"SOME" (like now) more so than OTHERS..*runs, puts duct tape over mouth and continues reading and cursing outloud to self* Iran Nuclear Standoff
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
Bellarose
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:16 pm
- Location: Just a hair North of Tampa
Regit wrote:Bellarose wrote:
Taking all of that into account, I keep coming back to the fact that these different cultures and religions want nothing more to destroy us. Derek's right....gloves off and do what we need to do. I have two children and one on the way. I'd like to know that they will still have our beautiful country to grow up in.
When did we become so PC when it comes to war? Don't answer that if it will turn into a political debate. I was mostly just wondering out loud.
Iran does not now, nor will they within the decade, have the ability to destroy the United States.
I wasn't only talking about Iran. I apologize if I was vague, but at the end of the day I don't always have my usual way with words.
0 likes
-
Yarrah
- Category 2
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:15 pm
- Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Contact:
Bellarose wrote:When did we become so PC when it comes to war? Don't answer that if it will turn into a political debate. I was mostly just wondering out loud.
It's something cultural, nothing political (I hope)
Anyway, even though Iran might threaten it wants to destroy the US, it is not their real goal. What they want is a network of Islamic states in the Middle-East, without any Western influences (so no american troops and Mcdonalds). It's not about world-domination and destroying the US, but about defending their own culture (in a very violent and sick way though).
0 likes
-
Derek Ortt
-
cycloneye
- Admin
- Posts: 145303
- Age: 68
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
- Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
Chirac talks about Iran
French president Chirac vacilated a little in that interview but later in another interview changed his remarks about Iran.
PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.
French president Chirac vacilated a little in that interview but later in another interview changed his remarks about Iran.
PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.
0 likes
-
Janie2006
- Category 5
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:28 pm
- Location: coastal Ms aka home of the hurricanes
Let's talk about facts, Derek.
Opinion.
Opinion. Plus, it's an admission of murder.
Opinion.
Opinion.
They are already. It is also pure speculation.
That's more like advice than factual information.
You won't. Too late for that sort of thing.
One shouldn't attribute the words of a few to an entire religious community.
An admission of genocide. Again. There is no justification for this activity.
You mean commit more genocide?
Obviously, the US did not have to firebomb Dresden. In any case, it did absolutely nothing to shorten the war. The Soviet occupation of Silesia and the British/US occupation of the Ruhr was much more effective than that firebombing nonsense.
Opinion.
Speculation, not fact. No war goes according to plan.
It will make American forces safer if we take the gloves off,
Opinion.
like we did at the end of the Kosovo War, when we brought Serbia to its knees by bombing civilians.
Opinion. Plus, it's an admission of murder.
Took away the Serbians' will to fight and they eventually turned against old Slobo.
Opinion.
If we try and play video games, as we have the last 4 years in Iraq,
Opinion.
our troops will be in grave danger
They are already. It is also pure speculation.
If we do have to face Iran, we need to stop fooling around,
That's more like advice than factual information.
stop worrying if the majority of the Arabs in the mid east will like us (most have been taught to hate us from day one, so we may NEVER be able to win over the hearts and minds),
You won't. Too late for that sort of thing.
stop listening to their propaganda that this is a war against Islam
One shouldn't attribute the words of a few to an entire religious community.
(in Kosovo, we killed thousands of CHRISTIAN civilians to protect MUSLIMS,
An admission of genocide. Again. There is no justification for this activity.
and do what we need to do.
You mean commit more genocide?
I shudder to think of the outcry that will happen if we have to launch a bombing raid on the scale of Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden,
Obviously, the US did not have to firebomb Dresden. In any case, it did absolutely nothing to shorten the war. The Soviet occupation of Silesia and the British/US occupation of the Ruhr was much more effective than that firebombing nonsense.
or Tokyo (a raid that was much more devastating that the Atmoic Bomb raids).
Opinion.
As for out forces being stretched SK and Japanese forces, not to mention our B2s that could take out 8 targets in Iran and another 8 in NK on the same flight (those missions start and end in the USA for the most part)
Speculation, not fact. No war goes according to plan.
0 likes
-
Derek Ortt
civilians die in war, its a fact of life
Killing has a VERY practical military effect. It demoralises the enemy to the point where they do not want to fight. That is accepted fact. Additionally, by killing civilians, you are killing the workforce. No work force means reduced war production, providing your side with an advantage
As for what is fact and opinion, some here really need to learn the difference. If one does not agree with the facts, that does not make them "opinions"
It is known that the destructon of Belgrade is what won us the Kosovo War
The whole world saw the Serbs turn against Slobo. To say that is an opinion is to say The Reich defeated the USA in WW2 is a fact
The Tokyo raid was more destructive than the atmoic bombs. Agian, saying that is an opinion is the same as saying Japan defeated the USA and Britain in WW2 is a fact
Killing has a VERY practical military effect. It demoralises the enemy to the point where they do not want to fight. That is accepted fact. Additionally, by killing civilians, you are killing the workforce. No work force means reduced war production, providing your side with an advantage
As for what is fact and opinion, some here really need to learn the difference. If one does not agree with the facts, that does not make them "opinions"
It is known that the destructon of Belgrade is what won us the Kosovo War
The whole world saw the Serbs turn against Slobo. To say that is an opinion is to say The Reich defeated the USA in WW2 is a fact
The Tokyo raid was more destructive than the atmoic bombs. Agian, saying that is an opinion is the same as saying Japan defeated the USA and Britain in WW2 is a fact
0 likes
Strong belief in an opinion doesn't make it fact.
Saying to Tokyo raid was more destructive is an opinion, even if every military expert agrees. Now saying something like "The Tokyo raids caused a bigger loss of money and more loss of life that the atomic bomb attacks," would be a fact, assuming both those statements are true.
Most of what Janie pointed out as opinions were indeed opinions. I will grant you that the Slobodan Milosevic thing is indeed a fact.
However, wars are the most political of activities on the face of the planet. EVERY war that has ever been fought was fought in the name of political gain. Keeping opinion, particularly political opinion, out of a discussion about war is next to impossible.
Now can we return to the Iran discussion?
Saying to Tokyo raid was more destructive is an opinion, even if every military expert agrees. Now saying something like "The Tokyo raids caused a bigger loss of money and more loss of life that the atomic bomb attacks," would be a fact, assuming both those statements are true.
Most of what Janie pointed out as opinions were indeed opinions. I will grant you that the Slobodan Milosevic thing is indeed a fact.
However, wars are the most political of activities on the face of the planet. EVERY war that has ever been fought was fought in the name of political gain. Keeping opinion, particularly political opinion, out of a discussion about war is next to impossible.
Now can we return to the Iran discussion?
0 likes
The military brass have an old saying:
War is politics by other means. I think that's true.
As far as Iran's role in Iraq,
Iran is playing a very critical role. Thousands of Iranian agents invaded Iraq at the same time that the U.S. did in 2003. There was a power vacuum after the U.S. invaded in some key cities and the Iranians installed their own supporters as regional governors, etc. Plus Iran is majority shia as is Iraq.
Many view Iraq as a proxy war between Iran and the U.S. but the Iraqis themselves are none too pleased about this.
War is politics by other means. I think that's true.
As far as Iran's role in Iraq,
Iran is playing a very critical role. Thousands of Iranian agents invaded Iraq at the same time that the U.S. did in 2003. There was a power vacuum after the U.S. invaded in some key cities and the Iranians installed their own supporters as regional governors, etc. Plus Iran is majority shia as is Iraq.
Many view Iraq as a proxy war between Iran and the U.S. but the Iraqis themselves are none too pleased about this.
0 likes
-
Janie2006
- Category 5
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:28 pm
- Location: coastal Ms aka home of the hurricanes
Now can we return to the Iran discussion?
Yes. Sorry about that folks, but it reminds me of the kind of situation I shall have to relay as an old cold war joke.
Two dogs meet at the East German/Polish border in 1981. The East German dog asks the Polish dog "Say, why are you going to the DDR?" The Polish dog replies "I simply must eat. And you, why go to Poland??" The East German dog replies "I simply must bark."
Hmmmm, guess you had to have been there. Solidarity and all of that.
So....question. What effect, if any, will Chirac's apparent backtracking have on the Iran crisis? Will Iran see it as a chance to break what litttle solidarity the Western powers might have? Certainly Chirac's earlier statement could be seen as a willingness (or a toleration of an Iranian weapon) to break with the UK and the US on the nuclear issue. I imagine the French have been under enormous diplomatic pressure since that interview.
0 likes
-
cycloneye
- Admin
- Posts: 145303
- Age: 68
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
- Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
Russia considers selling Natural Gas to Iran
As Russia and Iran are very close partners,this news is of no surprise.
As Russia and Iran are very close partners,this news is of no surprise.
0 likes
-
SouthFloridawx
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 8346
- Age: 46
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:16 am
- Location: Sarasota, FL
- Contact:
Derek Ortt wrote:civilians die in war, its a fact of life
Killing has a VERY practical military effect. It demoralises the enemy to the point where they do not want to fight. That is accepted fact. Additionally, by killing civilians, you are killing the workforce. No work force means reduced war production, providing your side with an advantage.
As for what is fact and opinion, some here really need to learn the difference. If one does not agree with the facts, that does not make them "opinions"
It is known that the destructon of Belgrade is what won us the Kosovo War
The whole world saw the Serbs turn against Slobo. To say that is an opinion is to say The Reich defeated the USA in WW2 is a fact
The Tokyo raid was more destructive than the atmoic bombs. Agian, saying that is an opinion is the same as saying Japan defeated the USA and Britain in WW2 is a fact
Derek I apologize for saying this point of view, looking at killing other people like it's ok to do is a very sick thought. Some may suggest that you should get your head examined. This way of looking at the world and war is time to come to an end. It has not worked for thousands of years and never will.
If you think in any way shape or form that killing a civilian is ok, then I really don't know what to say. I understand everyone is allowed to have thier own opinion and I respect that but, to take a human life in such a regard is uninmaginable to me. I can't even think of words right now... I can't believe people can actually think that way.
0 likes
-
Derek Ortt
I will say this, it is good that at least here, we are having this necessary philisophical debate. Good honest debate is what advances ideas and allows us move forward.
That said, I categorically disagree with the previous viewpoint stated in this thread.
killng civilians in war stems back from God himself leading the conquest of Canaan. That was a successful conquest, so military, that tactic does in fact work. Only recently have we tried to not kill civilians, before, we'd just burn down an entire city without regard for life
Killing in war is not comitting murder. 99.99% of the world understands that.
I fail to see the logic of those who say killing ENEMY civilians is wrong, when they are making the bombs and materials that kill American military and civilian personnel. One does not win a war by being "morally" superior to the enemy, one wins by killing them, which with Iran's actions, maybe we should start having that debate. What would you have said during WW2 when we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians per month at a rate faster than the Reich were killing civilians at Treblinka?
That said, I categorically disagree with the previous viewpoint stated in this thread.
killng civilians in war stems back from God himself leading the conquest of Canaan. That was a successful conquest, so military, that tactic does in fact work. Only recently have we tried to not kill civilians, before, we'd just burn down an entire city without regard for life
Killing in war is not comitting murder. 99.99% of the world understands that.
I fail to see the logic of those who say killing ENEMY civilians is wrong, when they are making the bombs and materials that kill American military and civilian personnel. One does not win a war by being "morally" superior to the enemy, one wins by killing them, which with Iran's actions, maybe we should start having that debate. What would you have said during WW2 when we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians per month at a rate faster than the Reich were killing civilians at Treblinka?
Last edited by Derek Ortt on Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
-
Janie2006
- Category 5
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:28 pm
- Location: coastal Ms aka home of the hurricanes
Good honest debate is what advances ideas and allows us move forward.
I agree with that.
killng civilians in war stems back from God himself leading the conquest of Canaan. That was a successful conquest, so military, that tactic does in fact work. Only recently have we tried to not kill civilians, before, we'd just burn down an entire city without regard for life
Yes, this is true. Look where it has gotten humanity. So much for the "City on the Hill". Seriously. If human beings (and not just Wehrmacht soldiers, US soldiers, Soviet soldiers, I mean all of us) have not learned anything in all of those millenia....what hope is there??
Killing in war is not comitting murder. 99.99% of the world understands that.
It is murder if those civilians have nothing whatsoever to do with the war effort. Let's call it what it is. Presumably this is one of the reasons for having the Geneva Convention.
What would you have said during WW2 when we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians per month at a rate faster than the Reich were killing civilians at Treblinka?
Of course this is an unanswerable question, but I probably would have vehemently disagreed with the firebombing of Nuremburg. After all, it certainly bothered Churchill, as he later admitted. The Reich committed sheer murder every day those camps were in existence.
0 likes
-
Yarrah
- Category 2
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:15 pm
- Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Contact:
Derek Ortt wrote:killng civilians in war stems back from God himself leading the conquest of Canaan. That was a successful conquest, so military, that tactic does in fact work. Only recently have we tried to not kill civilians, before, we'd just burn down an entire city without regard for life
I'd be careful with using religious books in a debate like this. Better to stick to less touchy subjects.
Derek Ortt wrote:I fail to see the logic of those who say killing ENEMY civilians is wrong, when they are making the bombs and materials that kill American military and civilian personnel. One does not win a war by being "morally" superior to the enemy, one wins by killing them, which with Iran's actions, maybe we should start having that debate. What would you have said during WW2 when we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians per month at a rate faster than the Reich were killing civilians at Treblinka?
Why not just destroy the factories and equipment that are used to make bombs and/or are vital to a country's economy? Isn't it way more effective to bring a country's economy into disarray? This often leads to a situation where civilians become fatigued from the war and will do anything to make it stop. The enemy government loses it's power in this process and will eventually be overthrown or simply destroyed. This is how WW1 and WW2 (in europe) ended.
I know Iran is a different situation because religion plays an important role. Simply making sure the Iranian people lose confidence in the current government might not be enough, because their extremistic religion will stay and so will their hate against the west. All I know is that killing civilians will just make the situation worse, unless you kill everyone over there.
0 likes
What I don't understand is this - why would anyone want them to be able to come over here and murder us? IF we don't let them know we are serious and fight them where they are then that is what will happen. There truly are some in this world that are evil and they mislead the vunerable and could care less about death and destruction. Not everyone is willing to talk - and some of those that say they are would be plotting behind our backs.
0 likes
-
Janie2006
- Category 5
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:28 pm
- Location: coastal Ms aka home of the hurricanes
artist wrote:What I don't understand is this - why would anyone want them to be able to come over here and murder us? IF we don't let them know we are serious and fight them where they are then that is what will happen. There truly are some in this world that are evil and they mislead the vunerable and could care less about death and destruction. Not everyone is willing to talk - and some of those that say they are would be plotting behind our backs.
Going by the US government's own figures it would be fairly easy for individual terrorists to sneak into the US, even now. So, I do not accept the premise of that particular argument. Bin Laden expected the US to do pretty much what it did. The British have been dealing with terrorism for a long, long time. We should have taken a page from their book.
0 likes
-
harshrealm
-
kevin
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests