those nations.

As per usual, you're wrong about pretty much everything. The "war on terror" isn't a war between nations. I know you long for simple solutions to complex problems (especially if that simple solution entails dusting a bunch of brown folks) but do you have to trample your own narrative in the process? I'd consider asking you the same question I asked jbg (who are we supposed to conquer, exactly, and how?) but it would be pointless because you can't rise above the level of trite in your replies.

[JerrySeinfeld]

we used to go to war with countries. Now we categorize and divide sects of battle.

As is your wont, you put entirely too much stock in rhetoric and precious little into actions.

We go to war with SADDAM or "the government of that country - not the PEOPLE" (lol). The fashion in which the left has splintered war into "our shitty downtrodden soldiers (who we SUPPORT - sic) versus a few select people over there" instead of our nation versus their nation has created a situation where we can never justify "war". Perfect platitude for the left - unfortunately it's incorrect. We need to conquer those nations.

As per usual, you're wrong about pretty much everything. The "war on terror" isn't a war between nations. I know you long for simple solutions to complex problems (especially if that simple solution entails dusting a bunch of brown folks) but do you have to trample your own narrative in the process? I'd consider asking you the same question I asked jbg (who are we supposed to conquer, exactly, and how?) but it would be pointless because you can't rise above the level of trite in your replies.

Such a snivelling bitter dude you are - and so obsessed with race ("brown folks").

BUT - in case you hadn't heard there are some pretty darn hardline sects of Islam. They originate from the Middle East, a place which likes the idea of oppressing women, stomping on human rights, complete intolerance of other religions and specializes in general savagery.

Until we squash these roots of terrorism and radical Islam, it will be a global problem.

[Black Dog]

BUT - in case you hadn't heard there are some pretty darn hardline sects of Islam. They originate from the Middle East, a place which likes the idea of oppressing women, stomping on human rights, complete intolerance of other religions and specializes in general savagery.

Until we squash these roots of terrorism and radical Islam, it will be a global problem.

That's debatable. And even if one were to accept that premise, you still have done a piss poor job of identifing effective strategies for addressing this "global problem." You're a big man when it comes to making broad rhetorical prescriptions, but you run and hide from any discussion of details, such as the consequenses of some of your pet strategies ie. nuking Iran. But that's a predictable consequense of not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

[JerrySeinfeld]

BUT - in case you hadn't heard there are some pretty darn hardline sects of Islam. They originate from the Middle East, a place which likes the idea of oppressing women, stomping on human rights, complete intolerance of other religions and specializes in general savagery.

Until we squash these roots of terrorism and radical Islam, it will be a global problem.

That's debatable. And even if one were to accept that premise, you still have done a piss poor job of identifing effective strategies for addressing this "global problem." You're a big man when it comes to making broad rhetorical prescriptions, but you run and hide from any discussion of details, such as the consequenses of some of your pet strategies ie. nuking Iran. But that's a predictable consequense of not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

Details? How about pummel them into submission either directly or through a sonofabitch system.

[Black Dog]

Details? How about pummel them into submission either directly or through a sonofabitch system.

If (a) why assume that it will work? To use Iran as an example, I've listed a numbe rof possible consequenses of a military strike against them that you and other apologists haven't bothered responding to, which has me wondering if you've considered the consequenses at all (And I won't even get into the moral considerations of such a strategy). If ( you've already stated that the s.o.b system didn't work, and even went so far as to blame the rise of terrorist ideologies on that system (without using the big words, of course). So which is it?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Details? How about pummel them into submission either directly or through a sonofabitch system.

If (a) why assume that it will work? To use Iran as an example, I've listed a numbe rof possible consequenses of a military strike against them that you and other apologists haven't bothered responding to, which has me wondering if you've considered the consequenses at all (And I won't even get into the moral considerations of such a strategy). If ( you've already stated that the s.o.b system didn't work, and even went so far as to blame the rise of terrorist ideologies on that system (without using the big words, of course). So which is it?

( No - we just might need a new sonofabitch - a more compliant one.

(a) Second, the implications of exerting the infinitely superior military power of the USA upon a nation headed up by a nutjob nuker jew-hater are net positive any way you snivel at it.

[Black Dog]

( No - we just might need a new sonofabitch - a more compliant one.

Ah so you are now endorsing a system that you previously rejected( "the idea is to have western presence in the region and to protect human rights and freedoms"), on the basis that it wasn't the idea so much as its execution that led to its failure. I don't think this flip-flop requires a rebuttal.

Second, the implications of exerting the infinitely superior military power of the USA upon a nation headed up by a nutjob nuker jew-hater are net positive any way you snivel at it.

That point, too, is debatable. I (and many many others) have listed the potential negative consequenses of such an action. Your hand-waving doesn't address or refute any of them.

[JerrySeinfeld]

( No - we just might need a new sonofabitch - a more compliant one.

Ah so you are now endorsing a system that you previously rejected( "the idea is to have western presence in the region and to protect human rights and freedoms"), on the basis that it wasn't the idea so much as its execution that led to its failure. I don't think this flip-flop requires a rebuttal.

Second, the implications of exerting the infinitely superior military power of the USA upon a nation headed up by a nutjob nuker jew-hater are net positive any way you snivel at it.

That point, too, is debatable. I (and many many others) have listed the potential negative consequenses of such an action. Your hand-waving doesn't address or refute any of them.

You're trying to compartmentalize a complex issue. WIth the sonofabitch system, what matters isn't the SYSTEM but the actual sonofabitch. If he turns on you - you gotta take him out - which is what we did.

And you can list all the "potential negative consequences" you want - it doesn't negate the need to neutralize a nuke jew hating armageddon loving nutjob.

Game set match./

[Black Dog]

You're trying to compartmentalize a complex issue. WIth the sonofabitch system, what matters isn't the SYSTEM but the actual sonofabitch. If he turns on you - you gotta take him out - which is what we did.

The critique of the SYSTEM was yours, sunshine. By your own admission the problem of the Middle East is repression (see: your constant invocations of women's rights) and lack of democracy. So you're completely contradicting yourself and making the problem worse in the process.

And you can list all the "potential negative consequences" you want - it doesn't negate the need to neutralize a nuke jew hating armageddon loving nutjob.

You keep stating your premises as fact when they are not. And you've also obviously never heard of a cost-benefit analysis. That's because you're not even a dilletante: you're completely ignorant on this an other foreign policy issues. Like I've said before, you don't offer anything but empty-headed slogans. You must be a middle manager, or a senior Bush administration official c. 2002.

Game set match./

In my experience on these boards, smug declarations of victory are generally made by people who can't hack it in an exchange of ideas. It's the online forum equivilant of plugging one's ears and chanting "Na na na, I can't heeeeaaaar you!" If you expect people to read that and think "Wow, he totally owned that guy! 'Game set match'...brilliant!" you are, unsuprisingly, utterly mistaken.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The critique of the SYSTEM was yours, sunshine. By your own admission the problem of the Middle East is repression (see: your constant invocations of women's rights) and lack of democracy. So you're completely contradicting yourself and making the problem worse in the process.

As you'll see in my topic starter on this - I have not advocated the sonofabitch system, I have merely put it out there for discussion.

You keep stating your premises as fact when they are not. And you've also obviously never heard of a cost-benefit analysis. That's because you're not even a dilletante: you're completely ignorant on this an other foreign policy issues. Like I've said before, you don't offer anything but empty-headed slogans. You must be a middle manager, or a senior Bush administration official c. 2002.

oh chill doggy you're such an angry dude. you must be poor or not have been loved by your mother.

[Black Dog]

As you'll see in my topic starter on this - I have not advocated the sonofabitch system, I have merely put it out there for discussion.

So tell me: why are so so afraid of discussing it?

oh chill doggy you're such an angry dude. you must be poor or not have been loved by your mother.

My favorite thing about winding you up, Jer-bear, is that I seldom have to actually do anything to make you look stupid. You volunteer yourself for the gig. Every. Single. Time.

[JerrySeinfeld]

As you'll see in my topic starter on this - I have not advocated the sonofabitch system, I have merely put it out there for discussion.

So tell me: why are so so afraid of discussing it?

oh chill doggy you're such an angry dude. you must be poor or not have been loved by your mother.

My favorite thing about winding you up, Jer-bear, is that I seldom have to actually do anything to make you look stupid. You volunteer yourself for the gig. Every. Single. Time.

huh? winding ME up? take a loko at your posts - you're the one (as always) who gets pissy and personal. you take this shit WAY too seriously.

[Black Dog]

huh? winding ME up? take a loko at your posts - you're the one (as always) who gets pissy and personal. you take this shit WAY too seriously.

No, I simply call a spade a spade. Your arguments are rubbish, your debating skills are non-existent. This is easily observable to any reader. You'll note, as will anyone else who bothers to waste their time reading you, that personal attacks (ie. "you must be poor or not have been loved by your mother.") are your stock-in-trade, which makes you nothing more than a troll.

[jbg]

Is it that you're too chickenshit to actually follow the logic train to its next stop at Slaughterville (plausible deniability and all that: "Look, I never said we should firebomb or nuke civilian population centres in the Islamic world...but we've had success firebombing and nuking people before...hey, look over there!")? Or maybe you're just riffin' and not really thinking this through? If that's the case, I'm not sure what purpose idle speculation about the utility of applying lessons World War 2 to the war on terror is supposed to serve. Certainly a self-professed "liberal" like yourself would never advocate all-out war which would, by definition, entail killing a whole lot of innocent people, right? So maybe the Dresden thing was just a slip of the tounge, right?

Oh. Shit.

Since the Arabs appear to be in little or no mood to stop fighting, the stutter-stop war, i.e. attacks followed by phony negotations (i.e. negotiations where the Arabs are not negotiating in good faith) may need to be replaced by all-out war.

To tell you the truth I'm conflicted on this issue. My liberal heart wants to think that wacking much of the population of mullahs and madrassa teachers will do the job. I sure would like it to.

I don't know what it takes to win this war. I only know that if it's us or them, I choose us. Don't you?

[Catchme]

Why are you always framing it as an us or them thing?

There is never an occassion for it to be an us or them situation ever, nothing is ever that cut and dried, and say it is, is pure unsubstantiated emotional rhetoric with no basis in truth.

[jbg]

Why are you always framing it as an us or them thing?

There is never an occassion for it to be an us or them situation ever, nothing is ever that cut and dried, and say it is, is pure unsubstantiated emotional rhetoric with no basis in truth.

I get a different message from September 11, 2001.

[Black Dog]

To tell you the truth I'm conflicted on this issue. My liberal heart wants to think that wacking much of the population of mullahs and madrassa teachers will do the job. I sure would like it to.

It doesn't take a psychic to know that the unspoken half of this conflict is: "on the other hand, it may take intentionally slaughtering a whole shitload of innocents. I'm more or less okay with that."

I guess the difference between American liberals and conservatives is their respective willingness to come out and say what they really mean.

I don't know what it takes to win this war. I only know that if it's us or them, I choose us. Don't you?

I reject your premise. Radical Islam poses no existensial threat to the west. How do you like them apples? (Also: you're manichean formulation would be greeted with approval by those on the other side of your dynamic. Lost are the thousands or millions who don't fit in either category: you know, the majority?)

[jbg]

I reject your premise. Radical Islam poses no existensial threat to the west. How do you like them apples? (Also: you're manichean formulation would be greeted with approval by those on the other side of your dynamic. Lost are the thousands or millions who don't fit in either category: you know, the majority?)

The right order of things is for the Western world to exist to serve the Muslim world. The term is dhimmitude; the Islamic world would not pose an existential threat as long as we pay them the tribute that is rightfully due them for the privilege of us being graced by their (the radical Islamists) presence.

Only a Zionist would argue that they should have to work for a living. After all, history has thrown so many developments their way that make them angry, so anything they do is OK; anything we do is criminal. We should all crawl under a rock.

[Black Dog]

The right order of things is for the Western world to exist to serve the Muslim world. The term is dhimmitude; the Islamic world would not pose an existential threat as long as we pay them the tribute that is rightfully due them for the privilege of us being graced by their (the radical Islamists) presence.

Say no to drugs, jbg. Just say no.

[jbg]

The right order of things is for the Western world to exist to serve the Muslim world. The term is dhimmitude; the Islamic world would not pose an existential threat as long as we pay them the tribute that is rightfully due them for the privilege of us being graced by their (the radical Islamists) presence.

Say no to drugs, jbg. Just say no.

Huh?

I made a serious point. If anyone's impaired it's you.

[Black Dog]

I made a serious point. If anyone's impaired it's you.

Ah yes: "I know you are but what am I?" Way to rise above.

Anyway, can you elucidate this "serious point" for me? 'cause from where I stand, it looked more like a glib and fatuous throwaway line. You could have addressed the main point of the post you responded to, specificallly how Islam poses an existensial threat to the west, but you didn't. If anything, you dodged the question.

[Leafless]

You could have addressed the main point of the post you responded to, specificallly how Islam poses an existensial threat to the west, but you didn't. If anything, you dodged the question.

The same way Quebec is a threat to the ROC by perpetually carrying an eternal grudge.