Political Crossfire Forums

[Venom]

Saracen
Quote: Allah = God. We worship the same God of Abraham that Jews and Christians worship. The only difference is how we see Him. And yes, you're right: Islamic EXTREMISTS tend to abuse or ostracize those who don't believe what they believe, even other Muslims.

Islamic extremists do tend to abuse and ostracize those who don't follow their rules to the letter. The problem is that this belief is spreading and more people are supporting it. People of your thinking wish to negotiate with these terrorists in hopes of an end to the violence and that will not happen. What they really want to is wipe out all non-believers. Even other Muslims not as hardcore as you stated.

Slitedeviance
Iran is neither extremely modern nor well equipped when compared to the United States. The United States military trains for a traditional battle against a well equipped military opponent. The Iranians simply do not have the technological advanced equipment that the United States has in it's arsenal. There would be American deaths but the war would certainly be one-sided.
As for everyone wanting to be an "Iranian" thats fine and really not an issue. Who said we were trying to make them no longer Iranians?

Quote: What would I propose to the situation? Dialogue, engagement, compromise, co-operation All of this has proven ineffective. Iran will not come to the table as their leader wants nuclear technology as part of the Iranian country. As for developing nuclear technology in secret is prevented by them signing a paper? Are you serious? Yes them being part of the NPT prevents them from nothing, it is a peice of paper. How well has the UN done with monitoring suspected programs in the past? Not very well.

So basically your whole plan evolves around a peice of paper and the world giving into Iran. You don't think their leadership want's Israel wiped out? It's been said they want it wiped off the map. What would be an easy way of attempting this to a nation with superior military power? Nuclear weapons.

Do I want a war with Iran? No. Do I think that is better than allowing them to develop a nuclear weapon and claim millions of lives? Yes. How would invading Iran destabalise the region? Iraq's invasion didn't, Afghan's didn't, Lebanon's didn't, constant war is always raging in the area of the world. It's hard to make something destabalized when it was that way to begin with.

As for promoting the idea of the United States attempting to destroy Islam. Thats a political war that is being lost because of people without the backbone to come out and say what the fight is against. The fight is against Islamic extremism. They want to wipe out all Christians, Jews, Buddhists, anything that doesn't follow their rules. As for a drain on the US economy, I'm living in the United States and I am not feeling the drain on the economy. If you recall the invasion of Iraq was said to be caused by Bush wanting to jump start it...

As for causing massive amounts of anger with China and Russia... ok so what? Instead the opposite can happen? In the UN they are blocking all talk of sanctions even after Iran ignored the nuclear deadline.

Quote: Let me put it another way. If you disagree with someone in your own life, and don't trust them, would you go out and burn down their house?
No I would not burn down their house. If they were something that was deemed legal I would call the police.

Not let me put it another way. If your community told a mad scientist performing potentially dangerous experiements to stop and all the while that scientist claimed he was going to burn down the house of the Jew down the street would you just sit there and wait for something to happen before you reacted?

Well I guess you could, as the world has historically done, it's called World War 2.

[nrhy]

superskippy wrote: Quote: bah...there is a dif between european jews, and jews from the levante.

Thats the best you can come up with?


Also in general can we keep this off of religion? As I recall didnt almighty God command us to slaughter the Amalekites to the last man, woman, and child? Did we not comply? Did he not show anger when Joshua hesitated? As I understand it the quoted passage is both subtly different in Arabic especially the passage about the tree, and the entire passage is one of the Anti-Christ. As well as the fact that we must accept Islam is a young religion and in it's history passages and books have changed while the main message remains the same. We should not activly seek to find passages that incite or speak of violence, the same can be found in the Torah and Bible.

For example people claim that the Prophet Muhamed was a war monger and a conquerer. But they so easily forget and dismiss how the Old Tesitament is riddled with the tales of Joshua destroying Jericho and all it's people, David making his great marches to war and forging by the sword the Kingdom of Israel, our assaults and defences against the phillistines, the slaughter of the Amalekites.

But what we always ignore is the messages and main points, dont delve line by line paragraph by paragraph to find something. Because I guarentee I can find something equal in Torah and Bible.

As I have said before, at their very core they all preach the same thing. Tolerance, Equality, Kindness to thy fellow man, moral laws, peace, and the worship and thanking of almighty God.

I don´t really understand why you wrote all of this. My point was, the jews from the levante were the ones to exercise god´s will, and not the european citizens who happened to convert to jeudaism and then later create their own state.

[programmusic]

oh, the khazar bull**** how surprising.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/Khazars.html

[superskippy]

Quote: I don´t really understand why you wrote all of this. My point was, the jews from the levante were the ones to exercise god´s will, and not the european citizens who happened to convert to jeudaism and then later create their own state.

Without addressing your point which must inevitably be linked to the lies about the Khazars, my point was not directed at you. It was about the religous debate between Saracen, Pareve, Venom etc etc.

[slitedeviance]

Venom wrote: Iran is neither extremely modern nor well equipped when compared to the United States. The United States military trains for a traditional battle against a well equipped military opponent. The Iranians simply do not have the technological advanced equipment that the United States has in it's arsenal.

I'd agree that it does not have the technological edge that the US has, but to think that this edge would win the battle easily is a mistake. You reference WW2, so lets see. The Germans had the most technologically advanced military at the time. The Russians and Allies had a few decent bits of weaponry but nothing that could touch the Germans, who were defeated.

The Iranians are very very capable. It is not like taking on Saddams armies, because they actually exist, are highly trained and have the capability to defend themselves to a very high level.

Venom wrote: So basically your whole plan evolves around a peice of paper and the world giving into Iran. You don't think their leadership want's Israel wiped out?

Did they ever say they wanted to acheive this militarily? At any point have they made a direct threat of pre-emptive military action against Israel? If they have please source, because there are people on this forum itself who advocate the breakup of Israel. Does that mean they want to get a bomb and do it that way? No.

Venom wrote: As for promoting the idea of the United States attempting to destroy Islam. Thats a political war that is being lost because of people without the backbone to come out and say what the fight is against. The fight is against Islamic extremism. They want to wipe out all Christians, Jews, Buddhists, anything that doesn't follow their rules.

I'm sorry that your under the impression that this is the reason for the attacks. Perhaps if you actually read why al-Quaeda and other organisations say they are conducting these attacks you might better understand the picture.

Venom wrote: Not let me put it another way. If your community told a mad scientist performing potentially dangerous experiements to stop and all the while that scientist claimed he was going to burn down the house of the Jew down the street would you just sit there and wait for something to happen before you reacted?

Well I guess you could, as the world has historically done, it's called World War 2.

First point, WW2 was not fought initially because of the persecution of the Jews. It was fought because Britain and France decided that they could not stand by while Poland was invaded. It was never a case of trying to stop Hitlers internal policies, merely to stop Germany from expanding it's territory and sphere of influence. As sickening as the Holocaust was, the dead from this were not the only casualties of the war.

Second point, is your analogy isn't fair. A better example would be "if the community had asked the scientist (who had previously allowed the community to view his work) to put his experiments on hold whilst they decided what to do, and the scientist had been known to say he didn't want the house down the road being occupied by jews (whose experiments had been shrouded in secrecy and never shown to the community) would I just sit there?". The answer is no, I would go and speak to the Scientist and find out how he was doing, what he was doing and why he didn't like the Jews living in the house. Then I'd go and speak with the Jews and see how they were doing, and what their concerns were. So what? I think dialogue is better than preventable conflict.

And for my final point... who would I trust more, the country that has signed up to the NPT, allowed inspections and discloses it's proliferation, or a country like Israel that has never signed in to the NPT and holds quite sizable stocks of nuclear weapons developed in secrecy?

[slitedeviance]

....aaaaaaaaaaaand for my final final point,

I'd be far more worried about Pakistan than Iran right now. It's got nuclear weapons, has many many hardline Islamic clerics in it's population, and has a president hanging on by a thread. You want a country to invade, try them.

[Venom]

Slitedeviance
The Germans did have a technological advantage, however if you look at history they very poorly exploited a lot of it. Also the German technological advantage was not comparable to the present US vs Iran. Also you may want to take into account how much damage the Germans did with their technological advantage that wasn't even fully realised.

Iranians not capable compared to the United States military. The problem is our airforce would cut their defense to ribbons. They cannot compete what-so-ever in the skies.

Look up information on Iran. They are using Soviet technology. They have just recently come to supposedly develop a 2,000 lb guided bomb. Their air force is attempting to compete with the F-18 not the F 22. They are not on the same playing field.

Quote: Did they ever say they wanted to acheive this militarily? Are you joking? Here is a link to some stuff http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/archive/2005-11/2005-11-04-voa1.cfm
Quote: At a conference in Tehran, Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Israel, "must be wiped off the map." Countries that recognize the Jewish state, he said, will "burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury

Wait I guess thats not a threat and what he really means is for a peace agreement and Israel just to give some land up right? :roll:

Quote: I'm sorry that your under the impression that this is the reason for the attacks. Perhaps if you actually read why al-Quaeda and other organisations say they are conducting these attacks you might better understand the picture.
:lol: Ya al-Quaeda just wants equal rights for women... oh wait I think I'm confused again. Funny how old Bin Laden had this to say: Quote: According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).
That says killing Jews, Americans, and Muslims whom aren't with them. Can I you send me a pair of 3D Glasses so I can read the true meaning? I guess a holy war on Jews doesn't mean killing them no matter what.

Quote: The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).

Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" —and Shiite—Muslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb.

Al-Wahhab was an 18th-century reformer who claimed that Islam had been corrupted a generation or so after the death of Mohammed. He denounced any theology or customs developed after that as non-Islamic, including more than 1,000 years of religious scholarship. He and his supporters took over what is now Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism remains the dominant school of religious thought.

Sayyid Qutb, a radical Egyptian scholar of the mid-20th century, declared Western civilization the enemy of Islam, denounced leaders of Muslim nations for not following Islam closely enough, and taught that jihad should be undertaken not just to defend Islam, but to purify it.



Here is the link:http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html


Quote: First point, WW2 was not fought initially because of the persecution of the Jews I never said WW 2 was because of the persecution of the Jews. I lised a Jew in the house due to the desire of Iranian's President to kill them all.
Quote: Second point, is your analogy isn't fair.
Yours was?

Also how is this conflict really preventable if it's already going on?

As for your revision of my analogy, I do enjoy the parts of it that you left out. Say the rocks handed to the kids by the first scientist that are thrown into the Jew's house and also the public threats made against the Jew. I guess that doesn't belong in the analogy though...

Israel holds a quite sizable stock of nuclear weapons? Source? I really don't blame Israel as the countries in the middle east have a tendency of ganging up on them.

Also if you trust Iran so much then why don't you trust that they will attempt to wipe out Israel as they have stated?


Quote: I'd be far more worried about Pakistan than Iran right now. It's got nuclear weapons, has many many hardline Islamic clerics in it's population, and has a president hanging on by a thread. You want a country to invade, try them.
It's a bit late isn't it? The reasoning for an invasion would be to prevent the development of a nuclear bomb. Hard to prevent something that someone is holding isn't it?

[superskippy]

Quote: I'd agree that it does not have the technological edge that the US has, but to think that this edge would win the battle easily is a mistake. You reference WW2, so lets see. The Germans had the most technologically advanced military at the time. The Russians and Allies had a few decent bits of weaponry but nothing that could touch the Germans, who were defeated.

The Iranians are very very capable. It is not like taking on Saddams armies, because they actually exist, are highly trained and have the capability to defend themselves to a very high level.

Saddams army in 1990 was enormously stronger than Irans army today as it was then, Iran is for all it's bluster still weaker than what Saddam had built and molded Iraqs army into. Iran is still nearly defenceless against an aerial campaign, it's airforce meant for tactical bombardment not for engaging a superior air force. Sure it has some Rapiers and Rolands, but that isnt going to stop an aerial campaign and they wont last long. It also imports some 40-50% of it's useable oil, yes it has enormous reserves and exports an enormous amount of crude oil but it lacks refining capacity and relies heavily on useable oil imports and a war would quickly deal a blow to their energy reserves. Much more than it would to the US who has higher reserves and deeper markets in other nations for it's oil consumption as well as refining capacity. It's ground forces are in essence supported by T-72's under a variety of names and customized form, and a ground force that remains unproven in battle and lacking since the drying up of US support.

I could go on, but if war broke out between the US and Iran, it would be a few months of combat and the end result would be an Iran in ruins and it's armies destroyed.

[Saracen]

Venom, let me get this straight. You're against Islamic extremism, not Islam?

[Venom]

Superskippy
Good point about Saddam's army in 1990. It was considered very dangerous. Also the most recent invasion of Iraq forced countries such as China to rethink their entire strategy for fighting the United States. The problem is that when you run into a squad of US military personnel they carry something called a PRC 19. The PRC 19 was the most powerful weapon in Desert Storm, OIF, and Afghanistan. What is it? It's a radio. American artillery is extremely quick and accurate, the air force is very agile and powerful, the land forces move and incredible speeds and carry a lot of firepower.

As I've stated before Iran is depending on Soviet technology. Battles have proven it will lose.

[Venom]

Yes I am against Islamic extremism, not Islam. I've been friends with people whom were Islamic, as well as Jewish, and Christian. The fact is Islamic extremism wants to wipe the United States and every Jew off the map. After that they are going to start knocking down any other group that is not part of their click.
I have no problem with people praying to Allah. I have the same problem (although it's not as widespread) as Christian extremists that want to convert others by force.

[Saracen]

Venom wrote: Yes I am against Islamic extremism, not Islam. I've been friends with people whom were Islamic, as well as Jewish, and Christian. The fact is Islamic extremism wants to wipe the United States and every Jew off the map. After that they are going to start knocking down any other group that is not part of their click.
I have no problem with people praying to Allah. I have the same problem (although it's not as widespread) as Christian extremists that want to convert others by force.

Hmm... interesting. Do you know why Islamic extremism occurs? Think of every country that has "bred" Islamic extremism, and then look at the history of that country, and its dealings with Western nations.

[Venom]

Saracen
Why does Jewish persecution occur throughout history? Have you heard some of the information coming out of Iran? The Islamic extremism over there has a tendency to blame everything on the Jews. Just as Hitler did. I guess Steven Spielberg's sucess set Israel back another decade. Damn!
Why did Islamic extremism occur? Well there are key people that took the religion and twisted it into a system that tells all to hate the West and Jews. I'm guessing your leaning towards the West putting it's dirty hands where it doesn't belong.

[nrhy]

superskippy wrote: Quote: I don´t really understand why you wrote all of this. My point was, the jews from the levante were the ones to exercise god´s will, and not the european citizens who happened to convert to jeudaism and then later create their own state.

Without addressing your point which must inevitably be linked to the lies about the Khazars, my point was not directed at you. It was about the religous debate between Saracen, Pareve, Venom etc etc.

the khazars? hardly....

[Plato & Socrates]

superskippy wrote: Quote: I'd agree that it does not have the technological edge that the US has, but to think that this edge would win the battle easily is a mistake. You reference WW2, so lets see. The Germans had the most technologically advanced military at the time. The Russians and Allies had a few decent bits of weaponry but nothing that could touch the Germans, who were defeated.

The Iranians are very very capable. It is not like taking on Saddams armies, because they actually exist, are highly trained and have the capability to defend themselves to a very high level.

Saddams army in 1990 was enormously stronger than Irans army today as it was then, Iran is for all it's bluster still weaker than what Saddam had built and molded Iraqs army into. Iran is still nearly defenceless against an aerial campaign, it's airforce meant for tactical bombardment not for engaging a superior air force. Sure it has some Rapiers and Rolands, but that isnt going to stop an aerial campaign and they wont last long. It also imports some 40-50% of it's useable oil, yes it has enormous reserves and exports an enormous amount of crude oil but it lacks refining capacity and relies heavily on useable oil imports and a war would quickly deal a blow to their energy reserves. Much more than it would to the US who has higher reserves and deeper markets in other nations for it's oil consumption as well as refining capacity. It's ground forces are in essence supported by T-72's under a variety of names and customized form, and a ground force that remains unproven in battle and lacking since the drying up of US support.

I could go on, but if war broke out between the US and Iran, it would be a few months of combat and the end result would be an Iran in ruins and it's armies destroyed.

More military analysis by superskippy? The very same man who would'nt acknowledge that the I.D.F reservists were Micky Mouse? When have you ever been right on a major issue skippy? Do you remember your half-baked stance on Iraq? How you advocated war, and believed the crock of sh*t lies of WMDs and links to Al-Qada, just to name a few points? What about your view to attack Lebanon? How invincible the IDF was, with there useless overweight, not battle ready and in parts incompetent reservist core? Hezbollah stronger than ever, undefeated and still holding your 2 soldiers? Do I really need to go on about your judgement? :roll:

O.K Mr foresight and visionary, How do you think events will play out between Iran and America/Israel in the next year? Will America attack Iran? Will Israel attack Iran?

Hell why am I even asking you, when on every major issue you are wrong? But your welcome to leave an opinion. I'll save it in My Documents, and will remind you later when you are entirely wrong. The reason why your are more incorrect than correct, is because you see the world and your region, through the prism of Israeli eyes.

[superskippy]

Quote: More military analysis by superskippy? The very same man who would'nt acknowledge that the I.D.F reservists were Micky Mouse? When have you ever been right on a major issue skippy?

I am certain I have been right on many occasions, I am also certain that our opposition has not been micky mouse oppisition as you have so oft claimed.

Quote: Do you remember your half-baked stance on Iraq? How you advocated war, and believed the crock of sh*t lies of WMDs and links to Al-Qada, just to name a few points?

Umm I joined 2 years after the invasion had come to a close and the insurgency had begun. How could I have participated in that debate or advocated it? It's only been a year since I joined the invasion and the debate over it was 3 years ago. I actually just checked through a few dozen old pages of my posts and I cant find any about an Iraq topic. I generally try and avoid them, would you be so kind as to oblidge me with a link to a thread on Iraq I participated in? I think I've thus far spoken once in a recent thread about US tactics in Iraq.

Quote: What about your view to attack Lebanon? How invincible the IDF was, with there useless overweight, not battle ready and in parts incompetent reservist core?

I have never claimed the IDF was invincible and I still firmly beleive that had we used full force and contoniued as a campaign below the Litani we would have succeeded. What hurt was a lack of time. Whereever we wanted to go in Lebanon we could go, what was the issue was mopping up resistance in Lebanese towns and villages that Hezbollah held in. When we decided to go to the Litani, we went to the Litani in a matter of hours.

Quote: O.K Mr foresight and visionary, How do you think events will play out between Iran and America/Israel in the next year? Will America attack Iran? Will Israel attack Iran?

I think confrontation is very likely to occur, but the variables are many. I do know what I dont want to see happen.

Quote: Hell why am I even asking you, when on every major issue you are wrong?

Nice new attitude in this thread Plato.

[slitedeviance]

I just can't understand why anyone would be so in favour of war.

Given the state of the world do you not think that possibly just trying to make peace with your enemies may be the better course of action.

I am sick of the weakness of the people who advocate pre-emptive attacks on Iran. I am sick of the weakness of the terrorists. I am sick of the weakness of the governements. You have let your fear cloud any sense of humanity and reduced your understanding of other people to nothing more than cold hard statistics.

It does not take any sort of heroism to carpet bomb a country, or a town, or an ambulance. It does not take any sort of strength to give in to knee jerk reactions and act like a scared little bully. It does not take any courage to strike back at those who strike you.

What happened to the idea of the uplift of humanity? What happened to even giving diplomacy the best chance we can? What happened to understanding that we may never like each other but that still doesn't give us the right to try and destroy the lives of those around us?

There is no real courage unless there is real danger.

If Iran is attacked then the consequences will last for decades and claim the lives of our families and friends, those we hate and those we love. If Iran is attacked do not imagine that this will bring any sort of resolution.
If Iran is attacked then extremism will rise, terrorism will continue and more innocents will die.

We are standing at a crossroads. Due to the inept policy decisions of the Bush administration peace will never be easily acheived, but it is still worth fighting for.

We are all stuck on this sh!tty rock together, so why not at least try to do the best we can. Why not actually try and see if we've got the guts to fight through the fear and uncertainty and acheive something worthwile?

(Idealistic maybe)

[Venom]

Slitedeviance
I do not favor war. I'd love to live in a world where all of our problems could be fixed with talks. However that is not the world you or I live in.

Quote: I am sick of the weakness of the people who advocate pre-emptive attacks on Iran.
As opposed to waiting for the situation to spiral out of control. Remember as the world stood by and allowed Hitler to do as he wished in a sad attempt to appease him and avoid further conflict? What is real weakness is looking at a problem and not doing anything about it. While if we can talk Iran down, that would be great. However if one takes the weak stance of inaction as a country continues to try to develop it's military at feverish speeds and continues a nuclear program that even the UN has deemed unsatisfactory, then where does that put us? The world has attempted talks and told that country to stop and they ignored it. All the while they tell another country in their region that they wish to wipe them out.

Quote: I am sick of the weakness of the terrorists. They are not weak as they have proven being able to take on Israel thanks to the world's politcal climate.

Quote: I am sick of the weakness of the governements. I agree with this completely. I do not believe that the US has been strong enough, nor has Israel. Now lets move onto the European nations, France whom didn't even at first want to put up the numbers for troops to be sent to Lebanon. Everyone wants this peace agreement and now no-one wants to send troops to keep the UN's side of the deal. How about how weak the goverments are to send the peacekeepers into Lebanon with an ROE and mission statement that means they will be doing nothing.

Quote: You have let your fear cloud any sense of humanity and reduced your understanding of other people to nothing more than cold hard statistics. Here your are completely wrong. I've I was afraid I would do as you advocate. I would pull back, look the other way and do nothing. I do have a sense of humanity and what is real in the world besides numbers. I know when a person like Saddam sat their slaughtering his people the world stood by and also allowed him to break the rules set forth by the UN. I know that Iran's leadership believes that the Jews should die. I know that a country like Israel whom is attacked constantly by these terrorists is a full blown war zone. If I was in Israel I would be nervous getting on a bus or sleeping at night. Explain the humanity to me when Israel is a country where every family builds themselves a full blown bunker because of the constant threat to their life. How is it humane for a child to grow up in a country like that?

Quote: It does not take any sort of heroism to carpet bomb a country, or a town, or an ambulance. It does not take any sort of strength to give in to knee jerk reactions and act like a scared little bully. It does not take any courage to strike back at those who strike you. Um when is the last time we have carpeted bombed a country, a town, or an ambulance? Clearly you have no idea what that is. Oh yeah here you go here is your "ambulance":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW7C2tWsRDg

No you do not have to have a knee jerk reaction and that is why the bombs didn't fall within hours of Iran's announcment of their nuclear program. As for having the courage to take a beating. Well tell me how courageous you are as you are beaten to death. It does take an awful lot of courage to stand by and watch such a atrocities and do nothing about them. The United States WTC was attacked three time before something happened. The Marine Corps barricks in Beruit was destroyed at the cost of nearly 250 lives and we did nothing. When is it ok to do something? When should we retailate? There is a long list of those whom are killed. And to think they would spare you because of your weak hearted views is a lack of reality. We can go back to your way of thinking and I guess only react when they kill 2,000 + people right?

Quote: What happened to the idea of the uplift of humanity? It's called Islamic extremism and they want to kill you. So take a double douse of reality and call me in the morning.

Quote: What happened to even giving diplomacy the best chance we can? Well we've seen the world's track record with that. When will you ever get the backbone to realize that diplomacy does NOT work with terrorists. When has it ever?

Quote: What happened to understanding that we may never like each other but that still doesn't give us the right to try and destroy the lives of those around us?
What happened to understanding that if you don't do anything when you have the power to then your to blame when a situation spirals out of control. That's fine I do not like a lot of people including the French goverment. You do not see me requesting an invasion of them do you? The people I do wish to fight are those that have sworn to kill us. They have proven that they are worth their words also through their attacks for the past decades on the United States throughout the world, including here at home.

There is no real courage unless there is real danger
There is no real danger? :lol: I guess those attacks carried out throughout the years wasn't a danger. You can tell that to the THOUSANDS of people that lost their lives. Or maybe you can tell that to the hundreds of thousands slaughtered throughout the Middle East. When is there real danger? When they develop a nuclear weapon and launch it into Israel or hand it off to Hezbollah or some other terrorist group? Your opinion is to wait for something to get out of control and to become a immidiate danger till you act. That is too late. What if the United States had actually gone after al-Qauda prior to 9/11? Maybe it would have happened but there is a good chance it would not have. It's been five years and they have not struck the United States again. So you can sit idle while the Germans roll west, don't worry they are not a threat they said they would stop.

Quote: If Iran is attacked then the consequences will last for decades and claim the lives of our families and friends, those we hate and those we love. If Iran is attacked do not imagine that this will bring any sort of resolution. It won't bring any sort of resolution? I can tell you they wouldn't have a nuclear weapons program after military action... but I guess that's not a resolution at all.
Quote: If Iran is attacked then extremism will rise, terrorism will continue and more innocents will die. Extremism will rise if Iran is not attacked and terrorism will continue and innocents are already dying. The US military has on several occasions blamed much of the violence in Iraq on Iran (you know blowing up market places full of civilians). So basically something that is already happening scares you.

Quote: We are all stuck on this sh!tty rock together, so why not at least try to do the best we can. Why not actually try and see if we've got the guts to fight through the fear and uncertainty and acheive something worthwile?
:lol: Yes it's Bush's fault. When was their peace in the middle east? Well let's take a look. Oh wait never? Here is a timeline: http://library.thinkquest.org/3526/facts/timeline.html
I do not see peace. I guess if countries are just bombing Israel well that's close enough. If Bush was elected peace would easily have been achieved. Wait Bill Clinton didn't pull it off either.. hrmm.. oh crap no one has pulled it off.

Quote: fight through the fear and uncertainty and acheive something worthwile? :lol: For such a peaceful view your fighting with a lot. You want to fight for something but you don't want any military action. Read some history about how ineffective negotations have been in the Middle East as far as peace. So you think peace is worthwhile but not worthwhile enough to fight for it. So let's let a country develop it's nuclear program as it constantly spits out hate from its mouth towards it's neighbors and then talk about gaining the peace through no action.

Quote: We are all stuck on this sh!tty rock together, so why not at least try to do the best we can. Why not actually try and see if we've got the guts to fight through the fear and uncertainty and acheive something worthwile? Well I guess we are looking off the rock from different sides. Your view is extremely idealistic. You blame Bush for something that was going on before him, you wish to talk to a people that only respect strength and action. How many years did we sit and try to talk through the fear and uncertainty to acheive something worthwhile? Clinton tried this for both his terms. Bush Senior tried this. Clinton's talks got the United States attacked. Bush Senior invaded Iraq and pulled back to watch hundreds of thousands be slaughtered. So if you want to continue with attempts that are proven ineffective be my guest. I'd rather not see my country lose 2,000 + people in a single day because we were so courageous to not strike back....

Oh also here is some info on Iran's talk of a pre emtive strike : http://www.stewwebb.com/Iran%20warns%20of%20preemptive%20strike%20to%20prevent%20attack%20on%20nuclear%20sites.html
Quote: "We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly
In a post above you did not seem to believe that they have mentioned this (which they have on several occasions).