Well, when it gets right down to it, that's what the United Nations is there for, and that is why it's such a tragedy that the UN is so reluctant to take military action. If the UN sent troops in to stop Iran's weapons development, it'd be a different story - it's much more difficult for terrorists to face down the world community than 1 or 2 nations. As it is, if the UN doesn't act swiftly and decisively, it'll be the US and Israel - the two nations that are already at the top of the Islamic terrorist hit list (to fundamentalist Islam, Israel="little Satan", US="great Satan").

On the topic of "pissing off a country with terrorist ties," Iran is already pissed at us. They have been for more than 30 years...nukes just give them a vehicle through which they can overtly act on that anger, rather than doing it covertly through support for terrorist groups. And besides that, it's not like there's anything we could do to get on fundamentalist Islam's good side, apart from declaring Islam the national religion and instituting Sha'ria law, which isn't going to happen...just look at France - they've capitulated to Islamist threats (the law they had a while back banning headgear of any kind at schools), and they were among the loudest opponents to the war in Iraq...yet they have still been threatened by & attacked by Islamic terrorists.

There is no guarantee that Middle Eastern Muslims will unite against us if we move to stop the nuclear threat in Iran - especially if we can do so with the support of other nations (Iran's nuclear ambitions aren't just a worry for the US). But if we do nothing, the stakes are much, much higher. After all, we're not just talking nuclear weapons in the hands of a known enemy - if Iran, a known supporter of terrorism, is in possession of a continuing source of radioactive material through the power plant they're having built, there is also a risk that they will give that material to terrorists...and one of the greatest fears for terrorist attacks in the US is a dirty bomb.


Basically, what it gets down to is this:
If we move against Iran, there is a big risk, but a gargantuan reward - they are deprived of nukes to use against us or our allies.
If we do nothing, there is a gargantuan risk, but we get nothing out of the deal. We save a few lives in the short term, but have a potential nuclear holocaust looming over our heads.

Of course...because before George W. Bush became President, everyone loved the United States.
I didn't blame everything on the Bush administration, although they certainly haven't helped matters.

As much as I dislike the idea, it's been that way for a while. (See U.S. Missles pointing at USSR)

Point the gun to the guy who's pointing one at you.

Here's to hoping nuclear weapons/facilities can be neutralized with a good air strike or two if the need arises..

It's hopefully just an empty threat from Iran though. I like to think they're just playing hardball.

I dislike this kind of business too, but rccar won me over on this one.

Iran cannot turn into another North Korea for us.

I dislike this kind of business too, but rccar won me over on this one.

Iran cannot turn into another North Korea for us.
Traitor :xp:

That being said, there are better ways to stop Iran than nuclear weapons. I'm not saying don't invade/attack Iran (which would also prevent them from getting nuclear weapons), but regular bombs and ground soldiers could take Iran quickly and efficiently if they had the full backing of our government from the start and whoever's in charge at that point listens to his (/her?) military advisors (unlike Bush).

But maybe you guys are thinking of a different kind of NUCLEAR F***ING WEAPON than I am.

I didn't blame everything on the Bush administration, although they certainly haven't helped matters.
Finally someone else who is willing to give credit where credit is due

Traitor :xp:

That being said, there are better ways to stop Iran than nuclear weapons. I'm not saying don't invade/attack Iran (which would also prevent them from getting nuclear weapons), but regular bombs and ground soldiers could take Iran quickly and efficiently if they had the full backing of our government from the start and whoever's in charge at that point listens to his (/her?) military advisors (unlike Bush).

But maybe you guys are thinking of a different kind of NUCLEAR F***ING WEAPON than I am.
Key phrase: "if they had the full backing of our government." We have Democrats in Congress who have made it their mission in life to block and impede and criticize everything that President Bush does, even to the point of total hypocracy, working against positions they themselves had taken in the past. The sad thing about our politicians today is that unless there is overwhelming support by the American people (such as in the days right after 9/11), it'll be the standard "Bush=evil" rhetoric again...at least, that's my fear.

I'm not totally in support of using nuclear weapons, either, not even the bunker busters, for which the fallout should be pretty well (though not totally) contained. And besides that, they ought to have conventional bunker busters that could get the job done...but, then, I'm not an expert.

But the fact that they've drawn up plans to use nuclear bunker busters doesn't necessarily mean that's the plan they'll use...and personally, I hope they won't use nukes unless it's deemed absolutely necessary.

Key phrase: "if they had the full backing of our government." We have Democrats in Congress who have made it their mission in life to block and impede and criticize everything that President Bush does, even to the point of total hypocracy, working against positions they themselves had taken in the past. The sad thing about our politicians today is that unless there is overwhelming support by the American people (such as in the days right after 9/11), it'll be the standard "Bush=evil" rhetoric again...at least, that's my fear.

I'm not totally in support of using nuclear weapons, either, not even the bunker busters, for which the fallout should be pretty well (though not totally) contained. And besides that, they ought to have conventional bunker busters that could get the job done...but, then, I'm not an expert.

But the fact that they've drawn up plans to use nuclear bunker busters doesn't necessarily mean that's the plan they'll use...and personally, I hope they won't use nukes unless it's deemed absolutely necessary.
While I have a similar position on the usage of nuclear weapons, I don't think we should even consider using them. As for your idea that Democrats opposed everything the President does, the last time I checked, the President was opposed to sending the recommended amount of troops to Iraq (and fired the general who suggested said number), he also decreased the salary of the average soldier and increased the tax burden (not to be confused with the amount they're paying) of the tax bracket most of our soldiers are in. The President also didn't send our troops into Iraq with the equipment they needed and didn't send it to them until the proverbial s*** hit the fan and it was on the news.

I can't fathom how you can say something like "Bush supports the troops" (or anything similar to that) when he sends too few of them with not enough equipment and pays them less to some country on the other side of the world under false pretenses in order to increase corporate profits. And on top of that, you'll see that all but one soldier who has come back from Iraq and has gone into politics is a member of the Democratic party.

While I have a similar position on the usage of nuclear weapons, I don't think we should even consider using them. As for your idea that Democrats opposed everything the President does, the last time I checked, the President was opposed to sending the recommended amount of troops to Iraq (and fired the general who suggested said number), he also decreased the salary of the average soldier and increased the tax burden (not to be confused with the amount they're paying) of the tax bracket most of our soldiers are in. The President also didn't send our troops into Iraq with the equipment they needed and didn't send it to them until the proverbial s*** hit the fan and it was on the news.


All of this is true save for your comment on body armor. The military never expected the use of IED's and the military was not designed for this type of threat until it actually confronted it in Iraq.

Back in the day, you could have unarmored Humvees rolling around because chicken tactics like IED's weren't predominantly used by our enemies before...probably because they actually had a pair.

In essence, if you're going to blame anyone you need to blame the military itself. Bush doesn't handle that type of thing nor could he have forseen the increase use of IED's by the enemy before we even went in there.

He does however have an impact on troop numbers and you are absolutely correct there.

That aside, you are correct for the most part and it's absolutely embarassing for people on the right.

I can't fathom how you can say something like "Bush supports the troops"

Well if you compare him to alot of the Democrats, he does. You have Murtha and Dean reinforcing almost daily that the war is 'unwinnable'. You also have a media that criticizes the US military at every turn, as if they're an evil army thats bent on torturing and killing every civilian they find... when in reality it's the insurgency thats bent on torturing and killing every civilian they find.


In my mind you can criticize Bush's handling all you want. Though as soon as I hear the cries of "retreat!" I can't help but grow angry.

We went in there and toppled Saddam Hussein, we OWE the Iraqi people a democratic, peaceful society and we shouldn't leave until that's done.

If we left, that would be an even greater disservice to the Iraqi people than invading in the first place.

You have Murtha [...] reinforcing almost daily that the war is 'unwinnable'.

Murtha not supporting the troops? A decorated Vietnam veteran who's as patriotic as they come? A Democrat who joined with Republicans to criminalize flag-burning?

There's a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the policy. Look at Al Franken; he goes to Iraq and entertains the troops with the USO, but is a critic of the war. Does that mean that he doesn't "support the troops" because he doesn't support the policy?

Murtha not supporting the troops? A decorated Vietnam veteran who's as patriotic as they come? A Democrat who joined with Republicans to criminalize flag-burning?

There's a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the policy. Look at Al Franken; he goes to Iraq and entertains the troops with the USO, but is a critic of the war. Does that mean that he doesn't "support the troops" because he doesn't support the policy?


The troops are their to win, not lose. Murtha would feel differently if he was on the ground.

I don't think we should discuss Al Franken, he's pretty irrelevant.

Murtha would feel differently if he was on the ground.

No offense man, but how would you possibly know that? Have you been on the ground over there?

Hey, maybe you're an Iraq veteran, and if you are I'm sorry for this post, but if you're not, then I don't see how you could possibly know that the situation is good, or even winnable.

Eh if you want to get personal I have 2 friends and one brother in Iraq. I have a cousin in Afganistan.

Sure I'm not on the ground, but they want to win and so do they're friends.

To say that American soldiers aren't disheartened by Murtha/Dean's comments, I think that's going out on a limb.


EDIT: It shouldn't matter whether I fought in Iraq or not, I'm entitled to my oppinions and frankly I think Murtha is a cry baby...quite literally.

If he was a soldier, in Iraq, on the ground, Murtha would want to win. Instead he's back here throwing a monkey wrench into the war he voted for.

Eh if you want to get personal I have 2 friends and one brother in Iraq. I have a cousin in Afganistan.

I see. I retract my earlier statement.

All of this is true save for your comment on body armor. The military never expected the use of IED's and the military was not designed for this type of threat until it actually confronted it in Iraq.

Back in the day, you could have unarmored Humvees rolling around because chicken tactics like IED's weren't predominantly used by our enemies before...probably because they actually had a pair.

In essence, if you're going to blame anyone you need to blame the military itself. Bush doesn't handle that type of thing nor could he have forseen the increase use of IED's by the enemy before we even went in there.
On the topic of the Humvees, they should be at least bulletproof (for the most part anyway, I know nothing's perfect), an insurgent/enemy soldier shouldn't be able to take shots at one of our Humvees with a rifle from a way's off and hit one of our troops in said Humvee. They should have forseen something like this though, saying "We didn't know..." is no excuse for people being killed-if you're willing to sacrifice lives you should know what they're up against and what they need to survive.

On the topic of Bush and his ability to f*** things up, he and the rest of his administration was one of the reasons that things didn't get done quickly in terms of supplying the troops. To say that the person in command of our armed forces isn't responsible doesn't sound quite right. And if the administration didn't keep things quiet and try to supress the facts so they wouldn't have to sink more money into the defense budget, we could have, at the minimum, gotten our troops the supplies they needed sooner (even though they should have had it from the moment they set foot in Iraq).

On that note Humvee's are going to be replaced soon, Navistar and Lockheed Martin have submitted prototypes so far, no idea about the Lockheed prototype but the NAvistar design is supposed to be somewhat similiar to the international CXT

As to Dems wanting to go belting away from Iraq as fast as they can... it just makes me mad. I think most of us know someone that went to fight, in Iraq or Afganistan (I have a cousin on his 2nd tour with the Army Rangers in iraq, he also did a tour in Afganistan. I have a another cousin that just joined the SeaBees) like I said, we all feel the effects, and when you have family and friends there, even those that died away from home, hearing ignorent B****'s go over there and run his mouth... It just makes your blood boil.
Okay theres my spew on Iraq...

TK-8252 and Good Sir Knight:

What Murtha means by "unwinnable" is that we cannot defeat a formless, shapeless, symbol that terrorism takes.

I know many men who have picked up a rifle in the name of the United States of America. And not one of them believes that winning means defeat of America's enemies. It means coming home alive and returning to a life that is as normal as possible. "Winning" a war is a completely political concept.

TK-8252 and Good Sir Knight:

What Murtha means by "unwinnable" is that we cannot defeat a formless, shapeless, symbol that terrorism takes.

I know many men who have picked up a rifle in the name of the United States of America. And not one of them believes that winning means defeat of America's enemies. It means coming home alive and returning to a life that is as normal as possible. "Winning" a war is a completely political concept.

In my oppinion, failure is not an option for the United States.


Murtha is entitled to his oppinion, it's just that his crying gives hope to an enemy that not only kills our people but mostly innocent Iraqis.

Look we're there, I rather leave with a semi-stable, democratic government in place. We owe it to them and to leave would be an act of global selfishment.

I think that Murtha should consider that, instead of only worrying about Americans. I worry about my family every day but I know that they're doing right, it's just in my oppinion.

I hate it how people act as if the US Military is some archaic occupying force.
All our government wants is peace in Iraq, not because of the warm and fuzzies but because of the perception.

That's all we want and I wish there was a little more criticsm leveled on the fundamentalist ideology that causes so much mayhem in Iraq.

Oh but we can't hoyt anyone's feelwings though... :mad:



EDIT:


Zarqawi, al Qaeda are heading out, U.S. general says
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060413-110216-1235r.htm)

This is interesting, funny because it wasn't anything we did. The Iraqi's just got tired of them blowing up Iraqi's. Pretty crappy terrorists if you think about it.

Well now, I'm not convinced that the U.S. did not enter Iraq with dubious intentions...

What Murtha means by "unwinnable" is that we cannot defeat a formless, shapeless, symbol that terrorism takes.

Quoted for truth. It is impossible to win a war on "terror".

Quoted for truth. It is impossible to win a war on "terror".

Exactly. Islamic extremism is an idea, not an army that you can defeat with bombs and bullets. That's why launching a "war" on them doesn't work. All you can do is use special forces to take out the leaders... which we have not done. They may be trying, but when they're spending more time hunting down Iraqi insurgents than al-Qaeda terrorists, it makes it pretty damn hard.

Exactly. Islamic extremism is an idea, not an army that you can defeat with bombs and bullets. That's why launching a "war" on them doesn't work. All you can do is use special forces to take out the leaders... which we have not done. They may be trying, but when they're spending more time hunting down Iraqi insurgents than al-Qaeda terrorists, it makes it pretty damn hard.

Actully we are always looking for the leaders...

But I agree it is an idea, something that cannot be beat the normal way, not even killing the leaders will help though. When you have Islam hard-core people living deep in the mountains, it makes it hard. They support the terrorists, give them members and any help they can offer. (not to say they don't come from other places, I'm just saying that some of the smallest communities are on their side)

Note. Many of the Iraqi insurgents ARE al-qaeda, they just came into Iraq.

Note. Many of the Iraqi insurgents ARE al-qaeda, they just came into Iraq.

Sure there's the Zarqawi types (Good Sir Knight posted an article that the al-Qaeda in Iraq might actually be calling it quits which is a major victory for the U.S. and for Iraq if it's true), and they do the most damage against U.S. troops, but the Sunnis who go and kill cops and shoot up Shia mosques are mostly Iraqi.

Remember, there were thousands of Iraqi soldiers under Saddam who were left jobless, and they sure didn't just go away and settle down.

Sure there's the Zarqawi types (Good Sir Knight posted an article that the al-Qaeda in Iraq might actually be calling it quits which is a major victory for the U.S. and for Iraq if it's true)
Indeed. That article seems fishy to me though: partly because it seems to misinterpret the goals of any al-quaida cells in iraq, and partly because it seems strange of AQ to leave just when they seem to be successding in their goals of turning sunni against shi and sparking a wider conflict in the region.

Remember, there were thousands of Iraqi soldiers under Saddam who were left jobless, and they sure didn't just go away and settle down.
I think they did. Which was a big mistake on the US's part and now its having to go and find them again and get them back so that it can control the country.
I don't think it is ex-solidiers that are causing most of the problems (except for a few senior bathist loyalists) its mainly external forces stiring up trouble between ethnic/religious groups and then those groups escalating the trouble betwen themselves.

I think they did. Which was a big mistake on the US's part and now its having to go and find them again and get them back so that it can control the country.
I don't think it is ex-solidiers that are causing most of the problems (except for a few senior bathist loyalists) its mainly external forces stiring up trouble between ethnic/religious groups and then those groups escalating the trouble betwen themselves.

Most all new Iraqi police and soldier recruits are Shia, while most under Saddam were Sunni, though. There was one CNN documentary where a journalist managed to interview two insurgent commanders who were Iraqi generals under Saddam, and they said that when the Iraqi military was disbanded, they activated the insurgency. As he said, "we had plenty of money and men, and our belief in God is great."

In the book Cobra II, it says how the Fedayeen is playing a major part in the Iraqi insurgency.

But anyway, this is all off-topic.


Edit:

Iran announced that it has 40,000 suicide bombers ready to move against the U.S. in Iraq and Israel if there is any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45148)

First saw the story on FOX News...

I really doubt that many people would go blow themselves up, as unpopular as we are over there they don't particularly like there own government depending who you talk to, I was listening to the BBC World service a while back and when they polled people on the streets of Tehran most said they thought they had the right to have nuclear power but didn't trust the Ahmadinejad administration with it, Ahmadinejad continues to talk radically about how the Jews must be pushed into the sea and all that bull****, the man simply can't have peaceful intentions when he constantly preach's about how extreme violence will get you to heaven. It's allways been the same strategy of extremists on both sides since the beginning of time: find some one to blame and unfortunetly most of the time it's people of the jewish faith who get blamed.

I really doubt that many people would go blow themselves up

Who knows... there are probably that many people who would rather blow themselves up than live in Iran.

Actully we are always looking for the leaders...

Kill the head, the body keeps on moving.

It's allways been the same strategy of extremist whacko's and liberals since the beginning of time: find some one to blame and unfortunetly most of the time it's people of the jewish faith who get blamed.


...liberals? I miss something?

I really doubt that many people would go blow themselves up, as unpopular as we are over there they don't particularly like there own government depending who you talk to

War has the uncanny ability to unify people under a government.

OOPS liberals wasn't the word I was really looking for, I know most left wingers don't.
Many extremists on the Left blame Israel for their problems, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Fidel Castro both have made anti-semetic statements, more recently Chavez. In response to your comment about war uniting people behind the government you can't forget that Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani the pragmatic conservative from last years iranian election was not far behind Ahmadinejad in the race (Supposing it wasn't fixed) so a large portion of the country is certainly tired of the hardline conservative muslim government and is not so willing to blow themselvs to hell for allah.

Threats usually make people forget about things rather quickly. I'm not sure how many will go, but enough will. And that's no good.

Also - Religion ranks almost equally with war in uniting a people. "For Allah" you said - for him, I'm sure most would do anything.

When it comes to governments and leaders you have to be careful to distinguish between the things that they say and mean, and the things that they say because they feel they are expected.
Statements about attacking israel are likely the expected thing of any iranian government. I doubt anyone actually intends to drive israel into the sea anymore... but its just something you need to say. Like the way you have to portray yourself as a happily married christian to become president of the US.

happily married christian to become president of the US.



Guess my dreams of presidency are gone then... :p