Will America Go Into Iran?

[HtownTurboBrick]

The west could wipe out nearly all of Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism in thirty minutes which not coincidentally is the time it takes for an ICBM to reach its target.

The hell is that supposed to mean? You'd support attacking people based upon relgious beliefs? I'm buddhist, so u gonna make something of that? I'm not nearly as fearful of a country talking about shooting a missle at me as i am of a man holding a gun to my head telling me i'm about to die. As easy as it is for a man to kill another man for no other reason then one gave the other a funny look...that man can easily be you. Y the hell are we worried about freeing a country that didn't ask to be free (revolution would of been just as plausible for them as it was for us) and we're not worrying about the rising crime rate ie. violent sex crimes, kidnappings, murders hell even the drug money being made to fund the terrorist on our own soil. I really hope that i'm misunderstanding you in your previous post, because if that means you'd rather attack people for not believing what you think they should believe in...your just another neo-nazi terrorist...and i'd b ashamed to be associated with you in this forum.

[Zappo]

yeah, they have tons of stuff left over from when the US and the UK supplied them during the days of the shah.

I doubt they have much left over from the 70s. They have had several wars with Iraq since then ( there is a reason Iraq had a large army) and they would have used up any US military equipment first, knowing there was no way to repair it in the future.

[After_Shock]

North Korea put simply = world war 3

As ive said Iran is a large customer for the U.K defence market ironically and thats in recent times so they must have some reasonably capable stuff and modern equipment aswell.

Admittedly the biggest force in the region as mentioned is easily turkey, however I think saudi is quite powerfull aswell as syria.

[RAzOR]

The hell is that supposed to mean? You'd support attacking people based upon relgious beliefs? I'm buddhist, so u gonna make something of that? I'm not nearly as fearful of a country talking about shooting a missle at me as i am of a man holding a gun to my head telling me i'm about to die. As easy as it is for a man to kill another man for no other reason then one gave the other a funny look...that man can easily be you. Y the hell are we worried about freeing a country that didn't ask to be free (revolution would of been just as plausible for them as it was for us) and we're not worrying about the rising crime rate ie. violent sex crimes, kidnappings, murders hell even the drug money being made to fund the terrorist on our own soil. I really hope that i'm misunderstanding you in your previous post, because if that means you'd rather attack people for not believing what you think they should believe in...your just another neo-nazi terrorist...and i'd b ashamed to be associated with you in this forum.

Calm down buddy and actually read what I write. And if you REALLY ARE Budhist, then you are definitely the only violent one I've ever encountered!

Edited February 7, 2006 by RAzOR

[RAzOR]

yeah, they have tons of stuff left over from when the US and the UK supplied them during the days of the shah. They also have a much more fanatical devotion to theor country and more of a will to fight than the iraqi army did. It would not be a fun time, especially if they have a couple nukes already.

Luckily they seem to be a bit more even-headed than the north koreans. There is a reason we aren't going after north korea, it would be an absolute bloodbath. North korea has a standing army of over 2 million, and they would love an excuse to invade south korea, which a war would give them. Nevermind if china got involved to back them up. It would be "game over" for the US if that happened, since portion of china's population that's eligible for military service outnumbers the total population of the US by the tens of millions.

The big reason NK is not as dangerous as Iran: Islamic fundamentalists have shown to an exhausting degree they are more than willing to die for their cause (infidels out of formerly Muslim land, destruction of Israel, etc). Now, put a nuke in the hand of a man prepared to die, and you have big problem. The only reason the concept of nuclear detente (MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the US and the Soviets is that both sides did not want to die. It seems that is not the case with so many of the Islamic radicals. That is what makes Iran far more worriesome to me- is that if they get nukes, Iran's government leaders are not concerned about nuclear retaliation by the west so long as they fulfill their objective(s).

Edited February 7, 2006 by RAzOR

[HtownTurboBrick]

im buddhist, but im american first...buddhist tend to be more passive and let things go. i guess its my civil rights that put me on edge. i don't take kindly to ppl forcing their views on others or threatening anything im associated to. i don't outright threaten ppl, but i do leave open challenges. like i said, mayb i misunderstood what u wrote, but from what i read it was somewhat negative towards islamic, buddhist and hindu ppl. im calm as long as everyone else is calm n there is a civil discussion going on.

[RAzOR]

im buddhist, but im american first...buddhist tend to be more passive and let things go. i guess its my civil rights that put me on edge. i don't take kindly to ppl forcing their views on others or threatening anything im associated to. i don't outright threaten ppl, but i do leave open challenges. like i said, mayb i misunderstood what u wrote, but from what i read it was somewhat negative towards islamic, buddhist and hindu ppl. im calm as long as everyone else is calm n there is a civil discussion going on.

I know you are worked up but please read it again. I have not edited it and it makes no such threats.

For clarity, here is your particular line I was responding too with my "nuke" observation. If you put them in order, I think you will see my point:

Your post clip...

"If violence is truly the answer, i challange you to come down here n get in a sparring ring with me. I'll give you 2 rounds to knock me out n then ill descimate you. Thats whats going on over there, we're in round 2 n we haven't knocked them out yet, so we're just pissing em off. What do you think is gonna happen when its time for them to fight back?" -HtownTurboBrick

---

My reply:

The west could wipe out nearly all of Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism in thirty minutes which not coincidentally is the time it takes for an ICBM to reach its target. A fact that is lost on the vastly illiterate masses of Muslims who think Allah is keeping the infidels at bay. We are keeping ourselves at bay.

Our war, in my humble opinion is for the heart of the moderate Muslim, who is afraid of being killed by the radical Muslim which is why they are largely silent. The real civil war in Islam will erupt once (if at all) the moderates decide the radicals are their worst enemy. Unfortunately, I think that is the strategy the West must adopt- enabling the moderate Islamists to reclaim their religeon. The Christians went through this 500 years ago.

Edited February 7, 2006 by RAzOR

[HtownTurboBrick]

i don't see how you linked buddhist and hindu's into my question. random statements can easily fuel tempers consider what you're acutally posting. i told you, i probably misunderstood what u were saying, but i did say it b4 hand.

[RAzOR]

i don't see how you linked buddhist and hindu's into my question. random statements can easily fuel tempers consider what you're acutally posting. i told you, i probably misunderstood what u were saying, but i did say it b4 hand.

I was only making the point that it isn't that the Islamic radicals cannot take the west out in a violent manner (like your sparring analogy stated). I probably shouldn't have included those other religeons but I was only demonstrating that save from nuking themselves, the US, Britian, France, Russia- all judeo-christian rooted nations, could obliterate any country, any religeon external to themselves without even trying. That it is not the Islamic world that is keeping our power at bay, it is our own principles.

I couldn't include Chrisitian since those countries are largely Christian.

Yeah, adding Hinduism and Busshism confused things, sorry.

So I'll say it without those two and maybe it's more clear:

The west could wipe out nearly all of Islam thirty minutes which not coincidentally is the time it takes for an ICBM to reach its target. A fact that is lost on the vastly illiterate masses of Muslims who think Allah is keeping the infidels at bay. We are keeping ourselves at bay.

Our war, in my humble opinion is for the heart of the moderate Muslim, who is afraid of being killed by the radical Muslim which is why they are largely silent. The real civil war in Islam will erupt once (if at all) the moderates decide the radicals are their worst enemy. Unfortunately, I think that is the strategy the West must adopt- enabling the moderate Islamists to reclaim their religeon. The Christians went through this 500 years ago.

Again, bad form on my part, I think you are right, I should not have lumped Hinduism and Buddhism with Islam even for purposes of example. My apologies.

Edited February 7, 2006 by RAzOR

[HtownTurboBrick]

no apology needed, but accepted just the same. and i apologize for the misunderstanding.

but to continue the debate. never under estimate anyone. no body is above killing or being killed. 9/11 happened because we under estimated the terrorist's infiltration to our country. the US and all its allies are a force to be rekoned w/ but dosen't make us invincible. we're goliath they can easily be david. under estimate our enemies and provoking retaliation is surly a risk we need not be taking. its just like our cars...ppl under estimate the potential and powers of our volvos, but what happens? we blow out from under the radar and the other drivers never knew what hit them. we need to be prepared to take the defensive instead of striking w/ the offensive. cuz our focused attention is the task at hand, we completely miss the fact that they've penetrated what little guard we have up and we get KOed.

[RAzOR]

no apology needed, but accepted just the same. and i apologize for the misunderstanding.

but to continue the debate. never under estimate anyone. no body is above killing or being killed. 9/11 happened because we under estimated the terrorist's infiltration to our country. the US and all its allies are a force to be rekoned w/ but dosen't make us invincible. we're goliath they can easily be david. under estimate our enemies and provoking retaliation is surly a risk we need not be taking. its just like our cars...ppl under estimate the potential and powers of our volvos, but what happens? we blow out from under the radar and the other drivers never knew what hit them. we need to be prepared to take the defensive instead of striking w/ the offensive. cuz our focused attention is the task at hand, we completely miss the fact that they've penetrated what little guard we have up and we get KOed.

Agreed- the balance is civil liberties against security and that is no easy question.

To me the real threat to our countries and our civilzation comes from within, our own weaknesses, our own sense of guilt for our wealth, our faults in dispensing our wealth, and the like.

Sometimes I wonder if Imperialism, done right, is such a bad thing. I mean the Romans brought their way of life to societies that ranged from inferior to just downright savage (They didn't want to war with Egypt or Carthage I think, as they were powerful and succesfully goverened). After the bloodshed, in the long run, those societies, those provinces, flourished with trade and wealth. Again, I'm just pondering. Sometimes I feel like the US should just go where it will with overwhelming force, hold our own, annex the land and teach our way of life- our freedom, democracy, justice system and trade wealth for resources. And our systems are far from perfect, but about as good as it gets. Anyway, just thinking.

One of my favorite thinkers stated recently that a society should not be judged by its faults but more by what it does to remove its faults, to grow.

For me, that did wonders.

Edited February 8, 2006 by RAzOR

[HtownTurboBrick]

no way i can agree w. u on that one. theres no way bum rushing other countries and forcing our ways on them will ever be accepted. think about it this way. if we started that a hundred years ago...we'd pretty much b pushing the idea that slavery was the right thing to do n everyone needs to do it cuz we're doing it. how long do u think it would of taken civil right leaders to break through that barrier? plus, the roman empire fell...sooner or later so will our society. probably not in our life time but in the next century or 2 it will. empires don't last more then several hundred years.

[RAzOR]

no way i can agree w. u on that one. theres no way bum rushing other countries and forcing our ways on them will ever be accepted. think about it this way. if we started that a hundred years ago...we'd pretty much b pushing the idea that slavery was the right thing to do n everyone needs to do it cuz we're doing it. how long do u think it would of taken civil right leaders to break through that barrier? plus, the roman empire fell...sooner or later so will our society. probably not in our life time but in the next century or 2 it will. empires don't last more then several hundred years.

Good point. Slavery was the hardest issue ever faced by our country. It nearly destroyed us. However, that correction did succeed and the country did survive. More recently we have worked hard to remove racism, sexism, etc all without violence (of any significant military magnitiude). To me that says we have a good system. And again, I am not purporting Imperialism, just thinking. Sometimes I think the children of Africa would be far better off if we ran the show over there. Wouldn't you agree?

Edited February 8, 2006 by RAzOR

[HtownTurboBrick]

running the show mayb. giving more support n supplies would help more. the US alone produces enough crops to feed every person in the world. yet we still have world hunger. if we went over there to "run the show" we'd just force our stuff on to them. they'd be losing their heritage and history, and quite frankly is enough to make them hate us. if were want to build the world to be more like us we need to do it in a way that the people who we are trying to help don't take it as us trying to over run them. there will be a revolt every time if we try to strong arm.

[starfish]

Sometimes I think the children of Africa would be far better off if we ran the show over there. Wouldn't you agree?

I have been reading your posts with pretty much full agreement up to this sentence RAzOR. The White liberal do-gooders from around the world including the UN, did more damage to these poor people by raping/starving/killing them, supporting some really rotten dictators with arms to commit genocide, importing disease plus eliminating DDT which alone has caused deaths of millions from malaria, prohibiting the Africans of use of their own land for farming and making them basically all wards of the State etc. Other than that I give you an A+ for your display of knowledge in the education of these who are less knowing.