al-Qaeda wants US war with Iran - Page 3

fishBurger · 09-11-2007, 05:47 PM

I'm not speaking of any specific case, but I could name a few if you wanted. My post actually quotes from the USMC Small Wars Manual, circa 1940. It's no longer doctrine or directive, but it applies pretty well, i'd say.

As per Iran, if things escalate, then yes, I would support an invasion. There would have to be a real threat or new circumstance for me as a US citizen to politically support it... but then again, the political opinion of one citizen is hardly what shapes policy (good thing, too!). In the end, any actions taken against Iran will be up to those who have been elected and appointed to make the hard decisions, and we can only vote and hope that America's best interests will determine our policy, instead of political popularity or corporate greed.

Scuzzy · 09-11-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekiM

You said (emphasis mine) "The only thing war has ever accomplished is the ending of tyranny and opression". That is, in fact, an exclusive statement.

As accomplisments defined above, yeah, that was my opinion. You didn't answer my question and I throrougly answered yours.

Can Alqada be stopped through non-violent resistance? If so, how?

halo · 09-11-2007, 06:15 PM

Personally I think that Al-Qaeda should be stopped the way terrorism has always been stopped. By good policework to catch the extremists criminals and centre-ground, moderate politics to curb their support.

Jifcuits · 09-11-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

The only thing war has ever accomplished is the ending of tyranny and oppression. Freedom, liberty, and self rule have never been given away, it must be fought for and bought, and that currency is courage and blood.

Scuzzy

Freedom has been won without spilling blood.

uBeR · 09-11-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

As accomplisments defined above, yeah, that was my opinion. You didn't answer my question and I throrougly answered yours.

Can Alqada be stopped through non-violent resistance? If so, how?

Hah! Do you have me on ignore, or do you just choose not to respond?

Scuzzy · 09-11-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

Personally I think that Al-Qaeda should be stopped the way terrorism has always been stopped. By good policework to catch the extremists criminals and centre-ground, moderate politics to curb their support.

Let's assume for a moment that Iran is actually trying to create nuclear weapons. Let's also assume that we have reason to believe that Iran will hand nuclear weapons over to Alqada. Do we try to prevent that? In what way do you believe that could be done without any use of force?

Scuzzy

uBeR · 09-11-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Let's assume for a moment that Iran is actually trying to create nuclear weapons. Let's also assume that we have reason to believe that Iran will hand nuclear weapons over to Alqada. Do we try to prevent that? In what way do you believe that could be done without any use of force?

Scuzzy

This makes my above statement even funnier!

Scuzzy · 09-11-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uBeR

Hah! Do you have me on ignore, or do you just choose not to respond?

I didn't ignore you, I didn't really understand your point. I can't watch the video at the moment, either way I'd like to discuss and outline the points.

So what steps exactly do we need to do today to stop Alqada? Do they have a list of demands we should follow to appease them?

Scuzzy

Jifcuits · 09-11-2007, 07:24 PM

I think Al Qaeda could be stopped with diplomacy, but I do think it was necessary to invade Afghanistan to destroy the terrorist training camps. And if similar camps were made in a new country then military action would be justified.

In Northern Ireland military operations didn't solve the problem of the IRA, it took long negotiations and several failed cease fires to get the IRA to stop. But it worked and now the IRA has no guns apparently and there aren't many British soldiers in Northern Ireland.

Scuzzy · 09-11-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uBeR

This makes my above statement even funnier!

Let's hold off on the rhetoric for at least 10 pages, ok? Outline for me the steps we need to take immediately to get Alqada to stop killing people around the world.

Jifcuits · 09-11-2007, 07:30 PM

lol that's complicated, mind if we hear your plan first?

BinaryLife · 09-11-2007, 07:33 PM

But the IRA had a goal that could be mutually accomplished.

The primary goal of our current aggressors is to get us to leave the middle east and stay out of their affairs. This is a perfectly reasonable goal. But we are in too deep at the moment and can't just pull out and walk away. I do think we should work on letting them be. I don't think we can make a difference there anymore. But assuming we did leave, they have made it their secondary goal to eliminate us from life.

We can't exactly bargain that. We can't say "Hey, we'll leave you guys alone, and let you eliminate half of our country. Then call it even."

Not to imply that we're being very reasonable as a country (USA) but we aren't exactly dealing with the most reasonable of demands. You can not ignore the threats and actions Al Qaeda has taken. They have made it clear that want to kill Americans.

We could withdraw, and then increase our home defense efforts. So long as the withdrawing process is smooth and safe that would work fine. We aren't in their territory and they aren't in ours. It's childish and simplistic though. I'm not 100% on it.

Scuzzy · 09-11-2007, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiffCuts

lol that's complicated, mind if we hear your plan first?

I don't have a strictly non-violent plan, I'm not saying there could be one. Others here are, I want to hear one that will work and see the proof that it'll work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Not to imply that we're being very reasonable as a country (USA) but we aren't exactly dealing with the most reasonable of demands. You can not ignore the threats and actions Al Qaeda has taken. They have made it clear that want to kill Americans.

But I think the point these guys are making is that even though they want to kill us the problem can be solved non-violently, I want to know how.

Scuzzy

halo · 09-11-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Let's assume for a moment that Iran is actually trying to create nuclear weapons. Let's also assume that we have reason to believe that Iran will hand nuclear weapons over to Alqada. Do we try to prevent that? In what way do you believe that could be done without any use of force?

It seems in that video that Al Qaeda consider Iran to be their enemies. Even by the standard of extremist Islam, Al Qaeda are way out there. Iran is probably a decade away from nuclear weapons as things stand, their missile capabilities are minimal so they couldn't deploy them that far and there is no possibility they would give a nuke to Al Qaeda.

I think there's a large lack of understanding of Iranian politics and culture in the west and a lot of undue fear directed their way. As things stand Iran poses no threat to the US and that looks unlikely to change in the near future.

uBeR · 09-11-2007, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Let's hold off on the rhetoric for at least 10 pages, ok? Outline for me the steps we need to take immediately to get Alqada to stop killing people around the world.

Rhetoric? No. It's just a statement of opinion (or in my opinion, fact), that's very relevant to your post. Why is it funnier? Because if you actually bothered to watch the short video I posted, it's as if it's a direct reply to exactly what you had to say, from a senator and presidential candidate no less. Now, I could outline what the senator had to say and try to make nice bullet points for you so that you could respond with big block quotes, but I don't think that would do much justice to what the senator has to say and why. I think maybe if you want to hear ideas about what to do with Iran and other terrorists, you should just watch the video I posted and try to respond to it yourself.

BinaryLife · 09-11-2007, 07:41 PM

Personally I don't think it can.

We can't even re-enforce our boarders without the threat and subsequent action of violence on those trying to penetrate. We can't ask them nicely to turn around, nor can we boldy stand against a giant tank with one hand raised. Our enemy, in this case would happly drive over a thousand american children to get into our country.

uBeR · 09-11-2007, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

The primary goal of our current aggressors is to get us to leave the middle east and stay out of their affairs. This is a perfectly reasonable goal. But we are in too deep at the moment and can't just pull out and walk away. I do think we should work on letting them be. I don't think we can make a difference there anymore. But assuming we did leave, they have made it their secondary goal to eliminate us from life.

We can't exactly bargain that. We can't say "Hey, we'll leave you guys alone, and let you eliminate half of our country. Then call it even."

Not to imply that we're being very reasonable as a country (USA) but we aren't exactly dealing with the most reasonable of demands. You can not ignore the threats and actions Al Qaeda has taken. They have made it clear that want to kill Americans.

Our current aggressors, the people our men and women are currently fighting overseas, want to kill Americans. The easiest way for them to kill American people is to have them come to them. By every means, the Al-Queda enjoy killing our troops.

ekiM · 09-11-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

As accomplisments defined above, yeah, that was my opinion.

That is an idyosyncratic usage of "accomplished". Your phrasing seemed to imply that war has no ill effects.

It would have been less ambiguously phrased (in my opinion) as "The only good that has ever come of war is ending tyranny and opression".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You didn't answer my question and I throrougly answered yours.

Can Alqada be stopped through non-violent resistance? If so, how?

I'm not interested in debating current affairs with you.

Innoc · 09-11-2007, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uBeR

Our current aggressors, the people our men and women are currently fighting overseas, want to kill Americans. The easiest way for them to kill American people is to have them come to them. By every means, the Al-Queda enjoy killing our troops.

Along those lines it's not a stretch of the imagination to assume that if we do pull out there's a pretty good chance that they will do things to try to bait us into "conflict" with them again.

Scuzzy · 09-11-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekiM

I'm not interested in debating current affairs with you.

Of course not, you'd lose. You imply that things can be solved with non-violent resistance, but can't give us proof. How deliciously ironic.

I guess I can stop humoring your little nitpicks.

09-11-2007, 05:47 PM	#41
fishBurger get off my lawn Join Date: Mar 2007 Class/Position: O scout / demo Gametype: killing Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I'm not speaking of any specific case, but I could name a few if you wanted. My post actually quotes from the USMC Small Wars Manual, circa 1940. It's no longer doctrine or directive, but it applies pretty well, i'd say. As per Iran, if things escalate, then yes, I would support an invasion. There would have to be a real threat or new circumstance for me as a US citizen to politically support it... but then again, the political opinion of one citizen is hardly what shapes policy (good thing, too!). In the end, any actions taken against Iran will be up to those who have been elected and appointed to make the hard decisions, and we can only vote and hope that America's best interests will determine our policy, instead of political popularity or corporate greed. __________________ That means that either you are an American, or you are NOT an American. There is no hyphenated exception. -Iggy

09-11-2007, 06:15 PM	#43
halo Join Date: May 2007 Location: Barnsley, UK Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Personally I think that Al-Qaeda should be stopped the way terrorism has always been stopped. By good policework to catch the extremists criminals and centre-ground, moderate politics to curb their support.

09-11-2007, 07:24 PM	#49
Jifcuits Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I think Al Qaeda could be stopped with diplomacy, but I do think it was necessary to invade Afghanistan to destroy the terrorist training camps. And if similar camps were made in a new country then military action would be justified. In Northern Ireland military operations didn't solve the problem of the IRA, it took long negotiations and several failed cease fires to get the IRA to stop. But it worked and now the IRA has no guns apparently and there aren't many British soldiers in Northern Ireland.

09-11-2007, 07:30 PM	#51
Jifcuits Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	lol that's complicated, mind if we hear your plan first?

09-11-2007, 07:33 PM	#52
BinaryLife Posts: 1 bajillion D&A Member Wiki Team Join Date: Mar 2007 Gametype: CTF Posts Rated Helpful 5 Times	But the IRA had a goal that could be mutually accomplished. The primary goal of our current aggressors is to get us to leave the middle east and stay out of their affairs. This is a perfectly reasonable goal. But we are in too deep at the moment and can't just pull out and walk away. I do think we should work on letting them be. I don't think we can make a difference there anymore. But assuming we did leave, they have made it their secondary goal to eliminate us from life. We can't exactly bargain that. We can't say "Hey, we'll leave you guys alone, and let you eliminate half of our country. Then call it even." Not to imply that we're being very reasonable as a country (USA) but we aren't exactly dealing with the most reasonable of demands. You can not ignore the threats and actions Al Qaeda has taken. They have made it clear that want to kill Americans. We could withdraw, and then increase our home defense efforts. So long as the withdrawing process is smooth and safe that would work fine. We aren't in their territory and they aren't in ours. It's childish and simplistic though. I'm not 100% on it.

09-11-2007, 07:41 PM	#56
BinaryLife Posts: 1 bajillion D&A Member Wiki Team Join Date: Mar 2007 Gametype: CTF Posts Rated Helpful 5 Times	Personally I don't think it can. We can't even re-enforce our boarders without the threat and subsequent action of violence on those trying to penetrate. We can't ask them nicely to turn around, nor can we boldy stand against a giant tank with one hand raised. Our enemy, in this case would happly drive over a thousand american children to get into our country.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)