Iran's solution for the mideast war?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206823,00.html

 

If you didn't see this one coming......................

[vandy125]

No surprise at all on what their solution is.

 

Here is something else to add to what Iran has possibly been doing. We all know that there are claims that Iran is supplying Hezbollah, but just how much is Iran involved in?

 

Iran working with N. Korea to develop long range missiles. A note on this link is that it is from a South Korea source. So, I don't know how trustworthy something like that is.

[samclemens]

No surprise at all on what their solution is.

 

Here is something else to add to what Iran has possibly been doing. We all know that there are claims that Iran is supplying Hezbollah, but just how much is Iran involved in?

 

Iran working with N. Korea to develop long range missiles. A note on this link is that it is from a South Korea source. So, I don't know how trustworthy something like that is.

 

i saw that in the news this morning as well. i cant wait until israel kicks some ass.

[WCSox]

No surprise at all on what their solution is.

 

Here is something else to add to what Iran has possibly been doing. We all know that there are claims that Iran is supplying Hezbollah, but just how much is Iran involved in?

 

Iran working with N. Korea to develop long range missiles. A note on this link is that it is from a South Korea source. So, I don't know how trustworthy something like that is.

 

This is going to have to come to an end... and the international community is going to have to be involved.

[southsider2k5]

So I guess this means he wasn't "misinterpreted" the first time he said, since he was so kind as to reiterate it again.

 

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site Thursday.

[Soxbadger]

At this point the US and other Western European countries have to ask themselves:

 

"Do we want to fight this war today, or in the next 50 years."

 

There comes a point where it is clear that peace and time will not heal certain wounds. Right now, the West has a clear advantage. Iran, even if it can get support from all Middle East nations would have no chance in a war against the United States. This is not Vietnam, it has a similar population, but not nearly the military skill. Iran has not beaten a major military force in it's history, and if it's war with Iraq is any indication, it lacks the sophistication of a modern army.

 

The question is, do we fight now, when we know Iran does not have nuclear capability, or do we wait and let Iran keep trying to build a nuke?

 

Some times you just have to nip it in the bud, and at this point it seems like Iran has gone over a line. The unfortunate part of being a western society, is that you want to give countries and people a chance. You want to let them do it on their own, and become peaceful nations. But at some point, when a nation shows no courtesy or respect to its neighbors, and has shown a disposition for violence and terror, you have to say enough is enough.

[Cknolls]

Still waiting for the MODERATE muslims to come out and denounce this statement.

 

Over/under on that happening?

[Gregory Pratt]

Still waiting for the MODERATE muslims to come out and denounce this statement.

 

Over/under on that happening?

 

Joke goes: "What's a Moderate Muslim?"

"One that only wants to kill Jews!"

 

At this point the US and other Western European countries have to ask themselves:

 

"Do we want to fight this war today, or in the next 50 years."

 

I think that's untrue.

That sort of thinking was true when it came to Cuba in 1963,

The Soviet Union for Fifty Years,

North Korea ten years ago (even longer than that, probably)

Iraq over a decade ago (and no, we didn't have to go in and fight them, and I doubt Saddam would've ever physically provoked us if we hadn't decided to go in)

France during the early 1800s

England in 1812 (that war was unnecessary, too -- in fact, England apologized for its offenses via Parliament, but by the time the news got to us, we had unfortunately declared War already!)

 

Offhand, the only time in history where a War was absolutely necessary was in Germany, 1939, but that might've been checked by Balls pre-Appeasement.

I see some shoddy diplomacy right now, but I don't see any appeasement, and I don't see an inevitable war, thanks.

 

It's possible, but let's not act like the only solution is to blow up the Island. Curtis Lemay says hello!

[Gregory Pratt]

I absolutely hate Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and even John F. Kennedy, but I think John's refusal to listen to the madmen in the military during the Cuban Missile Crisis was the bravest move ever by a President aside from, perhaps, Truman's dismissal of God.

[samclemens]

Offhand, the only time in history where a War was absolutely necessary was in Germany, 1939, but that might've been checked by Balls pre-Appeasement.

I see some shoddy diplomacy right now, but I don't see any appeasement, and I don't see an inevitable war, thanks.

 

It's possible, but let's not act like the only solution is to blow up the Island. Curtis Lemay says hello!

 

are you contending that adolf hitler could have been appeased by more concessions? theres a reason why neville chamberlin is now considered a poor diplomat. that appeasement was a major factor in encouraging hitler to continue to conquer europe. did you take any history in high school?

 

as to your qualified statement that the only war in human history that was necessary was WWII, how about:

- the american war for independence

- the american civil war

- WW1

- the korean war

- the israeli war for independence

 

and those are just off the top of my head. no offense, but step into reality, please!

[Gregory Pratt]

are you contending that adolf hitler could have been appeased by more concessions? theres a reason why neville chamberlin is now considered a poor diplomat. that appeasement was a major factor in encouraging hitler to continue to conquer europe. did you take any history in high school?

 

as to your qualified statement that the only war in human history that was necessary was WWII, how about:

- the american war for independence

- the american civil war

- WW1

- the korean war

- the israeli war for independence

 

and those are just off the top of my head. no offense, but step into reality, please!

 

I think you're mischaracterizing what I said, but whether it be due to mistake or malice I know not.

 

Hitler could've been checked by balls pre-Appeasement, I said. Where on Earth does that call for more appeasement? I was saying, quite obviously mind you, that Hitler couldn't have been stopped by appeasement, and that there should've been Balls in the approach of the World to him.

 

Don't question my knowledge of history when you can't grasp a simple sentence, and don't put words in my mouth, Tiger.

 

I did not say that WWII was the only necessary War. First:

Offhand, the only time in history where a War was absolutely necessary was in Germany

 

Quite clearly, I was speaking offhand. It wasn't a comprehensive guide to Wars and their Necessity, thanks, although I will say that there's a very good case to be made that WWI and the Civil War were not necessary.

 

But besides, we're getting off the subject. You are asserting that I said that only one war in history was necessary and I said nothing of the sort.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Joke goes: "What's a Moderate Muslim?"

"One that only wants to kill Jews!"

I think that's untrue.

That sort of thinking was true when it came to Cuba in 1963,

The Soviet Union for Fifty Years,

North Korea ten years ago (even longer than that, probably)

Iraq over a decade ago (and no, we didn't have to go in and fight them, and I doubt Saddam would've ever physically provoked us if we hadn't decided to go in)

France during the early 1800s

England in 1812 (that war was unnecessary, too -- in fact, England apologized for its offenses via Parliament, but by the time the news got to us, we had unfortunately declared War already!)

 

Offhand, the only time in history where a War was absolutely necessary was in Germany, 1939, but that might've been checked by Balls pre-Appeasement.

I see some shoddy diplomacy right now, but I don't see any appeasement, and I don't see an inevitable war, thanks.

 

It's possible, but let's not act like the only solution is to blow up the Island. Curtis Lemay says hello!

 

 

Here's my problem with your line of reasoning. The Soviet Union could be deterred. Despite their flawed ideology, they were a rational and intelligent people. They understood the consequenses of war with the Western powers and didn't want anymore than we did.

 

Iran, on the other hand, may not be able to be deterred. They are a fanatical, nazi-style regime that is hell bent on wiping out Isreal and if they get wiped out themselves they will chalk it up to being a martyr for Allah.

[samclemens]

I think you're mischaracterizing what I said, but whether it be due to mistake or malice I know not.

 

Hitler could've been checked by balls pre-Appeasement, I said. Where on Earth does that call for more appeasement? I was saying, quite obviously mind you, that Hitler couldn't have been stopped by appeasement, and that there should've been Balls in the approach of the World to him.

 

Don't question my knowledge of history when you can't grasp a simple sentence, and don't put words in my mouth, Tiger.

 

I did not say that WWII was the only necessary War. First:

Quite clearly, I was speaking offhand. It wasn't a comprehensive guide to Wars and their Necessity, thanks, although I will say that there's a very good case to be made that WWI and the Civil War were not necessary.

 

But besides, we're getting off the subject. You are asserting that I said that only one war in history was but necessary and I said nothing of the sort.

 

sorry, i did misunderstand the balls sarcasm. my bad on that one.

 

but you dont have to be a jackass. note in my post i called your statement about WW2 "qualified". this means i took into account that you said offhand, and was a extremely gross generalization. so perhaps it was you who was unable to grasp my sentence (but dont worry, the way you worded your insult to me made you sound really smart). that said, you apparently do have a poor recollection of history if the only "necessary" war you can think of offhand is WW2. just because you put the word "offhand" at the beginning of the sentence, that doesnt make it unattackable- it was still a rediculous statement.

[Soxbadger]

Pratt,

 

I disagree, with most of those analogies. So I guess I have to go through 1 by 1.

 

Cuba 1963, Bay of Pigs invasion. Historical context: Cold War, nuclear proliferation. The invasion of Cuba was 1) to prevent the spread of nukes, 2) to prevent the spread of communism. Unlike Iran, Cuba had not done 1 provacative action towards the US. Cuba was not saying "When we get the nuke we are going to destroy the US." Had Cuba said that, I believe the US would have fully engaged Cuba. The difference between the 2 is the lack of threat, Iran has made threats, Cuba has not.

 

Soviet Union, Cold War. Historical Context- After World War II, the world was split between the communist and democratic blocs. This is a far different scenario than Iran, and one where it was best that no military force was ever used. This was a war about spheres of influence and portraying yourself as the alpha. The US and USSR both wanted to be the top dog on the world stage, and therefore kept engaging in limited confrontations to try and show their backers how strong they really were. The war itself was most likely a result of the backwards nationalism that had developed in the USSR, and the terror of WWII on the Russian landscape. This conflict vastly differs from Iran in that USSR and USA never made threats of destruction. Both played the role of trying to be "innocent" on the world stage. Using small conflicts like Veitnam and Korea, as a stage for their ideological ambitions.

 

NK- I assume you mean Kim, and not the previous NK war. Simply put, NK has not gone as far as Iran. NK to my recollection has not called for the destruction of a people, has not through back channels funded and constantly supported the war against said people, and used terrorists to promote their goals.

 

Iraq- I assume you mean Persian Gulf here. This war can simply be put as, "What we have here is a failure to communicate." Iraq, more specifically Saddam, believed that the US had given him the go ahead invade Kuwait. At this time, Saddam was good friends with the US and a powerful political ally in the Mid-East (see Iraq v Iran war). Unfortunately after Saddam invaded, the US changed its position and stated that it did not approve of Saddam's ambition. This is one of those wierd events in history, where I think everyone involved ended up being losers in the end. Saddam lost the war and the US support. Kuwait got ravaged, and the US lost one of its few allies in the Mid-East and set the stage for the events that are transpiring now.

 

France during the early 1800's, I guess you mean Napolean. Not really sure what that has to do with anything, as 1800 is completely different than 2000.

 

England 1812, well this was just the continuation of revolutionary war. Not exactly sure how it has anything to do with the Iran, as it is factually completely different.

 

Now the only war you did mention, WWII, is the most recent conflic that has the same global implications.

 

Iran, like Germany pre-WWII, is starting to assert its dominance in its region. Iran is trying to develop better arms and weapons to create a sophisticated military. Iran, like Germany, is using the threat of terror and violence to force the west to appease it. This is why Iran must be stopped, because it is following in the footsteps of Germany. The Iran president is saying things that have to remind you of Hitler, he is using the Israeli's/Jews as scapegoats so he can promote his own political agenda.

 

It is no accident that the attacks on Israel have escalated so quickly. Do you really think that Hezbollah had thousands of rockets stored away for all this time and never had been using them?

 

Does it not strike you as odd, that all of a sudden the Hezbollah military equipment has drastically improved from what it was just a few months ago?

 

It would have been like Hitler arming the Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia, and then complaining when the armies of Poland and Czech started to fight back against the German militants.

 

The west can never forget WWII, and whenever a leader of a country advocates the destruction of a people or country, it is our duty to make sure that it never happens. And to show the world that we will never accept that type of ideaology, the threat is enough to warrant harsh and swift action in my opinion.

 

That is the difference between the conflicts you listed and Iran. Iran wants to eradicate a people from the face of the earth, just because they believe in a different religion. I find that belief to be repuslive, and any country who stands by such a belief, unfit to exist.

[samclemens]

I think you're mischaracterizing what I said, but whether it be due to mistake or malice I know not.

 

Hitler could've been checked by balls pre-Appeasement, I said. Where on Earth does that call for more appeasement? I was saying, quite obviously mind you, that Hitler couldn't have been stopped by appeasement, and that there should've been Balls in the approach of the World to him.

 

Don't question my knowledge of history when you can't grasp a simple sentence, and don't put words in my mouth, Tiger.

 

I did not say that WWII was the only necessary War. First:

Quite clearly, I was speaking offhand. It wasn't a comprehensive guide to Wars and their Necessity, thanks, although I will say that there's a very good case to be made that WWI and the Civil War were not necessary.

 

But besides, we're getting off the subject. You are asserting that I said that only one war in history was but necessary and I said nothing of the sort.

 

sorry, i did misunderstand the balls sarcasm. my bad on that one.

 

but you dont have to be a jackass. note in my post i called your statement about WW2 "qualified". this means i took into account that you said offhand, and was a extremely gross generalization. so perhaps it was you who was unable to grasp my sentence (but dont worry, the way you worded your insult to me made you sound really smart). that said, you apparently do have a poor recollection of history if the only "necessary" war you can think of offhand is WW2. just because you put the word "offhand" at the beginning of the sentence, that doesnt make it unattackable- it was still a rediculous statement.

[Gregory Pratt]

Here's my problem with your line of reasoning. The Soviet Union could be deterred. Despite their flawed ideology, they were a rational and intelligent people. They understood the consequenses of war with the Western powers and didn't want anymore than we did.

 

Iran, on the other hand, may not be able to be deterred. They are a fanatical, nazi-style regime that is hell bent on wiping out Isreal and if they get wiped out themselves they will chalk it up to being a martyr for Allah.

 

You know, Nuke, racist though I'm sure some politically incorrect pansy might say it, I agree with you to a point. al-Qaeda, Wahhabist Muslims are not typically rational people, and there is a fundamental(ist) difference between the Godless Atheism of the Soviets and the Mohammed-Loving-Denmark-Burning Islamacists of today.

 

But, still, I don't think that a world united -- as the West is right now -- coupled with nuclear weapons is incapable of deterring Iran. They may be crazy, but they aren't stupid, and I think that, when sh-t hits the fan, we should make it utterly clear to Iran that we're prepared to hurt them if they hurt Israel or another country.

 

Before then, I'm not a fan of War. I don't believe in Pre-Emptive War.

[Soxbadger]

Pratt,

 

I do not believe its "pre-emptive" when the other said says:

 

"We are going to destroy you when we get the chance."

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Pratt,

 

I do not believe its "pre-emptive" when the other said says:

 

"We are going to destroy you when we get the chance."

 

 

My feeling is this is going to come to a really ugly head one of these days and when it does its gonna produce lots and lots of death and destruction.

[Gregory Pratt]

sorry, i did misunderstand the balls sarcasm. my bad on that one.

 

but you dont have to be a jackass. note in my post i called your statement about WW2 "qualified". this means i took into account that you said offhand, and was a extremely gross generalization. so perhaps it was you who was unable to grasp my sentence (but dont worry, the way you worded your insult to me made you sound really smart). that said, you apparently do have a poor recollection of history if the only "necessary" war you can think of offhand is WW2. just because you put the word "offhand" at the beginning of the sentence, that doesnt make it unattackable- it was still a rediculous statement.

 

I did have to be a jackass about it. You were, I felt, impugning my historical knowledge, and I don't take kindly to that. No hard feelings, though.

 

But, let me say, I disagree that me citing WWII offhand as the only War completely necessary equals a lack of proper historical recollection. I just don't believe that a lot of other Wars were completely necessary, and none are so unequivocal as WWII.

 

Pratt,

 

I disagree, with most of those analogies. So I guess I have to go through 1 by 1.

 

I intend to respectfully disagree.

 

Cuba 1963, Bay of Pigs invasion. Historical context: Cold War, nuclear proliferation. The invasion of Cuba was 1) to prevent the spread of nukes, 2) to prevent the spread of communism. Unlike Iran, Cuba had not done 1 provacative action towards the US. Cuba was not saying "When we get the nuke we are going to destroy the US." Had Cuba said that, I believe the US would have fully engaged Cuba. The difference between the 2 is the lack of threat, Iran has made threats, Cuba has not.

 

I believe you have misunderstood the situation as I was stating it.

Everyone in Washington believed the War inevitable because "We can not allow the Soviets to keep their missiles there, and we can't negotiate because a) it'll make us look soft, b. the Soviets can't be negotiated with" and you are saying that the situation with Iran is so dire as to equal inevitable War. You sound like Curtis Lemay in that regard, and I think you're flat out wrong.

 

Besides that, Iran has not threatened our destruction, though it's gone unspoken.

Same with Cuba. Washington knew that, with missiles there, the threat to us was real, and so the situation there was just as grave.

 

Soviet Union, Cold War. Historical Context- After World War II, the world was split between the communist and democratic blocs. This is a far different scenario than Iran, and one where it was best that no military force was ever used. This was a war about spheres of influence and portraying yourself as the alpha. The US and USSR both wanted to be the top dog on the world stage, and therefore kept engaging in limited confrontations to try and show their backers how strong they really were. The war itself was most likely a result of the backwards nationalism that had developed in the USSR, and the terror of WWII on the Russian landscape. This conflict vastly differs from Iran in that USSR and USA never made threats of destruction. Both played the role of trying to be "innocent" on the world stage. Using small conflicts like Veitnam and Korea, as a stage for their ideological ambitions.

 

I was discussing the fact that, through the Cold War, everyone spoke of an inevitable conflict between the Russians and America. It never happened, and it didn't have to happen, either.

 

NK- I assume you mean Kim, and not the previous NK war. Simply put, NK has not gone as far as Iran. NK to my recollection has not called for the destruction of a people, has not through back channels funded and constantly supported the war against said people, and used terrorists to promote their goals.

 

Surely not, but the threat of a Nuclear North Korea has been talked about forever, and its leadership questioned for ages. Bill Clinton used to believe that, with nukes there, a War would have to happen because they'd nuke South Korea or Japan. It's not going to happen, IMO.

 

Iraq- I assume you mean Persian Gulf here. This war can simply be put as, "What we have here is a failure to communicate." Iraq, more specifically Saddam, believed that the US had given him the go ahead invade Kuwait. At this time, Saddam was good friends with the US and a powerful political ally in the Mid-East (see Iraq v Iran war). Unfortunately after Saddam invaded, the US changed its position and stated that it did not approve of Saddam's ambition. This is one of those wierd events in history, where I think everyone involved ended up being losers in the end. Saddam lost the war and the US support. Kuwait got ravaged, and the US lost one of its few allies in the Mid-East and set the stage for the events that are transpiring now.

 

Iraq was not about the Persian Gulf War.

Throughout the 1990s, post-Persian, there was a block that said we would eventually have to go into there because Saddam would eventually threaten the World again. It wasn't the case when we decided to go in there in 2003, and IMO, Saddam was defanged utterly.

 

France during the early 1800's, I guess you mean Napolean. Not really sure what that has to do with anything, as 1800 is completely different than 2000.

 

Oh, pish posh, the difference in eras isn't to discredit comparison.

Federalists believed that we HAD to go to War with France because they were out of control and threatening us and would eventually destroy us if we let them; Adams, and Jefferson, provded otherwise.

 

England 1812, well this was just the continuation of revolutionary war. Not exactly sure how it has anything to do with the Iran, as it is factually completely different.

 

It was not a continuation of the Revolutionary War -- at least, it isn't that simple.

 

Iran, like Germany pre-WWII, is starting to assert its dominance in its region. Iran is trying to develop better arms and weapons to create a sophisticated military. Iran, like Germany, is using the threat of terror and violence to force the west to appease it. This is why Iran must be stopped, because it is following in the footsteps of Germany. The Iran president is saying things that have to remind you of Hitler, he is using the Israeli's/Jews as scapegoats so he can promote his own political agenda.

 

It is no accident that the attacks on Israel have escalated so quickly. Do you really think that Hezbollah had thousands of rockets stored away for all this time and never had been using them? Does it not strike you as odd, that all of a sudden the Hezbollah military equipment has drastically improved from what it was just a few months ago? It would have been like Hitler arming the Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia, and then complaining when the armies of Poland and Czech started to fight back against the German militants.

 

The west can never forget WWII, and whenever a leader of a country advocates the destruction of a people or country, it is our duty to make sure that it never happens. And to show the world that we will never accept that type of ideaology, the threat is enough to warrant harsh and swift action in my opinion. That is the difference between the conflicts you listed and Iran. Iran wants to eradicate a people from the face of the earth, just because they believe in a different religion. I find that belief to be repuslive, and any country who stands by such a belief, unfit to exist.

 

There are a ton of leaders that have threatened the destruction of Israel. Muslim Leaders do it all the time.

To say that Iran is sounding like Hitler doesn't strike me as reason enough to go to War unless he suddenly starts speaking German!

[Gregory Pratt]

Pratt,

 

I do not believe its "pre-emptive" when the other said says:

 

"We are going to destroy you when we get the chance."

 

By most estimates, Iran is a few years off of getting nukes.

I very much doubt that Mahmoud is President for that long, or that the situation remains as it is until that time comes.

 

We'll see what happens, Badger.

[Soxbadger]

Pratt,

 

Your right, Iran has never threated the US.

 

But prior to the declaration after Pearl Harbor, Germany had never threated the US either.

 

So if Germany had never declared on the US, we should of just stayed out because they only wanted to kill "Every Jew", "take over Europe", but never had any specific statements on eyeing the US?

[Gregory Pratt]

Pratt,

 

Your right, Iran has never threated the US.

 

But prior to the declaration after Pearl Harbor, Germany had never threated the US either.

 

So if Germany had never declared on the US, we should of just stayed out because they only wanted to kill "Every Jew", "take over Europe", but never had any specific statements on eyeing the US?

 

A completely false comparison, but I appreciate the effort.

We knew very well that Germany would declare War on us because they'd signed a treaty with Japan saying they'd go to War against everyone together.

 

Besides that, we'd been aiding Britain since 1940, and were a lock to help them as soon as we were drawn into the War.

[Soxbadger]

Pratt,

 

You didnt answer the question.

 

If Japan and Germany had left the US alone, would you have agreed that we should not have entered the war.

[Gregory Pratt]

Pratt,

 

You didnt answer the question.

 

If Japan and Germany had left the US alone, would you have agreed that we should not have entered the war.

 

Of course not, but I was focusing rather on your completely false comparison.

 

When Iran fires a shot at Israel, I'll be all for a War.

Edited August 3, 2006 by Gregory Pratt

[Balta1701]

A completely false comparison, but I appreciate the effort.

We knew very well that Germany would declare War on us because they'd signed a treaty with Japan saying they'd go to War against everyone together.

 

Besides that, we'd been aiding Britain since 1940, and were a lock to help them as soon as we were drawn into the War.

One interesting side note, the pact between the 3 nations actually did not require Germany to declare war on the U.S. The pact only said that the 3 nations had to join together if any of them were actually attacked; this is how Japan got out of having to declare war on Russia in July of 41. Hitler declared war on the U.S. after the Japanese attack anyway, and went around saying that the U.S. couldn't fight, it only knew how to make Razor blades and refrigerators or something like that, etc. In fact, the isolationists in Congress would have put up a huge stink if Roosevelt had gone to them with a declaration of war against Germany had Germany not declared war on us first.