 |
| |
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:37
|
|
Most of people seem to be disagreeing with my theory of force use. I am an advocate of aggressive irradical behaviour, because anyone can control things, but only true masters can control chaos. I know it's kind of a long reach to any .. reliable path of sanity and it denounces the world of logics that I so much seek and follow and advocate.
However, what we all seem to be doing is 'knowing' (= guessing) what the outcome will be, what the response will be. The only FACT we DO know is that we know what we can do, but we will never know what will happen. War is chaos, and anyone who says can control it is a maniac. We can control our response, we can set the date when to start it, the resources tied to it (at first). But after that, it's in no ones hands. It's not like they're not going to shoot back. It's not like they don't have brave fighters, and skilled ones, or strategically well honed.
MOst of all we have one great disadvtantage, that is by default if you come from these neck of the woods and that disadvantage is that they know our stuff, but we don't know theirs. So what they have is better intel than we do, sounds weird, we have gizmos and things that go *MBEEP* and costs millions, but they still know more than we do. It's like women, they know who they will sleep with, while men only guess. To argue this is self deception and only shows lack of .. brains. I think this is self evident, and to go around it basically weakens our chances. All I'm saying is what ever we do, let's make it work. To argue against making good plans is nothing but suicidial.
We say, well, war is the last thing we want, the last measure to be taken. ****.. seems to be it's the first one! We have tried to talk some sense into them.. yeah.. like 'stop or we will blow you up'. That's not how you get people to do what you want, when they have a barganing chip. You offer them something. If no one is willing to share any power.. that's another story then. But then it's not about the security of our nations at stake, it's the power of our nations at stake, or more like a crumble of it. Let's not get over our heads and think they actually give them up for free.
Another point is they see NK. They are boasting with them, and anyone saying 'they'll be next' is wrong. They won't be next. Iran can look at that direction and join the laughter. Unfortunately for them it's not the same situation as with NK. NK has nothing interesting with them, or any powerful allies or anything going on for them, so we can leave them alone.
Let's play a game. How many of us can name the leader(s) of Iran. I know I can't. How many Iranians can name the leader of US? How many of us can point out Iran from the map. I know I can and most of you as well, but majority can't. How many Iranians can point US from the map? Who has better level of education? So why are the answers easy to answer, but still many of us can't admit we don't know crap about them, and they know all there is to know about us? We still don't like them, and they don't like us, but at least they know us.
Until we do know about them, we should never even think about war, because we have no chance of gaining victory. We will win the actual fighting, but so what? I can play Mortal Kombat to flex my penis of beatings, and no one has to die in the process.
What I'm saying is, many of us in here are saying, well, screw them I'm ready to support attack. As in it's NOT the last option used, but the first. Now there has to be pretty ****ing outstanding reasons why this would be acceptable other than someone might get nukes in a decade or so.
And people shouldn't get offended when I say this but I'm coming to believe that some people in here don't really give a damn about them Iranian people. Or Iraqi people for that matter. Or their freedom. To say it's acceptable to let say... ten thousand.. 20k.. 50k die in the process of what is ultimately a lottery at this point still is nothing short of insanity and the logics of murderous dictators ala Saddam. To say that it was sad but still acceptable for how many.. 15 thousand Iraqis to die because we got Saddam is nothing short of absolute evil, disguised in supposedly good. I'm not saying action in Iraq was evil. I'm saying some of the armschair general strategists in here seem to be lacking reality, or any human touch and feelings for other people.
And we seem to be OK with the idea of yet again thousands of Iranians dying because of a lottery game we don't even know the outcome because of supposedly and allegedly this and that and even before last measure has been taken? What can I say to that. See you in hell 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:37
|
|
and to avoid the mix ups, I'm not even saying we shouldn't attack. I'm saying, this is not the time or the place. How about some facts to the table. Analyze it, look at it, talk to others about it, get some brainstorming going on, and I bet there are other solutions available to try out now. There is no will to it.
My proposal for one thing that comes to my midn first before any action is even considered is offering something in return. How about let's offer them to reduce the amount of our nukes. It's not like it makes any difference in security. 200 000 nukes, 20 000 nukes, who cares. It doesn't make any difference in the real world if you can destroy the planet once or hundred times. That's a start. And then we might get something going on, and we can offer more too, without losing anything. We can offer the thought of reason. We can offer better relations, and open up some markets. Who is getting hurt in the process, except the egos of few maniacs. It's not a green light to 'hey threaten with nukes and we give you candy'. Because we are not offering anything but better relations. I'd suppose that benefits everyone. Besides, there are only few nations in this planet that can't get nukes or start developing them, if it was what they wanted to do, so tha tmeans the only way to protect everyone from more nations getting nukes is make them not want to get them, usage of force is one way, but it's not the only way, as we see it's not exactly working.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
:) Smiley
|
 |
USCA, Berkeley
Feb 2001
time: 21:37
|
|
Closing the noose?
With Pakistan now US friendly, and Afghanistan and Iraq under US occupation, Iran's only other neighbors are former Soviet republics.
Currently Turkmenistan, the country to Iran's north, is still living in the Soviet era, with the former governor now running what essentially is a monarchy. Russian forces are in the Caucasus due to the Chechen insurgency.
Syrian troops have left Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates on the other side of the Persian Gulf are undergoing double-digit economic growth.
In 2001, Bush invaded Afghanistan, in 2003, Iraq. It's now 2005...
 Attachment: iran_us.png
This has been downloaded 114 time(s).
Last edited by :) Smiley on 15-08-2005 at 03:57
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Thorn
|
 |
Asheville, NC
May 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
Alright fine, let nothing happen, let a nuclear weapon be exploded on somebody. IRAN WILL USE ITS WEAPONS I'M POSITIVE THEY WOULD.
If you want to live in a world where people are so scared that they elect leaders into power worse then Bush, with nukes a'flying then be my guest! Let Iran be in on the nuclear club.
There doesn't necessarly need to be an invasion, but that nuclear program must stop.
I don't care if it is the USA, Israel, Germany, Russia, Timbuktoo, or whatever somebody needs to stop Iran.
You can say that Bush won't do it, because North Korea he let have nuclear weapons... actually thats not accurate, if the US wished to stop North Korea's Nuclear Program, which it easily could have, then they would have to contend with a very bitter China, that has enough nuclear weapons and ability to launch them to devestate the United States. The United States is not ready to deal with the Chinese Menace yet.
And don't think China is a menace, well lets see, their government threatened nuclear war if the USA intervened in a Chinese Invasion of Tawian.
You little euros can sit in your compfy chairs, talking about how terrible the US is, but the truth is your nations don't have the balls to do what the USA can do, and that is why you play this pathetic little game.
You have a lot more to worry about as well, you have huge muslim populations of youths, which can be, and inevitably will be the breeding ground for terrorism. You won't know what hit you the day they turn on you, but by then it will be too late.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Does anyone really think Iran would use nukes if they got them? |
When political leaders have openly speculated that Iran could absorb a nuclear response (including the moderate candidate of the last election), I think it's a very valid concern.
But even if Iran doesn't use the nukes, it's still a threat. Iran is a country that currently supports and aids terrorist groups. How much more will they use terrorism when they have nuclear weapons to protect themselves from a reprisal?
Last edited by Edan on 17-08-2005 at 17:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
You mean like Mao back in the 1960's?
|
We weren't concerned?
quote:
And what further aid would they give said groups under this scenerio? |
More money and arms, TV stations to broadcast propoganda from and safe harbor and locations to set up terrorist camps?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005 01:29
|
