Hoo Boy

[Tagwyn]

KNac: You poor misguided person. Believe what you must. The Spainards ran for cover the first time Jihadists hit them hard. Like other Euros (except the Brits) they are hiding in their imaginary Fortress Europe. There is no such place any longer. The US is nothing like you describe. You had better hope we are not under a fanatical political control. PRC is not a cartoonish creation; it is a serious danger to world peace masquerading as a normal state. When it thinks it has an advantage i.e., the US has been cowed by its liberal defeatists, it will attack Taiwan. I hope that never happens but attempts are being made to cow America into retreating as was done in Vietnam and the rest of SE Asia which was left on its own by our cowardly left wing wackos. T

[juan_gigante]

Originally posted by Tagwyn:

Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

I agree that if there are going to be nukes in the area, they should be Israeli rather than, say, Iranian. That doesn't make it okay for Israel to have them.

As I have already stated, I do not believe that Iran should have nuclear weapons. I do not believe North Korea should have nuclear weapons. I do not believe Israel should have nuclear weapons. Simple.

I'm not going to respond to the China stuff, because that is even more off topic than we already are. I would, however like to point out that FDR was considered a "left-wing wacko" by many during his time as President, and he led us to victory (even if he didn't quite make it to the finish) against the greatest threat the free world has ever faced.

[Saviola]

The US couldn’t invade even if we wanted to. The US population would have none of it and the US's "mighty Army" is spread thin. Besides the US does not need to

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the invasion and appetite for it issue. But I really broached sanctions and limited ops such as aerial bombardment a la Clinton’s Sudan, or Reagan’s Libya. That is if you’ve the proper intelligence and ordinance to destroy fortified subterranean objectives.

Of course the crux of the debate here is why da hell would Iran want nukes, they’re being silly say most, they don’t need them, we’re not serious about invading or attacking. Them crazy mullahs are going for the overkill. Moreover, sophisticated observers such as yourself and other posters know the US limitations today. But try to convince the Iranian generals and their hubristic young president that Bush and Israel are bluffing.

Bush has systematically sought to project himself to Americans and the world as a president who means what he says, a firm commander who will make the difficult decisions and act when he perceives Americans are at risk. He proved the latter, convincingly or not, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Who was listening attentively, learning, worrying and watching? Syrian and Iranian commanders, as well as Hugo Chavez and the DPRK.

Bush convinced all of the above he’s dead serious, they’ve been preparing for an onslaught and acquiring means of deterrence ever since 03. After all, they hear every other day they’re the axis of evil, they’re a threat to humanity, some of them are champions of “Islamo Fascism”, the US “keeps all its options open”, 200,000 battle hardened US soldiers and their armada are in the back yard. What’s your reasoning that’ll convince the Iranians to stand down and stay conventional again? “The US population would have none of it”, is that it? “We’re “spread thin”? Bush is just yankin’ your chain? Trust us, it’s a bluff?

If them Iranians are the Neanderthals that they are, why would they listen to the voice of supposed reason whilst every Sunday morning they’re threatened on American radio and every Sabbath on Israeli satellite television. If you don’t believe the US will attack, prudence would dictate that the Iranians can ill afford to support your beliefs and adopt your analysis as to why an attack isn’t imminent. After all, the US considers a fart over the Atlantic "a gathering threat”.

[Saviola]

There is the prevailing idea that the Gov't of Iran does not fully represent the will of it's people anyway.

Here’s the gargantuan, monumental flaw with this “represent the will of [its] people” proposition. You’ve an Iranian governor whose base are the poor and underprivileged that was “surprisingly elected”, not US style, but nevertheless “surprisingly elected”. Since when there’s any surprise election winners in western Asia? The mullahs have an imperfect parliamentary and presidential electoral system that’s better than all the dubious Middle Eastern US allies who don’t even hold presidential elections. Their leaders die with wills to bequeath power to irretrievably stupid heirs.

But here’s the farce, you’ve a dictator General in Pakistan who came to power via a coup and displaced a democratically elected president who then represented the true “will of the people”. This Musharraf despot whose scientist A Q Khan proliferated nuclear expertise to the scum of the earth is Bush’s darling today. You think nuclear Musharraf represents the “will of his people”? Do you know if you hold free elections in Pakistan today who will win? That’s right, Bush’s “Islamo Fascists”. “The will of the people” is relevant only if it represents and suits Washington’s moods, direction, dogma and ideology.

When the Turkish parliament practiced ideal democracy, upheld the “will of the people”, refused America’s $30 billion package and declined US deployment in southern Turkey, I bet Rumsfeld commissioned the Pentagon to devise a plan to nuke Ankara, after toasting Paris that is.

By the way, who won the “will of the people” in Palestinian municipal free elections this week? Who? Hamass.

[KNac]

We (or our politics) say if the dictator in turn was elected by "their" people just if the dictator is a toy in hands of western governments or if he was placed there by these governments.

I will tell you one thing, there is an inner slow movement towards democracy inside Iran, but each time a western governmenet (usually the USA, sorry) has the excellent idea to "free" someone the balance goes towards fanatism again. Europe and USA earned very hard our freedom, our ideology and our values, the democracies we have, all at a cost of centuries! All these things that seem so threatening against us aren't much more difference of what christian europe some centuries ago was, the same religious fundamentalism, the same poberty, etc.

Why the hell do you want to enforce other to do that in years, not even decades! Politics are short-minded (for obvious reasons, their mandates are short), but please, don't do the same error. If you want to help them I will tell you two words: education and information. No need for invasions or "freedoming".

I'm all for preventing risk of NBQ attacks, but you don't need neither nuking them or ivanding them for that, air strikes, covert operations and good spy network and you have the job done. That and don't let get them the etchnology off course.

[ December 16, 2005, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

[gunnersman]

Originally posted by El_Operative:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There is the prevailing idea that the Gov't of Iran does not fully represent the will of it's people anyway.

Here’s the gargantuan, monumental flaw with this “represent the will of [its] people” proposition. You’ve an Iranian governor whose base are the poor and underprivileged that was “surprisingly elected”, not US style, but nevertheless “surprisingly elected”. Since when there’s any surprise election winners in western Asia? The mullahs have an imperfect parliamentary and presidential electoral system that’s better than all the dubious Middle Eastern US allies who don’t even hold presidential elections. Their leaders die with wills to bequeath power to irretrievably stupid heirs.

But here’s the farce, you’ve a dictator General in Pakistan who came to power via a coup and displaced a democratically elected president who then represented the true “will of the people”. This Musharraf despot whose scientist A Q Khan proliferated nuclear expertise to the scum of the earth is Bush’s darling today. You think nuclear Musharraf represents the “will of his people”? Do you know if you hold free elections in Pakistan today who will win? That’s right, Bush’s “Islamo Fascists”. “The will of the people” is relevant only if it represents and suits Washington’s moods, direction, dogma and ideology.

When the Turkish parliament practiced ideal democracy, upheld the “will of the people”, refused America’s $30 billion package and declined US deployment in southern Turkey, I bet Rumsfeld commissioned the Pentagon to devise a plan to nuke Ankara, after toasting Paris that is.

By the way, who won the “will of the people” in Palestinian municipal free elections this week? Who? Hamass. </font>

[Speedy]

Cool Steve has given tacit approval to conduct political discussion on the Battlefront forums, the end times are at hand.

[knalla]

Originally posted by Tagwyn:

KNac: The Spainards ran for cover the first time Jihadists hit them hard.

Tipical example of misinFOXmartion:

-Over 70% of spaniards against sending troops to Iraq, government goes along with Dubya (naturally, God told Bush and Aznar to do it).

-something like 2 days before election, bombs in train stations, hundreds die, government knows from day one who it was, but they prefer to blame ETA (Basque separatist armed group) Just in case the people makes a connection between Them sending troops to Iraq and fundamentalists targeting Spain

-People discover the government is hiding the truth, get piss off, voted for the party that wants the troops out of iraq.

The version you know is much fun and makes many of you feel prouder of being american but is, ultimately, false.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, it is time to lock this up. It's gone from off topic to WAY off topic. Still, an interesting discussion and largely productive. Thanks to those who participated. And little extra thanks fot knalla for reminding people that Fox News is about as credible as Pravda was under the old Soviet Union. Sometimes what they said was true, but so much wasn't it was hard to tell. And that is not an accident.

Steve