[Mefustae]

Saying that hunting down and killing these people where they live is exacerbating the problem is like saying that attacking the Japanese after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor is only going to make them more angry at us and make them want to kill us even more. Granted that the terrorists arent a nation/state but they reside in dictatorships and totalitarian nations that sponsor them. You are still implying that by hunting these people down makes us less safe.. im sorry but i just dont understand how wiping them out by the truck load makes us less safe.

Hunting them down? No, that's an acceptable way of preventing attacks. However, the US Administration has been doing a little bit more than just 'hunting down the big, bad terrorists'. In the past few years Terrorists have indeed been wiped out by the proverbial truck-load, i'll give you that, but then I never said doing so was anything less than effective. Instead, I highlighted the plain fact that the playground the Administration has created for budding terrorists, coupled with the "come get me" attitude they've expressed in damn near every press conference they've held on the subject, is of course going to exacerbate the threat.

Let me use your analogy to illustrate: This situation is akin to the US building aircraft factories for the Japanese mere hours after Pearl Harbour, then telling the Japanese armed forces they don't have the stones to do anything, and finally informing the world everyone is safer for having done so.

[Centrixo]

That indeed isn't right, if the Jap's didn't have the balls, they would of never used one man subs for kamikaze missions and planes for kamikaze missions on military boats, the USA were lucky to have Aussies and Brits around to reinforce the boat devisions back then. Then you got the hidden bunkers on the tiny islands near Japan, most sources say these island's were deathtraps and usually took days to months to clear out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War

The same holds true for today, terrorists still have thier mission, albiet Bin Laden gone and Al Zaqaui gone it has weakened them?. i don't think its weakend them at all!, and you look at todays figures countries like, Italy and France withdrew, because they didn't want to be the ones to say "Ok i'm sorry for your loss Mr/Mrs Blogs" so they were feeling it was not safe to stay there, while their people were thinking about giving up on the government and overthrowing them for a republic if not.

the USA now controls Iraq but the Terrorist don't like thier holy land of Allah taken by Christians and Democracy, and the USA says "Ok give me your best shot, i dare you!", so far their words are not solid, and the foundation is starting to give. so these words should of gotten to the USA by now, so what could happen?

[IceFire]

Saying that hunting down and killing these people where they live is exacerbating the problem is like saying that attacking the Japanese after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor is only going to make them more angry at us and make them want to kill us even more. Granted that the terrorists arent a nation/state but they reside in dictatorships and totalitarian nations that sponsor them. You are still implying that by hunting these people down makes us less safe.. im sorry but i just dont understand how wiping them out by the truck load makes us less safe.

I think thats a poor analogy unfortunately although some parallels still exist there are some critical differences.  The Japanese attacked the US at Peal Harbor because the idea was to cripple America's naval forces for long enough that the Japanese Empire could expand, consume the raw materials required, and then properly face the Americans down.  It was a calculated risk that was somewhat exacerbated on its own by the US's trade embargo starting in the early 40's.  This was largely about natural resources and nationalism.

Osama and his bunch attacked the US in 1993 and 2001 (not to mention the 1997 bombings in Kenya and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole) because they felt that the Americans had "violated their holy lands" by stationing troops and forces in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War.  The Americans were asked to come into Saudi Arabia in 1991 but Osama doesn't see it that way and has been in a long standing family feud with the rest of the Bin Ladens and the other influential families that basically run everything in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was actually planning to lead Al Qaeda against Saddam in 1991 and push them out of Kuwait but obviously American military might is quite a bit quicker.

So thats the whole situation in a nutshell.  It has very little to do with the Japanese.  As WWII works out, the Japanese and the Allies fight it out for quite a while.  The situation for Japan becomes somewhat desperate as the US and allies have immense resources both raw and industrial and Japan has very little.  The desperation goes so far as to start the "special squadrons" or kamikaze as they become known for and are quite effective at absolutely savaging the US Navy taking out many of the smaller ships.  Several Essex class fleet carriers were withdrawn from battle due to damage from these attacks.  Some of the smaller escort or "jeep carriers" were sunk or severely crippled.  Japan eventually surrendered on the word of the emperor and despite the machinations of many of the military officers who were committed to fighting it out.

Going back to the present day...the suicide bombers in Iraq have very little to do with Bin Laden or 911.  They just want the Americans out who they feel are defiling their hold lands.  And there are several rival factions that are just as interested in blowing each other up as they are American troops so its a really messy situation.   Iraq is a country of political convenience of the early 1900s and its not very convenient anymore (and probably wasn't then either).  So a possible solution to the problem is to pull American troops and forces out of the Middle East and possibly divert Bin Laden's attention to the infighting that will be going on for a long time...thats what they want anyways.  It may not be a good idea to but thats what they want to happen.  No US influence in the middle east.  Its like we don't want Al Qaeda in North America or Europe.

I don't disagree with you completely but I think the analogy is grossly flawed.  There are some parallels but this is less about resources (as far as the terrorists are concerned) and more about land and religion and holy sites and that sort of thing.

I'm of mixed feelings on just what the US should do.  I think the only thing that sort of sticks in my mind is that US troops should probably be given their last little chance and then get the US soldiers out of harms way and see what goes from there.  If the Iraqi's want a single unified country then they can form it...or if they want to split into three smaller countries then they can do that too.  But they have to want to and I think we need to realize that democracy and all that good stuff that works in Europe just isn't something that necessarily works in a situation such as that.  Not yet...I think they have to do it on their own.

[Rictor]

When (not if) the US pulls out, Iraq is going to become Yugoslavia circa '91. The signs are everywhere. You've got the same basic ingerdients: a mid-sized, medium-poor nation, decades of rule by a autocratic government that acted as a unifying force, three main ethnic groups and strong seperatist feelings among all of them...once the Americans leave and the international spotlight leaves with them, the kid gloves come off and things start getting bloody. I'm betting on Iraq remaining a war-torn shtihole for a good half a decade.

But back to Iran...there's reports that the US has damning evidence of Iranian influence behind the recent Kerbala attacks which killed 5 American soldiers, but it's withholding the evidence for some reason. This one is tough to decipher. If the US had proof against Iran, do they have any reason at all to delay publishing it? Unless they're making secret deals with Khamenei and the moderates/anti-Ahmadinejad conservatives for Iran to stop funding Iraqi militias. It just depends on what's more important to Bush: stopping Iranian progress on their nuclear program or salvaging what little reputation he and the GOP, and not going down in history as a complete failure. If the Iranians can "make Iraq work", Bush (or other Republicans) might be willing to give them leeway in exchange for Iranian cooperation in wiping the egg which is currently dripping down the administration's face.

[Harbinger of DOOM]

I believe the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole and other terrorist attacks like that occured BEFORE bush was president. Even so, it really doesnt matter why the terrorists hate us, and on that same point nothing we do will make them like us, and that worries me why people want the terrorists, who blow up members of their religious sect for PR purposes, to like us.

The US has always been high on the list of targets for the simple reason that it stands as the most powerful nation in the world socially, economically and militarily. When folks from all round the world feel their calls aren't being heard, they believe blowing themselves up in public spaces of a nation like the US is the best avenue of approach to bring attention to themselves and their cause. This threat is everpresent as long as the world is subject to poverty, bloodshed, and all that bad stuff we don't like to trouble ourselves with, that much is obvious.

Now, contrary to what you have expressed, the point Harbinger was making is not that Bush is to blame for all the deluded fools who strap C4 to their chests and target the innocent, the mere idea of it is laughable. Instead, I believe he was merely highlighting the fact that the acts of the current administration has served to exacerbate the threat to his country, create what has quickly turned into both a breeding-ground for terrorists and a shining reinforcement for their beliefs/cause, and all-up made the world that much less safe for the rest of us. Granted, it is plainly false to attribute the current world-climate in this regard to Bush and his cronies alone, but it is equally false to purport he is without blame.

Amazing though how Bush the "incompetent asshole" 'tricked' the Democrats and the rest of the country into going to war.

Please. You and I both know there was a lot more to that than you make it seem.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Kosh]

Trying to parrellel the current "conflict" to WW2 is just stupid. In the American media, there have been enough world war 2 references to make churchill spin in his grave.

Bush has been trying to paint Iran as being just like Nazi Germany was just before it invaded Poland.

[Centrixo]

The differences are;
1, Iran has nuclear capabilities and we might not know if they already have nukes.
2, the Nazis controlled Austria, parts of Czechslovakia, parts of France, parts of Norway and after most of poland.
3, there is half-century between Iran today and Nazi 'yeserday'.
4, Iran is religous and Nazis only wanted an 'Ayren' race with no morale or religous beliefs(hence the Jews were killed, gassed etc..)
5, Hitler was a Genosidal maniac.
6, there is of countries between Germany and Iran.

the only point where i see relevance is that Bush-Hitler connection in a way.
but this is about Iran.

im not sure what the people at Tehran are thinking, why build an old aging missile created half-century ago? The only benefits i could see is; them being bombed sky high, if it is indeed true.

[Mefustae]

The differences are;
1, Iran has nuclear capabilities and we might not know if they already have nukes.
2, the Nazis controlled Austria, parts of Czechslovakia, parts of France, parts of Norway and after most of poland.
3, there is half-century between Iran today and Nazi 'yeserday'.
4, Iran is religous and Nazis only wanted an 'Ayren' race with no morale or religous beliefs(hence the Jews were killed, gassed etc..)
5, Hitler was a Genosidal maniac.
6, there is of countries between Germany and Iran.

the only point where i see relevance is that Bush-Hitler connection in a way.
but this is about Iran.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, buddy.

[vyper]

4, Iran is religous and Nazis only wanted an 'Ayren' race with no morale or religous beliefs(hence the Jews were killed, gassed etc..)

That depends. The concept of the Fuhrer Cult is often seen as a religious one.

[Mefustae]

But a cult of personality merely attempts to imitate religion, and can't really be compared to a proper religion with centuries of practice behind it.

[Janos]

Well Janos if Iran has nukes and you didnt listen, what would you say then?
I would like to hear and see your reaction one of these days the same with ngtmgr.

Well then I'm wrong, so what? Do you really think I just go "lalalalala" and refuse to think about Iran having nukes - I am pointing out that the best evidence for Iran having nukes is very, very circumstantial and often quite dubious, so arguing like Iran already possessed a nuke requires quite a lot of proof.

if not then i have been owned, and as nothing has been found yet you and i can only speculate... so putting like that you would need to hear every single bit of talk incase it might/could be true.

Well I said it because YOU YOURSELF said that because something is possible we should think about it. You are spinning faster than I thought is even possible.

[aldo_14]

But a cult of personality merely attempts to imitate religion, and can't really be compared to a proper religion with centuries of practice behind it.

I don't think religion is defined by age, though; at heart it's just a belief system in x or y, not a zzz year old belief system in x and y.

Insofar as Iran having nukes goes - I doubt they'd have them and not have tested them (I can't think of a nation who'd be willing to take the risk and capable of delivering a functional set of warheads to Iran - unlike Israel, which probably got US help for its program, thus circumventing the need for testing somewhat).  Although the Iranian geology is less stable than, for example, North Korea, it's unlikely they'd be able to hide a detonation greater than 1kt; and that sort of yield wouldn't be much use as a 'proper' deterrent nuke (because most of these countries really just want nukes to deter the US from attack - they're aware the consequences of starting a war with nukes would be their annihilation, and no proper dictator seeks their own death)

[Centrixo]

Do you really think I just go "lalalalala" and refuse to think about Iran having nukes - I am pointing out that the best evidence for Iran having nukes is very, very circumstantial and often quite dubious, so arguing like Iran already possessed a nuke requires quite a lot of proof.

did you listen to yourself janos?, you are ignorant. you ovbious don't want to know and you say its impossible, this is what i am grabbing at. that is plain ignorance.

well I said it because YOU YOURSELF said that because something is possible we should think about it. You are spinning faster than I thought is even possible.

yes i said its possible, but i said about nukes not super computers get it right your the one thats spinning. are you going to keep this up?


religion itself is soo old that certain rules that were in latin or arabic have probably been changed. could be why there was holy wars.

[Janos]

Do you really think I just go "lalalalala" and refuse to think about Iran having nukes - I am pointing out that the best evidence for Iran having nukes is very, very circumstantial and often quite dubious, so arguing like Iran already possessed a nuke requires quite a lot of proof.

did you listen to yourself janos?, you are ignorant. you ovbious don't want to know and you say its impossible, this is what i am grabbing at. that is plain ignorance.

Shut up. I have asked you to come up with any kind of evidence that Iran has nukes and so far you have given none. Instead of, you know, actually responding to my points you now decide to call me ignorant. That's worthless. Do you ever actually address the arguments? Don't try to strawman your way out of this. You don't give any evidence, you don't argue even as well as a pre-schooler, and you're calling me ignorant? Well pardon me then - of course I will stay ignorant if you don't say anything useful at all.

well I said it because YOU YOURSELF said that because something is possible we should think about it. You are spinning faster than I thought is even possible.

yes i said its possible, but i said about nukes not super computers get it right your the one thats spinning. are you going to keep this up?

Jesus christ, are you retarded?
You say that "something is possible so evidence shmevidence".
I say that that is idiotic and say that it's also possible that [jupitersupercomputer].
It's a god damn metaphor, do you get it?
MY POINT WAS THAT IT'S IDIOTIC TO SAY THAT JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING MIGHT BE POSSIBLE THIS POSSIBILITY IS EQUAL TO MORE PROVEN CONCEPTS WITH ACTUAL RESEARCH OR FACTS BEHIND THEM

NOT ALL HYPOTHESISES YOU COME UP WITH ARE PLAUSIBLE OR SENSIBLE
NOT ALL OF THEM REQUIRE SIMILAR ANALYSIS ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL

religion itself is soo old that certain rules that were in latin or arabic have probably been changed. could be why there was holy wars.

i have no idea what this is about and i don't want to find out either

[Centrixo]

ahh someone is annoyed here, well atleast i know there are humans here instead of mechanical zombies finally .

preschooler, well ok you address your CAPITAL letter writing Janos before i will even attempt reading it. but hey im not the one acting like a child who has addressed his payback in capitals plus, look at what i have written above so far.. and its all on the middle east thats Iraq and Iran and nukes.

the admins asked me for constructive critisism and thats what ive delivered on, if you find me a challenge is because i learn fast .

ok you show me your super computer then? and il give you links on news so far about Iran if you want to try push it further ive got of sources to prove you wrong. if you don't have the info on that super computer of yours from jupiter then i won't give you anything .

as for holy wars, i guess your a religous man. il back out of that.

[Mars]

Can we stop all this ****ing moronic namecalling please?  :

[Rictor]

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

Hey Centrixo: I heard that Janos told Fred's friend's sister that you're, like, super gay, but then she was like "nuh uh" and then Fred told Janos and now he wants to fight you after school at the flag-pole. And if you don't show up, he's going to tell all the girls that you chickened out, and they'll totally laugh at you.

eidt: the point is moot anyway. If Iran had a dozen nukes tommorow, they wouldn't use them. The government is made up of fundamentalists, yes, but not in the bin Laden mold. They are supporters of a strict form of Islam, yes, but they're not revolutionaries. In other words, they are businessmen in robes. And like any nation, their goals are preserving the nation and expanding its wealth, power and prestige. The fact that the official ideology is Islamist in nature does not mean that Iran will place some religious agenda above its own wellbeing. I, for one, would feel no less safe in a world with a nuclear-armed Iran. And if you think otherwise, either you are seeing some evidenc I'm not, or you're reading too many Tom Clancy novels (and I use that term loosely).

[Centrixo]

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

Hey Centrixo: I heard that Janos told Fred's friend's sister that you're, like, super gay, but then she was like "nuh uh" and then Fred told Janos and now he wants to fight you after school at the flag-pole. And if you don't show up, he's going to tell all the girls that you chickened out, and they'll totally laugh at you.

thanks for the rumour .

i raise my bet on iran to 10 euros.

eidt: the point is moot anyway. If Iran had a dozen nukes tommorow, they wouldn't use them. The government is made up of fundamentalists, yes, but not in the bin Laden mold. They are supporters of a strict form of Islam, yes, but they're not revolutionaries. In other words, they are businessmen in robes. And like any nation, their goals are preserving the nation and expanding its wealth, power and prestige. The fact that the official ideology is Islamist in nature does not mean that Iran will place some religious agenda above its own wellbeing. I, for one, would feel no less safe in a world with a nuclear-armed Iran. And if you think otherwise, either you are seeing some evidenc I'm not, or you're reading too many Tom Clancy novels (and I use that term loosely).

whos Tom Clancy? but thats not the point, the world isn't safe anyhow with as you say terrorist running around, druggies, theifs, jockies, pyschopaths, traders, etc etc..

well Rictor i am happy your sticking up for Janos but im waiting on his word on that super computer of his, and your not going to get a thing until janos spits it out .

his word against mine.

[Janos]

ahh someone is annoyed here, well atleast i know there are humans here instead of mechanical zombies finally .

preschooler, well ok you address your CAPITAL letter writing Janos before i will even attempt reading it. but hey im not the one acting like a child who has addressed his payback in capitals plus, look at what i have written above so far.. and its all on the middle east thats Iraq and Iran and nukes.

You still haven't answered my question about Iran's nukes though and that's what I was asking for, whatever you might have written about Syria or whatever has jack **** to do with this argument. Does Iran have nukes or not? If they do, what evidence there is?
Of course I am annoyed - you dodge questions and still, in the umpteenth reply, seem to be unable to answer a very, very simple question. I didn't say a thing about your typing, only your capability to argue coherently and logically.

the admins asked me for constructive critisism and thats what ive delivered on, if you find me a challenge is because i learn fast .

Yeah you are challenging, because you cannot answer questions and change topic and position in every single reply you give. It's not a very good thing!

ok you show me your super computer then? and il give you links on news so far about Iran if you want to try push it further ive got of sources to prove you wrong. if you don't have the info on that super computer of yours from jupiter then i won't give you anything .

ahahaha

You are unable to grasp a simple ****ing metaphor when I have explained it two times already, and no I do not have any kind of burden of proof in this very argument because you yourself were the first to argue for Iran possessing nukes. You have to prove it, and because you obviously know what you are talking about coming up with sourced evidence shouldn't be hard.

But because you quite understand what the word metaphor means:
There is no Jupiter supercomputer. It's logically possible, but even arguing for existence of one would require a leap of faith or superhypersensational evidence. Since neither exist, discussing said hypothetical "Jupiter supercomputer" argument equally with more proven concepts, like existence of oxygen or sky being blue to us, is useless and intellectually dishonest.

Refusing to back statements ought to lead to monkeying, this is getting ridiculous.

as for holy wars, i guess your a religous man. il back out of that.

I haven't argued with you about religion, and I don't want to. If you quote someone make it clear whom you quote.

[Centrixo]

janos, *cough* you know what im asking for, give me the info, please?