Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[DeadPoolX 9]

Do you think Iraq would be going better now if we'd nuked Baghdad?

Iraq would be better if we nuked Iran.

I don't really think that'd be the case. Sure, Iran probably wouldn't be much of a threat after having tons of nuclear ordinance dropped on it, but there's the aftermath to consider. What about radiation? A nuclear winter? All of that could adversely affect Iraq in many ways. It wouldn't do Iraq a whole lot of good to have Iran gone if radiation leaked over from Iran and poisoned Iraqis, now would it?

In addition, if the U.S. were to nuke Iran, there's little chance of it staying a secret for long, so there's a number of things that could occur...

• A mass exodus of Iranians into neighboring countries, including Iraq. This would make the nuclear bombardment virtually pointless, as it would only do structural damage, and you don't really need something as high-powered as a nuke for that. The people would be elsewhere.
• Since the people would be hiding out in other countries, there's a very high probability that many of them would want revenge on the United States for destroying their homes, killing off anyone they knew who didn't escape (and their countrymen in general), and above all, their life in general.
• Iran is working on getting nuclear weaponry, specifically inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and should they have any that are operative by the time the U.S. should ever put this plan into action, Iran would use whatever they have to strike out in whatever way they could -- if their ICBMs couldn't reach the U.S., then they'd most likely target Israel, since it'd be their last chance to do so, it's a close ally of the U.S., and they hate it anyway.
• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that there are strategically placed cells camped within the U.S., which he would order to attack in whatever ways possible should the U.S. launch a strike against Iran. No one knows if he is bluffing or not, but if he's not, then there could be numerous American civilian lives lost during a potentially useless assault on Iran.

So as you can see, nuking Iran probably isn't the best idea.

The war on terror cannot be fought only from Iraq, neither can the mission to mold Iraq into a democracy, when foreign fighters cross into Iraq from Iran on a daily basis. Not only are Jihadis joining up to fight from Iran, but they also have brought new weaponry. Explosivley formed penetrators are the new rave when it comes to IEDs. EFPs are devastating, I have seen the destruction that they cause, and investigations believe that they are being imported directly from Iran. There are multiple supply lines of arms/personnel feeding into Iraq from neighboring countries. These facts cannot be discarded.

I never said we had to confine our fight solely to that of Iraq. I did say using nuclear weaponry on Iran, however, was probably a poor tactic -- and I believe it is. That doesn't mean we can't eventually "take the fight to them" at some point. I just don't believe nukes are the answer, that's all.

Besides, if we enter Iran, we are an invasion force. Iran has done nothing to the United States, except issue a few threats now and then when Ahmadinejad takes the floor or gets an interview. Does he really want to "wipe the U.S. off the map" in the near future? I can't say; if I could tell the future, I'd be a multi-billionaire.

I do know this, though: Iran is much larger than Iraq and their military is actually a fit fighting force, unlike Iraq's was when we went in to remove Saddam Hussein. So not only would it be nearly impossible to effectively occupy and control Iran (especially if we had to do it unilaterally, which is what we would probably have to do, since I doubt even the UK would follow us in there), in addition to fighting a full-scare war against the Iranian military.

There's also something else to consider as well. We wouldn't only be fighting Iran in this instance. The likelihood is extremely high that terrorist factions (either of their own accord or employed by the Iranian government as mercenaries, more or less) would join the battle, as would other surrounding nations, since we would be seen as the aggressor. The "evil American Empire attacks poor, downtrodden Iran and savagely murders it's innocents" would be the headline splashed across the Middle-East. Here in the U.S., we know there's a lot more to the story than that, but those living in the Middle-East (who already dislike the United States), will see this as "the last straw" and a "call to arms" to help defend their neighbor against "The Great Satan." Only Israel would view the situation differently, which might land it in a difficult spot -- should it assist the United States? If it does, it's helping out an ally and fighting off enemies who would willingly dispose of Israelis without a second thought, but this action may bring increase aggression towards Israel itself; if Israel stays quiet, it'll be letting the U.S. handle the situation alone, but since most of the terrorist cells in the area will probably be distracted, Israel will enjoy relative peace and quiet.

Just for the record, I am by no means a "pacifist." I strongly support the armed forces and am something of a know-it-all when it comes to the military. But that doesn't mean I am in favor of combat in all situations. There are times where it might benefit the U.S. to take a different approach. I'm not suggesting we sit down with Ahmadinejad and his cohorts and have "milk and cookies," but throwing ourselves into a large-scale conflict (such as invading Iran) right after being in Afghanistan and Iraq would probably not be the wisest of decisions to make for our men and women in the military (and depending on Iran's own capabilities, the civilian populace back home as well). Even a mighty superpower needs to "take a break" every once in a while.

[Hematoma 0]

It would be rather interesting to see a couple special forces teams go into Iran and use these very same tactics on them. Every time a IED is set off in Iraq, one follows on the streets of Tehran. I wonder if they would get the hint.

Yeah.... Ahmadinejad would get up on a podium, point to the smoking crater and twisted bodies and say that everything he's been telling his people is right. And with the evidence of their eyes why would they have reason to disbelieve him?

Awwww but the opposite could also occur, the common folk just might blame him.

Well when the twin towers were still smoking the US didn't turn around en-masse and lay the blame for 9/11 at the feet of GWB. People tend to notice cause and effect rather more if they've seen it with their own eyes...

But when you're looking into a smoking crater full of charred corpses that includes friends and relatives - I'd contend that you're rather likely to blame the people who exploded the bomb than your own government (even if you don't agree with them).

But when you're looking into a smoking crater full of charred corpses that includes friends and relatives - I'd contend that you're rather likely to blame the people who exploded the bomb than your own government (even if you don't agree with them).

Then how would you explain the left wingers in american politics wanting a mass exodous from Iraq?

But when you're looking into a smoking crater full of charred corpses that includes friends and relatives - I'd contend that you're rather likely to blame the people who exploded the bomb than your own government (even if you don't agree with them).

Then how would you explain the left wingers in american politics wanting a mass exodous from Iraq?

Hmmm... exactly what does that have to do with the point you made?

Iraq took place several years after 9/11 - opinions tend to change over time, as do emotional states. When the towers were smoking and everyone was angry, the vast majority of people in this and other countries were demanding Bin Laden's head not GWB's.

You think the same rationale wouldn't apply if the US did the same thing in Iran? Somehow I'm sceptical.

I have read some of number sixes posts. It seems this indivdual likes to spin his way out of things by name calling and spinning a web from his own interpretations. Taking things out of context, all the while changing the subject. Calling someone a facist based on anothers opinions?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Using the dictionary definition, pretty much everyone in politics is a liberal. A liberal is just someone who favors change. But what makes the difference is what kind of change.

A conservative wants to change things to keep with traditional values. Which in the case of the US means, nationalism, Christian based moral values, strong support of the military.

A progressive is someone who wants to move forward. Even if it means throwing aside the tradtional values that are important to the conservatives.

So every time we make a change in favor of the progressives, we have conservatives who try to change it back. In some ways this is a good thing. It prevents drastic changes that the society isn't ready for.

But progression is inevitable. It will happen. At some point even conservatives have to accept it. And they do. What progressive and conservative is today, is nothing like it once was. As progression takes hold, even conservatives stop opposing it. Of course there will always be a few who hang on, but the majority has moved on.

Take the war in Iraq, Many conservatives see it has a military problem with a military solution. The progressives see the purpose of the military to be more of a force that keeps the peace, rather than goes out to start wars. And if its used in that context, it should only be done with full support of the international community, not with an aggressive imperialistic approach.

With terrorism, the conservative approach is to aggressively go after and kill the terrorists, no matter the cost. Even if the methods encourage more to join or support the terrorist groups. The progressive way is to focus on disrupting attacks at home, and use public diplomacy( Everything from providing aid in a natural disaster to keeping out of other countries politics, even if the government is not a type favorable to us) to pull public support away from the terrorists.

Well said.

[almaty 19]

It would be rather interesting to see a couple special forces teams go into Iran and use these very same tactics on them. Every time a IED is set off in Iraq, one follows on the streets of Tehran. I wonder if they would get the hint.

Yeah.... Ahmadinejad would get up on a podium, point to the smoking crater and twisted bodies and say that everything he's been telling his people is right. And with the evidence of their eyes why would they have reason to disbelieve him?

Awwww but the opposite could also occur, the common folk just might blame him.

Well when the twin towers were still smoking the US didn't turn around en-masse and lay the blame for 9/11 at the feet of GWB. People tend to notice cause and effect rather more if they've seen it with their own eyes...

But when you're looking into a smoking crater full of charred corpses that includes friends and relatives - I'd contend that you're rather likely to blame the people who exploded the bomb than your own government (even if you don't agree with them).

But when you're looking into a smoking crater full of charred corpses that includes friends and relatives - I'd contend that you're rather likely to blame the people who exploded the bomb than your own government (even if you don't agree with them).

Then how would you explain the left wingers in american politics wanting a mass exodous from Iraq?

But when you're looking into a smoking crater full of charred corpses that includes friends and relatives - I'd contend that you're rather likely to blame the people who exploded the bomb than your own government (even if you don't agree with them).

Then how would you explain the left wingers in american politics wanting a mass exodous from Iraq?

Hmmm... exactly what does that have to do with the point you made?

Iraq took place several years after 9/11 - opinions tend to change over time, as do emotional states. When the towers were smoking and everyone was angry, the vast majority of people in this and other countries were demanding Bin Laden's head not GWB's.

You think the same rationale wouldn't apply if the US did the same thing in Iran? Somehow I'm sceptical.

I have read some of number sixes posts. It seems this indivdual likes to spin his way out of things by name calling and spinning a web from his own interpretations. Taking things out of context, all the while changing the subject. Calling someone a facist based on anothers opinions?

noob. you joined today and you are on off topics...not fooling anyone..act like you got a set..

Edited September 14, 2007 by almaty

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[almaty 19]

well stated brother

[DeadPoolX 9]

Using the dictionary definition, pretty much everyone in politics is a liberal. A liberal is just someone who favors change. But what makes the difference is what kind of change.

A conservative wants to change things to keep with traditional values. Which in the case of the US means, nationalism, Christian based moral values, strong support of the military.

A progressive is someone who wants to move forward. Even if it means throwing aside the tradtional values that are important to the conservatives.

So every time we make a change in favor of the progressives, we have conservatives who try to change it back. In some ways this is a good thing. It prevents drastic changes that the society isn't ready for.

But progression is inevitable. It will happen. At some point even conservatives have to accept it. And they do. What progressive and conservative is today, is nothing like it once was. As progression takes hold, even conservatives stop opposing it. Of course there will always be a few who hang on, but the majority has moved on.

Take the war in Iraq, Many conservatives see it has a military problem with a military solution. The progressives see the purpose of the military to be more of a force that keeps the peace, rather than goes out to start wars. And if its used in that context, it should only be done with full support of the international community, not with an aggressive imperialistic approach.

With terrorism, the conservative approach is to aggressively go after and kill the terrorists, no matter the cost. Even if the methods encourage more to join or support the terrorist groups. The progressive way is to focus on disrupting attacks at home, and use public diplomacy( Everything from providing aid in a natural disaster to keeping out of other countries politics, even if the government is not a type favorable to us) to pull public support away from the terrorists.

I don't really disagree with that assessment; however, I do have a question.

If all of the above is true (and I'm sure there's some variation), wouldn't today's progressive become tomorrow's conservative? Think about it for a moment. The "young people" of today want change (i.e. progression) to suit their needs and how they feel society should be as a whole. But when they get older, and the next generation comes of age and starts trying to change things, the once-progressives-turned-conservatives don't really care for the new ideas, so they want things to stay the same as they have been (the way they liked it), or whenever something does change in-favor of the new progressives, the new conservatives want to roll things back.

I see this occurring with each successive generation. Our parents thought they were "cool" and that their parents were weren't. Then they became adults. Suddenly, they were the ones telling their kids to "turn down that noise" and make the rules. One day, we'll be doing the same and eventually, our kids will be doing it too. Pretty scary, huh?

[Dan J 277]

Using the dictionary definition, pretty much everyone in politics is a liberal. A liberal is just someone who favors change. But what makes the difference is what kind of change.

A conservative wants to change things to keep with traditional values. Which in the case of the US means, nationalism, Christian based moral values, strong support of the military.

A progressive is someone who wants to move forward. Even if it means throwing aside the tradtional values that are important to the conservatives.

So every time we make a change in favor of the progressives, we have conservatives who try to change it back. In some ways this is a good thing. It prevents drastic changes that the society isn't ready for.

But progression is inevitable. It will happen. At some point even conservatives have to accept it. And they do. What progressive and conservative is today, is nothing like it once was. As progression takes hold, even conservatives stop opposing it. Of course there will always be a few who hang on, but the majority has moved on.

Take the war in Iraq, Many conservatives see it has a military problem with a military solution. The progressives see the purpose of the military to be more of a force that keeps the peace, rather than goes out to start wars. And if its used in that context, it should only be done with full support of the international community, not with an aggressive imperialistic approach.

With terrorism, the conservative approach is to aggressively go after and kill the terrorists, no matter the cost. Even if the methods encourage more to join or support the terrorist groups. The progressive way is to focus on disrupting attacks at home, and use public diplomacy( Everything from providing aid in a natural disaster to keeping out of other countries politics, even if the government is not a type favorable to us) to pull public support away from the terrorists.

I don't really disagree with that assessment; however, I do have a question.

If all of the above is true (and I'm sure there's some variation), wouldn't today's progressive become tomorrow's conservative? Think about it for a moment. The "young people" of today want change (i.e. progression) to suit their needs and how they feel society should be as a whole. But when they get older, and the next generation comes of age and starts trying to change things, the once-progressives-turned-conservatives don't really care for the new ideas, so they want things to stay the same as they have been (the way they liked it), or whenever something does change in-favor of the new progressives, the new conservatives want to roll things back.

I see this occurring with each successive generation. Our parents thought they were "cool" and that their parents were weren't. Then they became adults. Suddenly, they were the ones telling their kids to "turn down that noise" and make the rules. One day, we'll be doing the same and eventually, our kids will be doing it too. Pretty scary, huh?

It really depends on the person really. Some will change, while others continue to adapt new progressive ideas.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It would be rather interesting to see a couple special forces teams go into Iran and use these very same tactics on them. Every time a IED is set off in Iraq, one follows on the streets of Tehran. I wonder if they would get the hint.

Yeah.... Ahmadinejad would get up on a podium, point to the smoking crater and twisted bodies and say that everything he's been telling his people is right. And with the evidence of their eyes why would they have reason to disbelieve him?

Awwww but the opposite could also occur, the common folk just might blame him.

Well when the twin towers were still smoking the US didn't turn around en-masse and lay the blame for 9/11 at the feet of GWB. People tend to notice cause and effect rather more if they've seen it with their own eyes...

But when you're looking into a smoking crater full of charred corpses that includes friends and relatives - I'd contend that you're rather likely to blame the people who exploded the bomb than your own government (even if you don't agree with them).

le

But when you're looking into a smoking crater full of charred corpses that includes friends and relatives - I'd contend that you're rather likely to blame the people who exploded the bomb than your own government (even if you don't agree with them).

Then how would you explain the left wingers in american politics wanting a mass exodous from Iraq?

But when you're looking into a smoking crater full of charred corpses that includes friends and relatives - I'd contend that you're rather likely to blame the people who exploded the bomb than your own government (even if you don't agree with them).

Then how would you explain the left wingers in american politics wanting a mass exodous from Iraq?

Hmmm... exactly what does that have to do with the point you made?

Iraq took place several years after 9/11 - opinions tend to change over time, as do emotional states. When the towers were smoking and everyone was angry, the vast majority of people in this and other countries were demanding Bin Laden's head not GWB's.

You think the same rationale wouldn't apply if the US did the same thing in Iran? Somehow I'm sceptical.

I have read some of number sixes posts. It seems this indivdual likes to spin his way out of things by name calling and spinning a web from his own interpretations. Taking things out of context, all the while changing the subject. Calling someone a facist based on anothers opinions?

From those posts of mine you quoted - what exactly did I take out of context?

Perhaps you can make sense of the tangled web that Boo-Yah! has woven since post 269.

Those opinions I referenced are things Boo-Yah! has specifically expressed across several threads and over a period of time.

How exactly can you take "blowing up a city" as retaliatory act out of context? It is what it is, and unless he really doesn't mean it then how would you interpret it?

[mRx 16]

Do you think Iraq would be going better now if we'd nuked Baghdad?

Iraq would be better if we nuked Iran.

I don't really think that'd be the case. Sure, Iran probably wouldn't be much of a threat after having tons of nuclear ordinance dropped on it, but there's the aftermath to consider. What about radiation? A nuclear winter? All of that could adversely affect Iraq in many ways. It wouldn't do Iraq a whole lot of good to have Iran gone if radiation leaked over from Iran and poisoned Iraqis, now would it?

In addition, if the U.S. were to nuke Iran, there's little chance of it staying a secret for long, so there's a number of things that could occur...

• A mass exodus of Iranians into neighboring countries, including Iraq. This would make the nuclear bombardment virtually pointless, as it would only do structural damage, and you don't really need something as high-powered as a nuke for that. The people would be elsewhere.
• Since the people would be hiding out in other countries, there's a very high probability that many of them would want revenge on the United States for destroying their homes, killing off anyone they knew who didn't escape (and their countrymen in general), and above all, their life in general.
• Iran is working on getting nuclear weaponry, specifically inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and should they have any that are operative by the time the U.S. should ever put this plan into action, Iran would use whatever they have to strike out in whatever way they could -- if their ICBMs couldn't reach the U.S., then they'd most likely target Israel, since it'd be their last chance to do so, it's a close ally of the U.S., and they hate it anyway.
• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that there are strategically placed cells camped within the U.S., which he would order to attack in whatever ways possible should the U.S. launch a strike against Iran. No one knows if he is bluffing or not, but if he's not, then there could be numerous American civilian lives lost during a potentially useless assault on Iran.

So as you can see, nuking Iran probably isn't the best idea.

The war on terror cannot be fought only from Iraq, neither can the mission to mold Iraq into a democracy, when foreign fighters cross into Iraq from Iran on a daily basis. Not only are Jihadis joining up to fight from Iran, but they also have brought new weaponry. Explosivley formed penetrators are the new rave when it comes to IEDs. EFPs are devastating, I have seen the destruction that they cause, and investigations believe that they are being imported directly from Iran. There are multiple supply lines of arms/personnel feeding into Iraq from neighboring countries. These facts cannot be discarded.

I never said we had to confine our fight solely to that of Iraq. I did say using nuclear weaponry on Iran, however, was probably a poor tactic -- and I believe it is. That doesn't mean we can't eventually "take the fight to them" at some point. I just don't believe nukes are the answer, that's all.

Besides, if we enter Iran, we are an invasion force. Iran has done nothing to the United States, except issue a few threats now and then when Ahmadinejad takes the floor or gets an interview. Does he really want to "wipe the U.S. off the map" in the near future? I can't say; if I could tell the future, I'd be a multi-billionaire.

I do know this, though: Iran is much larger than Iraq and their military is actually a fit fighting force, unlike Iraq's was when we went in to remove Saddam Hussein. So not only would it be nearly impossible to effectively occupy and control Iran (especially if we had to do it unilaterally, which is what we would probably have to do, since I doubt even the UK would follow us in there), in addition to fighting a full-scare war against the Iranian military.

There's also something else to consider as well. We wouldn't only be fighting Iran in this instance. The likelihood is extremely high that terrorist factions (either of their own accord or employed by the Iranian government as mercenaries, more or less) would join the battle, as would other surrounding nations, since we would be seen as the aggressor. The "evil American Empire attacks poor, downtrodden Iran and savagely murders it's innocents" would be the headline splashed across the Middle-East. Here in the U.S., we know there's a lot more to the story than that, but those living in the Middle-East (who already dislike the United States), will see this as "the last straw" and a "call to arms" to help defend their neighbor against "The Great Satan." Only Israel would view the situation differently, which might land it in a difficult spot -- should it assist the United States? If it does, it's helping out an ally and fighting off enemies who would willingly dispose of Israelis without a second thought, but this action may bring increase aggression towards Israel itself; if Israel stays quiet, it'll be letting the U.S. handle the situation alone, but since most of the terrorist cells in the area will probably be distracted, Israel will enjoy relative peace and quiet.

Just for the record, I am by no means a "pacifist." I strongly support the armed forces and am something of a know-it-all when it comes to the military. But that doesn't mean I am in favor of combat in all situations. There are times where it might benefit the U.S. to take a different approach. I'm not suggesting we sit down with Ahmadinejad and his cohorts and have "milk and cookies," but throwing ourselves into a large-scale conflict (such as invading Iran) right after being in Afghanistan and Iraq would probably not be the wisest of decisions to make for our men and women in the military (and depending on Iran's own capabilities, the civilian populace back home as well). Even a mighty superpower needs to "take a break" every once in a while.

I understand your thinking... The US is definetely spread too thin to take on Iran and the entire middle east. It just seems Iran is doing nothing but taunting us with their "secret" support and supply of the insurgency.

[Ban Hammer 13,365]

It really depends on the person really. Some will change, while others continue to adapt new progressive ideas.

why must it be progressive?

[Heracles 417]

From those posts of mine you quoted - what exactly did I take out of context?

Perhaps you can make sense of the tangled web that Boo-Yah! has woven since post 269.

Those opinions I referenced are things Boo-Yah! has specifically expressed across several threads and over a period of time.

How exactly can you take "blowing up a city" as retaliatory act out of context? It is what it is, and unless he really doesn't mean it then how would you interpret it?

Yes coming from the don't ever answer the question directly pro.. If anyone ever needs a beat around the bush / bullshit artist spokesperson, I will put your name forward.

I will reinforce the point you keep on making again. If schools where ever deliberately targeted here, 334 kids where killed and we knew exactly where the group was from and is hiding, we should then bomb the ###### out of that town.

[Heracles 417]

The insurgents you keep talking about are IRAQI's fighting the occupation of their country. The coalition have recognised there is only 1% foreign fighters. So you can keep flying the flag in the defence of nothing. You can be there 100 years they will still keep fighting. Iraqi people are intolerant of americans thats the bottom line. Even if the intentions were good by the US and not for financial reasons the truth is whether you like it or not they want you out! and before you call me a lefty I definitly am not that Im a conservetive and I say hang those trying to occupy your country. They are doing nothing more than what you would do if your country was occupied or what I would do or any person who has pride in his country. Its a swamp and the US are stuck.

yes. How stupid of the US for trying to bring democracy to another nation, at their expense.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From those posts of mine you quoted - what exactly did I take out of context?

Perhaps you can make sense of the tangled web that Boo-Yah! has woven since post 269.

Those opinions I referenced are things Boo-Yah! has specifically expressed across several threads and over a period of time.

How exactly can you take "blowing up a city" as retaliatory act out of context? It is what it is, and unless he really doesn't mean it then how would you interpret it?

Yes coming from the don't ever answer the question directly pro.. If anyone ever needs a beat around the bush / bullshit artist spokesperson, I will put your name forward.

I will reinforce the point you keep on making again. If schools where ever deliberately targeted here, 334 kids where killed and we knew exactly where the group was from and is hiding, we should then bomb the ###### out of that town.

Well I'll leave everyone else to judge the merits idea - in relation to your opinions on other subjects. It adds up to something quite ugly.

[Heracles 417]

..

Edited September 14, 2007 by Boo-Yah!