Has anyone noticed this recently?? Seems like the Bush administration has become such wussies in the past months..

The biggest example of this is the response to North Korea. Seven missiles launched and the only US response was blather and talk..

Now the UN deadline to Iran has come and gone and we hear nothing...

Bush has become such a wussy as of late.. It's sad to see and quite dangerous for our country.

Isn't losing two wars at once enough?

North Korea has nukes, you might as well declare peace.

Iran is worth a bombing, but not while our troops are vulnerable in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A war on two fronts is always better than one on three.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Isn't losing two wars at once enough?

North Korea has nukes, you might as well declare peace.

Iran is worth a bombing, but not while our troops are vulnerable in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A war on two fronts is always better than one on three.

So, what's the solution? It is completely unacceptable to have a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea. Might as well hand them over the keys to the world.

North korea is nuclear armed. The solution is "you learn to accept it".

Iran, need to finish up in either Afghanistan or Iraq first, preferably both, which gives us a timetable of around 2 years to get out.

Essentially we lose in Iraq and Afganistan if we wish to mess with Iran.

Afghanistan is worthless anyway, so no loss pulling out of there completely. Only too happy to lose that one.

Iraq would be a real pain, but we can always go back again in 10 years time.


The other solution is to buy a car with a smaller engine.

Everything that can be accomplished has been accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan, with respect to what an external force can do in a foreign country. The future of these countries will be determined by their own people.
In Afghanistan, the opium production has increased over 50% in the past year, so the results have been mixed. The sectarian violence in Iraq is bad, but, it is not inevitable that civil war is the only outcome.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of nation states does not give them a useable weapon because the inevitable retaliation will cause their ruin. On the other hand, the greater danger is the same weapon sold to a terrorist group, for whom retaliation is far more problematic. Iran with a nuke is not a frightening as Al Queda with one.

Al Quaeda don't have the immense national infra-structure needed to make one, any more than Charles Mansun did.
It's a mercenary outfit.
I doubt if they could even field 300 men anymore, even at their peak strength of 3,000 they were nothing more than a Mujihadeen brigade. Stealing aeroplanes (and horses) is about as dangerous as Al Quaeda can expect to get.



The difference between Iran without a nuke and Iran with a nuke, is that with a nuke it can no longer be attacked. It will be free from any aggression of retaliation we propose.

It could invade it's neighbours, like Saddam did with Kuwait, but no coalition could remove it.
Also it could close the Gulf to all shipping. Cutting off oil from not just Iran but loads of other countries too. And no one could stop it.
Direct military responses to anything Iran did or even pre-emptive strikes would no longer be "on the table".

Obviously Iran has made no noises that any of these courses of action are on the cards. But currently if it does them there are consequences, but if it is nuclear armed, there will be no consequences.
It will be free to behave in this way just as we are. We on the other hand will be less free to act this way than we were.

The nuke is the ultimate suicide bomb. Anyone pisses you off, you can take them with you. Once you have one, no one will attack you.
When Iran gets the nuke, the balance of power in the region will have changed.
Although Iranians are lovely and educated people, living in a liberated and sophisticated society, I want control of that oil.

Baff, you're quite wrong.

Al Qaida is not a "mercenary outfit." They're an ideologically motivated terrorist network. They recruit freely and young Muslims flock to their banner.

Iran has made it very clear what they will do with a nuclear weapon, and that is to use it against Israel. They already have missiles that can strike Europe, and are working on a missile to hit the US. Iran has directly threatened the non-Islamic world with conversion or death. Iranian society is also not at all liberated anymore.

You have a very active imagination.

Iran has said nothing about nuking Isreal.
In fact the only thing Iran have "made clear" about nukes is that they aren't trying to make one.

America also has missiles that can hit Europe, this hardly means they are hell bent on destroying Europe. (Despite what they say about the French).
Nukes are a suicide bomb, you use them you die, but you take your enemy with you.

The ability to fire a missile to America, means that America is less likely to launch an attack as it can no longer do so without retaliation. Should that missile be nuclear tipped, the chances of an American military strike are over.
This is the same military doctrine that has kept the peace between every nuclear power for so many years now.
M.A.D. mutually assured destruction.

Similarly Irans missile program, like Hesbollahs, places Israel in range of retaliatory strikes, should Isreal bomb Iran like it bombed Iraq, it would face the music. Of course should that ever happen and Iran really worried the Israeli's, they would nuke Tehran.

When Iran has the bomb too, Israel will be unable to attack it.
I'm well aware of Irans rhetoric towards Isreal. I don't take it anymore seriously than Americas towards Korea, China, Russia, Iran or wherever. There is a very large difference between barking and biting. It's nothing we haven't all heard before.



Al Quaeda are a mercenary outift, a mujihadeen. At their peak they had about 3,000 soldiers. They tried to get a contract with the Saudi's to oust Saddam from Kuwait.
They were hired by the Taliban to fight their feudal rivals in Afghanistan and were the largest military force in the land. Instrumental in bringing Taliban domination. Short wonder the Taliban wouldn't give them up.

All soldiers are ideologically motivated. All soldiers are holy warriors righteous in the eyes of their gods. Ours, theirs. Christian, Mulsim or Hindu. Jewish or German. Crusader or Moor.

At their training camps they don't teach you to fly 747's, they teach you how to ambush convoys and fire an AK47. Al Quaeda are widely believed to have been behind the bombings in 11/9. Unfortunately due to that perception all other islamic terrorism now gets labelled with the global blanket name "Al Quaeda". The chances of them being in any way globally interconnected are remote in the extreme.

Example famous members of Al Quaeda that in fact actually were not, might be Al Zarquawi who was a member of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and the Bali Bomber who was a member of Jemaah Islamiyah.

They are international and recruit from anywhere, but not freely. They are the worlds most wanted organisation. They used to recruit freely, but their heyday is over. They can no longer operate openly. They are a spent force.

You are very unaware of your subject.

The former president of Iran has made repeated statements that were crystal clear. Given that Iran has purchased plans for nuclear weapons from Abdul Qadeer's Khan's former nuclear black market, it seems rather clear that they are trying to make nuclear weapons. Given that they have adapted some of their most advanced weapons for nuclear payloads, that is also a fairly clear sign. Considering that Iran has a massive energy surplus, their claim of needed nuclear power for energy generation purposes is simply ludicrous.

MAD isn't about being able to hit your enemy but to destroy them utterly. Iran isn't capable of that and won't be capable of that. They will be capable of annihilating Israel (and causing tens of millions of more deaths, but they don't care about that - stated) and starting a world war, which is something that Ahminedhajad has also stated that he wants.

Israel has been in Iranian missile range for decades. Your assertion that Israel would "nuke Tehran" indicates that you not only have an exceedingly active imagination yourself, but don't know all that much about Israel or Israeli policies. You're also assuming that Israel has nuclear weapons. I assume that as well, but that is simply not known.

It would seem that you are unaware of Iran's rhetoric towards Israel as well as its context despite your statement to the contrary. Iran's rhetoric is unquestionably categorically different than any American rhetoric, and there is simply no comparisson between the two. Iran speaks actively and openly about annihilating other nations and seems hellbent on acquiring the ability to do so. Were they actually interested in peaceful nuclear power they would have acted quite differently.

Al Qaida is not a mercenary group, but a group of Muslims who consider themselves to be "holy warriors." They weren't hired by the Taliban, but worked on conjunction with them. Most of them are Arabs and not Afghani and generally looked down on the non-Arabs in their midst.

There is a very large difference between someone willing to die for Queen and Country and someone who is not only willing to die for Allah but wishes to do so. Those who fall into the latter category are what we are dealing with here. Most soldiers do not view themselves as holy warriors and your statement that they do would seem to indicate that you don't know too many soldiers but instead to prefer to stereotype them to fit your view. Bear in mind that "soldier" is also a legal classification and members of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah are not soldiers.

Their training camps teach a number of things, including weapons, tactics, use of poisons, epxlosives, highjacking and hostage taking just to name a few (the same things taught at many Muslim "Summer camps" for children in the Middle East). They learned to fly aircraft at flight school, and by their own admission were responsible for 9/11. Very little Muslim terrorism is is called Al Qaida, but what is called their often is. They're a network rather than a general group like Hamas or the various Islamic Jihad groups.

They do recruit quite freely, in such places as the Finbury Park Mosque. They are not spent, especially because with the exception of their alliance with the Taliban they were never a massed for but operate in a cellular network across the world.

There is no evidence of Islamic terrorist groups networking with Al Quaeda. Hamas and Al Quaeda are not related in any way. Even the so called "Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe" didn't have any networking with Al Quaeda. You made that up.

They don't recruit freely in Finsbury Park Mosque. You made that up.
The mosque was shut years ago. The Imams interned or deported.
The place has been bugged, their phonecalls mail and emails all intercepted for years. It's been reopened recently, but it's in England.
This is not the "land of the free".
Everybody who walks around in London is automatically clocked by the facial recognition cameras. Have been since 1993. This is the last place you will find freedom.

The British Islamic bombers have failed to have any connection with Al Quaida despite some of them clearly being inspired by them. American newspapers have been typically keen to suggest such links, but there isn't any evidence, and that not how terror cells operate anyway.



All soldiers are holy warriors, god is always on our side.
Every war, every army.
What difference Allah, Jesus or Brahma?
N.B. even the strictly non violent pacifist god Bhudda was on the Japanese soldiers side.
Every body is fighting for freedom, everybody for justice. All sides, every war.
If you think your side is different, you haven't really thought about it very hard.



The government of Iran are not suicide bombers.
Since you were not intrested in peaceful nuclear power, why would you expect them to be?
The only reason is because you don't want them to be able to stand up to you.
Neither do I.
It's still oppression, and they have every right to get upset about it.


Once again, Iran has not claimed it is going to nuke Isreal. Ever.
You made it up.
If you paid any attention at all you would notice that Iran is desperate to convince the world it is not intrested in nukes.
Neither is it a "given" that Iran bought any nuclear bomb plans off Khan. You made that up.

If Iran started a prolongued and damaging bombardment of Israel with missiles or was about to invade or bring the apocalypse in any way, Israel would nuke Tehran.
Make no mistake. That's why we all have nukes.

Israel may not have admitted to having any nukes but France and Britain have admitted to selling them. Play dumb if you like.


You haven't seen any Iranian missiles converted to carry nukes. Neither does you country possess any intelligence about this. You haven't been in Iran for 30 years. You made that up.
After Iraq the world is wise to this kind of shinanegan. Don't waste your time.

I think it would be ludicrous for Iran not to develop nukes. They will never be free or have regional security until they do. Unfortunately for them, that intereferes with my own hegemony. I'd rather see them bombed and oppressed. (Sorry folks).

Iran doesn't need enough nukes to destroy America to stop any military aggression from that quarter. Neither does Korea or anywhere else.
One nuke capable of hitting Washington, New York or any major city would be enough.
In fact one nuke capable of destroying a naval battle group, invasion fleet, the army in Iraq, Korea or Kuwait City should still be enough. Two would be better, even the most fanatical of suicide bombing soceities like Japan embraced pacifism after two.

Dominance over the Persian Gulf or 5 milllion people and New York. The Gulf isn't worth that price. If Iran gets the bomb they will be free of us. We will lose some control of the world, and they will gain it.

Irans rhetoric is no different from Americas, Bin Laden's no different from Bushs. America didn't seek nuclear technology for peaceful purposes either, neither is Iran the only side that supports terrorism and proxy wars.

Bin Laden's on a Holy Gyhad, God Speaks to Bush and tells him to invade places.
Iran is a member of the "Axis of Evil" and America is threatening mini nukes for Korea, ballistic nukes for Iran and pre-emptive stikes for everyone.
You might see a clear difference, the only one I see is that America has the hardware and for a limited period is out of direct retaliatory range.

Wars aren't fought be one side only.

Korea and Iran would insane to give up any nuclear program in the present climate.
There are significant hostile forces on their borders spoiling for a fight.

No one thinks Iran is going to start a world war accept Americans.
Americans think everyone is going to start a world war but themselves and are currently very keen to pre-empt it.

Let's go line by line and see if that helps. I'm going to simply issue a blanket statement here and save a bit of time.

I haven't made anything up. You seem very happy in your ignorance and that's your issue. You also seem completely closed minded and not aware of simple facts about the issues you're trying to talk about. Again, your issue. I'm more than happy to try and talk with you, but it seems that your mind is completely closed.

So keep that in mind when I type "see above."

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
There is no evidence of Islamic terrorist groups networking with Al Quaeda. Hamas and Al Quaeda are not related in any way. Even the so called "Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe" didn't have any networking with Al Quaeda. You made that up.

See above. I don't recall using those words or claiming a relationship between Hamas and Al Qaida. But since you mention it, Hamas and Israel have both said that Al Qaida is present in the Gaza.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
They don't recruit freely in Finsbury Park Mosque. You made that up.

See above. Clearly you've never heard the sermons given there or attended some of the "study groups." Although in all fairness that shouldn't have been placed in quotes since they really do study the Qu'ran in all of it's xenophobic and hateful glory. [bear in mind that I am not calling either the Qu'ran or Islam hateful - but any honest reader has no choice but to recognize that it contains passages and orders to hate and harm infidels and those are timeless passages unlike those in the Bible]

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
The mosque was shut years ago. The Imams interned or deported.

Remarkably enough it was open this past Spring and they even had imam's present. So I suppose this would be a good point to say "you made that up" back to you, but I'm far more charitable.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
The place has been bugged, their phonecalls mail and emails all intercepted for years. It's been reopened recently, but it's in England.

Ah, so you reconigze how silly it would be to bug a closed mosque? Good start! There are lots of intercepts all around the world - it still doesn't stop all or even most terrorism. We get a lot, but not everything. As for it being in England, I'm well aware of that. I would hope that you're aware of the statements and actions of groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain which has demanded that the government institute Sharia law or "they can't be held responsible."

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
This is not the "land of the free".

I think you're a bit mixed up old son, that's in the US national anthem written in opposition to Royal Colonial England.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Everybody who walks around in London is automatically clocked by the facial recognition cameras. Have been since 1993. This is the last place you will find freedom.

I feel very free in London, far more so than in Saudi Arabia or Malaysia. Facial recognition is a great idea that is still being worked on.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
The British Islamic bombers have failed to have any connection with Al Quaida despite some of them clearly being inspired by them.

Here is how it works. They claim to be part of Al Qaida, therefore they are part of Al Qaida since it is an ideology. Originally the ideology was "infidels can not live in Saudi Arabia." They have since simplified it to "infidels can not live." Kind of catchy and easy to remeber in-between Quranic verses at the Madrasa.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
American newspapers have been typically keen to suggest such links, but there isn't any evidence, and that not how terror cells operate anyway.

It's not just American newspapers, and some of the links are strong enough to make a whole chain of evidence out of them. In fact, that is what they are doing! Remarkable. In very brief: Terror cells operate as individual cells, where most people only know the members of their cell and at most one other person. What are you referring to here?

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
All soldiers are holy warriors, god is always on our side.
Every war, every army.
What difference Allah, Jesus or Brahma?

Sorry, that doesn't in any way make you a "holy warrior." There are no "holy warriors" or even "holy wars." There are "warriors" and "wars," and that is precisely all that is necessary. When I pray with my Marines I sure as hell don't tell them that they're going to die for God. They're fighting for their country. None of them want to die, but accept it as a risk and make their peace with it. None of them want to try and get "72 virgins/houris (interesting dichotomy there, some fun papers have been written on it but you probably wouldn't be interested in them) and the black-eyed."

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
N.B. even the strictly non violent pacifist god Bhudda was on the Japanese soldiers side.

The Buddha is not a god (well, none of the the Buddhas were). Not all of the Japanese soldiers were Buddhist, and bear in mind that the Japanese military in WWII was drawing very heavily on their stratified warrior culture of the past. That's a very bad attempt at analogy on your part.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Every body is fighting for freedom, everybody for justice. All sides, every war.

That's a lovely thought, but fails to account for reality or subjectivity. And your own previous statement puts a lie to it. The attack on Pearl Harbor was not motivated out of a desire for either freedom or justice. Your graps of history really needs some work.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
If you think your side is different, you haven't really thought about it very hard.

Thankfully I give it a great deal of thought and know quite well that my side is very different from the side of the terrorists. After all, we don't have TV shows that tell you the proper way to beat your wife or that Muslims are the children of apes and pigs that we should want to die killing them. And that's just one of the very small ways that we're different.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
The government of Iran are not suicide bombers.

See above. And history does repeat itself. I believe it was Thucydides who pointed out that "the Persians had that most terrible of qualities of soldiers in war; the desire to kill but not the willingness to die in the process." As Patton said you "don't win a war by dying for your country. You win it by making the other bastard die for his." Even if you don't want to die, you have to be willing to do so if necessary - that's referred to as "Assumption of Risk."

So no, Ahminedhejad isn't going to be strapping on a vest and murdering children in a disco. He would prefer to launch a nuclear weapon and kill millions, especially since he thinks it will usher in the return of the 12th Imam. He isn't truly willing to die since he doesn't think he will, he thinks his person is sacrosanct.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Since you were not intrested in peaceful nuclear power, why would you expect them to be?

Actually, I'm very interested in peaceful nuclear and thermonuclear power. Of course, I'm also not a religious zealot with a messiah complex, so I'm probably not the best person to ask about this as a frame of reference. The US also isn't an energy rich country, so we have plenty of reasons to seek peaceful nuclear power. Iran is a very energy rich country and had a massive surplus. They have no need for nuclear power.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
The only reason is because you don't want them to be able to stand up to you.

No, I don't want them to have nuclear capability since I don't want to ever see nuclear weapons used. I particularly don't want to see them in the hands of a madman who thinks he is going to start the Apocalypse. The DPRK is bad enough.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Neither do I.

That's another good start.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
It's still oppression, and they have every right to get upset about it.

No, it isn't oppression. It isn't oppression for me to downcheck someone from combat duty if they're unstable, it's common sense. The Iranian people are the ones with the right to be upset, since that money could be much better spent elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Once again, Iran has not claimed it is going to nuke Isreal. Ever.
You made it up.

See Above. And we seemed to be making such good progress as well. The former president of Iran said that as soon as they had a nuclear weapon they would use it against Israal. He further said that the tens of millions of dead Muslims would not matter since there are more Muslims than Jews.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
If you paid any attention at all you would notice that Iran is desperate to convince the world it is not intrested in nukes.

Of course, were you paying attention you would also have noticed the problems here. Iran using using centrifuges of a type generally used for nuclear arms. They have massively diversified their nuclear program well beyond anything necessary for peaceful use. They also have made any number of incendiary and threatening statements. Of course, knowing that would be predicated on your paying attention and keeping up so it would seem that you have done neither of those things.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Neither is it a "given" that Iran bought any nuclear bomb plans off Khan. You made that up.

See above. That's been confirmed by A.Q. Khan, Pakistan and the UN as well as intelligence sources.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:If Iran started a prolongued and damaging bombardment of Israel with missiles or was about to invade or bring the apocalypse in any way, Israel would nuke Tehran.

You might want to familiarize yourself with geography. Israel is very, very small. Destroying Israel could be done with possibly as few as six nuclear warheads - the same number that the Shahab three is now capable of carrying in their modified RV's. Israel would have very little warning and Israel's nuclear capability is unknown. There are a number of presumed targets, but it could be as few as one location where Israel is truly capable of launching a nuclear device if they even have such devices.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Make no mistake. That's why we all have nukes.

Oh merciful heavens! You have nukes? I suppose you must only want them for peaceful purposes?

All sarcasm aside, your statement belies the historical reality and why nations built nuclear arsenals. Study the Reagan Doctrine and think about it.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Israel may not have admitted to having any nukes but France and Britain have admitted to selling them. Play dumb if you like.

That is false. France sold Israel a nuclear reactor. Britain helped them with some technical issues. No one sold Israel nukes.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
You haven't seen any Iranian missiles converted to carry nukes. Neither does you country possess any intelligence about this.

I never said I had, but yes we do have intelligence about this. It has been discussed in open forums and not considered to be calssified data.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
You haven't been in Iran for 30 years. You made that up.

See above. You seem to be making quite a bit up yourself, are you actually reading what I'm writing.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
After Iraq the world is wise to this kind of shinanegan. Don't waste your time.

You mean trying to help you learn a bit? No worries, I type quickly so I'm not really wasting any time. But I do appreciate your concern.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
I think it would be ludicrous for Iran not to develop nukes.

Yes, it makes perfect sense for a nation that is not threatened to develop weapons for the express purpose of destroying a nation that they hate. It is ludicrous for them to develop nuclear weapons since they have neither the needs for them nor a safe way to use them. A nuclear weapon used against Israel or Iraq will send fallout over Iran. More to the point, there are far better ways for Iran to spend their money such as helping out their people and upgrading their aging air fleet.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
They will never be free or have regional security until they do.

Iran isn't free from the tyrannical rule of the Mullahs, and they have excellent regional security so no one has been threatening them. Quite the contrary, it is Iran who threatens others.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Unfortunately for them, that intereferes with my own hegemony. I'd rather see them bombed and oppressed. (Sorry folks).[quote]

No fear, they're being oppressed quite well by their leaders. But no one is bombing them or is likely to do so.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by baff6:
Iran doesn't need enough nukes to destroy America to stop any military aggression from that quarter. Neither does Korea or anywhere else.

If they want a rational deterrent then they do. The DPRK is a wholly separate issue since their conventional deterrent is quite sufficient. They just want more concessions and use nuclear weapons as blackmail.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
One nuke capable of hitting Washington, New York or any major city would be enough.

Not really. One nuclear device is insufficient. First, they're quite delicate and expensive to maintain - even then they can have flaws. So you need more than one. Usually you have three ot six on the RV. Second, missile defense may actually work. Third, that would guarantee a massive counterattack, especially since the President follows his father's doctrine regarding attacks on the US, US citizens or US interests with WMD.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
In fact one nuke capable of destroying a naval battle group, invasion fleet, the army in Iraq, Korea or Kuwait City should still be enough. Two would be better, even the most fanatical of suicide bombing soceities like Japan embraced pacifism after two.

It's a wholly different world and it simply doesn't work that way. First, the use of a nuclear device airbursting over water could have catastrophic implications for the whole. Granted, Iran doesn't care about that. For Iran to attack an Arab location would be very risking for them even given that no one in the Muslim world likes Kuwait or Kuwaitis. You can't destroy the army in Iraq with one or even two devices since they're spread out. And again this would result in massive retaliation - which could very well be what Iran wants due to religious fanatacism.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Dominance over the Persian Gulf or 5 milllion people and New York. The Gulf isn't worth that price. If Iran gets the bomb they will be free of us. We will lose some control of the world, and they will gain it.

No, they'll use it and start a war. You see, they'll have to prove that they have a working one and a test is very risky.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Irans rhetoric is no different from Americas, Bin Laden's no different from Bushs.

You're completely wrong here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are simply making assumptions here. But you are completely wrong. Iran's rhetoric is very different as is Bin Laden's.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
America didn't seek nuclear technology for peaceful purposes either, neither is Iran the only side that supports terrorism and proxy wars.

Apples and oranges, really a very poor attempt at sophistry here. Iran is currently sponsoring a terrorist militia at the expense of their Muslim "brothers."

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Bin Laden's on a Holy Gyhad, God Speaks to Bush and tells him to invade places.

It seems you read some bad articles. That article about God talking to Bush is a false one. Again, apples and oranges.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Iran is a member of the "Axis of Evil" and America is threatening mini nukes for Korea, ballistic nukes for Iran and pre-emptive stikes for everyone.

No, America is not. But you don't seem to be well informed enough to have made this one up so I'll again give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just reading some really, really bad press.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
You might see a clear difference, the only one I see is that America has the hardware and for a limited period is out of direct retaliatory range.

Then I pity your both your shortsightedness and lack of morality.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Wars aren't fought be one side only.

That seems like a rather facile statement and I fail to see how it could in any way be relevant. Iran has made it very clear how they see the world and the war they want to have.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Korea and Iran would insane to give up any nuclear program in the present climate.
There are significant hostile forces on their borders spoiling for a fight.

That's simply false. The forces on the DMZ have no interest in a fight and would very much like to see things calm down. The forces in Iraq would also like to see things toned down. Both Iran and the DPRK are insane for having such programs.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
No one thinks Iran is going to start a world war accept Americans.

And the Iranians. And the Israelis. And the Arab world.

quote:

Originally posted by baff6:
Americans think everyone is going to start a world war but themselves and are currently very keen to pre-empt it.

A rather poor stereotype on your part and a wholly false one. But you seem inordinately attached to sweeping statements.

Baff,

The Iranian president has repeatedly stated that Iran intends to nuke Israel. Geist IS NOT making this stuff up. It's just shameful that we keep playing games with Iran when they have made their intentions clear to anyone willing to listen to them.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Rafsanjani made the statement as president and still stands by it. The fact that you are ignorant of that and don't want to believe it in no way alters reality.

Either you haven't actually understood Iranian rhetoric or you somehow find offense and defense the exact same thing (we also don't tell people that drinking heavy water will cure cancer and AIDS like Iran has). At no point has Israel or the US spoken about ushering in Armageddon. Ahminedhajad has. The Guardian Council has. "Military intervention has not been ruled out" is not equivalent to "we will drown you in blood."

The US has not atacked Iran, and diplomatic ties with Iran were severed after Iran declared war on the United States, invaded sovereign US soil, took and abused hotages. So it might help if you remembered a bit of history. The US has not made nay threatening moves towards Iran including pre-positioning of forces. Iran has sent munitions to Iraq and has positioned forces for invasion.

If you were more aware of defense issues you would know this.

Last time I checked the US wasn't the belligerent party in the Koreas, the DPRK was and still is. We hold frequent naval exercising with ROK since the DPRK has invaded them with naval assets in the past and may do so again. The DPRK is the one forcing their people to starve by abrogating agreements designed to help their people and squandering their very limited resources on a wasteful military programme - threatening to turn Seoul into burning ashes. Our troops are there for the defense of our ally the ROK.

Your stereotypes of the military are amusing, but uninformed.

You are far less free in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia than in London. That is simple fact. Anti-social activities in Saudi Arabia will get you beaten, jailed, tortured, maimed, killed or some combination of the above. Even more "moderate" nations such as Egypt jail people for being homosexual. I'm not aware of anyone in a British jail for being homosexual. Are you? If you think that the UK is not free, you are free to leave - want to emigrate to Saudi Arabia?

Very amusing personal attack on me, but the statement stands. ("People like me" eh? So you're a Nazi? Fighting against Jews who never offerred you any harm whatsoever? Or do you mean Americans? Maybe educated men? Perhaps military officers?)The MCB has directly threatened the British government and made demands for special treatment for Muslims that no other British citizen gets, and all the more so since this would place Muslims outside of British laws. They have also made statements in praise of terrorists and trying to justify their actions.

I still pity you your apparent lack of morality but all the more so for your willing ignorance. All the facts are there for you, but you refuse to see them.

Clearly you would rather be bombed since you refuse to recognize the problem staring you in the face. Not tolerating racism is a right you only have in a free society and I'm quite glad I live in one. Saudi Arabia is a prime example of a racist society as well as one founded on religious bigotry.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MDS_Geist,

It is my belief that Baff sit's behind his keyboard with rose colored glasses on and seems to make up things as he goes. He lacks real world knowledge and has most likely never left the confines of his own city. In a different thread, he condescendingly stated that he was smart enough to not have served in the military. That being the case, he is not as smart as he seems to think he is. He knows not what it is like to have an ally point a loaded weapon at him ready to shoot because you are someplace you maybe shouldn't be (landing in an ROK Army camp after a hydraulic line failure in the number one boost system). He knows nothing of what other people have to do to remain free while he postulates what he seems to think is the truth. for your information Baff, there is a reason why all weapons in South Korea point north and not some other direction. Should the South were to be invaded, it would come from the North and not elsewhere. Millions of troops would pour over the DMZ with maybe one tenth of that ready to try and stop the advances. Then again, with North Korea having nukes, it is just a matter of firing a few of them to decimate any defences between the border and Seoul.

He claims to be an adult, yet fails to remember that Iran took American citizens hostage for 444 days in November of 79. He ignores everything that has been said by the new Iraninam President and what is moreso telling, ignores what others are telling him too.

While I am not a big fan of CBS, 60 Minutes interview by Mike Wallace is very telling. He questions Mike if the thinks the Holocaust even happened and if so, why shouldn't Germany be the place for Israel and not in "Palestine" along with saying that the US attacked them will illegal sactions on them at the start of the Iraninan Revolution. Gee, don't ya think the sanctions were placed due to taking Americans hostage? He aslo thinks the UNSC is to blame for not halting the recent war in Lebenon and wanting to put sanctions on Iran for it's nuclear ambitions. Go figure.

Someone should take Baff out into the real world and let him see for himself it is not all wine and roses and that he needs to take those glasses of and learn that he is not as smart as he thinks he is.

I don't think oversimplification of the issue is the answer. When Jimmy Carter's advisors urged him to allow the former Shah of Iran to come to the states for medical treatment, he said, they are going to respond in Iran, what happens if they take the embassy? he ignored his own instincts and they took the embassy.

quote:

Originally posted by Kurtz_:
When Jimmy Carter's advisors urged him to allow the former Shah of Iran to come to the states for medical treatment....

I remember that. The Shah was a "guest" at Lackland AFB while I was attending the USAF Security Police Academy there.

What a time that was...