xTYBALTx

I'm sorry, this is simply incorrect. Your comparison is not valid.

The point I made was in reference to limited strikes, not regime change (as was pursued with Japan and Germany).

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

xTYBALTx

Switchcraft, I'd like to adress two of your points.


1) Would Iran use nukes against Israel?

Iran has called for the annihilation of Israel on several occasions. They deny the holocaust. Iran supports Hezbollah, which has been engaged in anti-Israeli activities since its inception in 1982. It's clear that Iran doesn't like Israel.

Well, so what? The United States clearly doesn't like North Korea's current leadership. We clearly don't like Iran's leadership. But we don't nuke them, do we? Heck, there isn't even a remote possiblity of reprisal from either nation, yet we still haven't nuked them. And let's not forget that by all estimates, Israel has more than a sufficient nuclear deterrent of its own. If Iran succesfully develops nuclear weapons and some day a terrorist wanders into Tel Aviv and detonates a nuclear weapon, do you expect Israel to wait more than precisely one second before utterly destroying Iran? I sure don't.


2) Is Hezbollah a terrorist organization?

Hezbollah has been classified as a terrorist organization by the USA, UK, Netherlands, Canada, Israel, Australia, and most recently the European Parliament - by a vote of 473 - 8. Clearly Hezbollah must be a terrorist organization! Can all of those politicians be wrong? Oh, if only it were so simple.

According to the US State Department, Hezbollah is believed to have kidnapped around 30 Americans between 1982 & 1992, to have bombed the US embassy in Beirut twice (1983 & 1984), to have bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut (1983), as well as to have hijacked an airliner (1985). Hezbollah has denied involvement in most of these activities. Hezbollah has also kidnapped and killed several Israeli soldiers (at least two of the kidnapped Americans were also killed in captivity, one a Marine and one the CIA station chief in Beirut).

This is quite a laundery list of items, but most of it constitutes military action and targets "legitimate" military targets; that is war, not terrorism. This may make them our enemies, but it doens't make them a "terrorist organization." Terrorists blow up buses. They fly airliners into buildings. Hezbollah has done none of this.

All of Hezbollah's activities against the USA occurred at least 12 years ago. Their significant activities occured over 20 years ago. Since that time, Hezbollah's strength has grown considerably - and yet they've left us alone. In fact, Hezbollah has denounced several terrorist attacks, including the September 11th attacks, GIA slaughters, Islamic Group attacks on tourists in Egypt, and the murder of Nick Berg.


Both Hezbollah and Iran are enemies of Israel. They actively seek hostility with Israel. But do not confuse Israel's position with our own. Neither of these entities any longer seek hostility with us.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Switchcraft

I don't know if you've ever been stationed in or around South Korea, but I've spent time over there. The number one reason why we fear a war with North Korea is the estimated 1.5 million people that would die in the first 15 minutes of even a conventional conflict. There is no place in the South Korean capitol that is not reachable by artillery fire from North Korea.

I really have no idea why North Korea is always mentioned whenever people are talking about Iran. I find your comparison in particular unconvincing. Since we don't like North Korea, but haven't nuked them, we should trust Iran won't use nukes against Israel? Iran just gleefully announced the production of 57,000 centrifuges for mass production of enriched uranium. Pardon me if I take them seriously.

As to Hezbollah, your definition of terrorist and mine may differ. The definition I was taught has nothing to do with who they target. Kidnapping, maiming, the hijacking of a civilian airliner, the bombings of embassies...I disagree with your description of these as legitimate military tactics and targets.

Edited to add: I also find your admonition to not confuse our position Israel's to be pointless. If we do not stand by our allies when they are threatened, why have allies at all? Personally, I am against genocide, and I think it should be the position of the United States to be against genocide, too.

Steeler

You can profess your right to be illogical all you want, but I'd appreciate it if you would occassionally address the substance of an opinion you disagree with rather than dismissing it as invalid based on the percieved bias of the author. If you want to level constant ad hominem attacks against people whenever you can't face them logically, fine. But your opinion ain't worth jack as a result. An ad hominem attack is an insult. Last I checked there were bare minimum requirements for respect in the sandbox.

And if you think I'm changing my position to be diametrically opposite the President, then you have simply not been paying attention. You are confusing correlation with causation. Has it occured to you that people may dislike Mr. Bush because they disagree with him and not the other way around?

Anyway, in this case it seems strange for you to level the Bush-hater claim at anyone, since the President hasn't actually stated clearly WHAT the strategy on Iran will be. So any opinions you read here are more or less genuine products of the authors' personal beliefs and do not pivot on the White House. Deal with them as they are.

__________________

xTYBALTx

My point referred specifically to strategic nuclear strikes.

That's not what I said.

The war against terrorism wasn't launched because of embassy bombings or kidnappings. It was launched in response to a spectacular terrorist attack on an explicitly civilian target. Does that mean that we ignore people who kidnap and torture our troops? No. But these things happened over 20 years ago and aren't cause for serious alarm.

The United States will always stand by Israel. But the United States is not Israel. The United States faces different threats from Israel. Hezbollah is a relatively small thorn in Israel's side and does not pose any significant threat to the United States.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Switchcraft

...I'm glad, but I still don't understand what you were getting at in that context.


I didn't say they were. What I did say was that Iran is considered to be the largest state sponsor of terror. I used Hezbollah as an example, and you seem to disagree with the categorizing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. That's fine, though dozens of intelligence agencies around the world disagree with you based on their own investigations. Iran still supports dozens of other terror groups, and provides them with training facilities, etc.

I don't understand what you mean when you bring up the war on terror in this context. We were against terrorism before the "war on terror" and used direct and indirect measures to fight it. But Iran's willingness to provide funding, arms, and training to groups that have attacked us and our allies should be considered when we look at them becoming a nuclear power.



I wasn't saying it was. What I was saying is that a nuclear Iran does pose a grave threat to Isreal.

Wyzcrak

By design or otherwise, and right or wrong, that bare minimum regularly allows for a far poorer form than our much-touted and otherwise well-deserved claims of "premiere, mature community" might lead one to expect.

__________________
Steam Community? Add me. | Join #tacticalgamer | Search Results Legend | New Posts Forum Filter | Postbox Toggle | Live Thread Review | One Line Results | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

ScratchMonkey

Most of the talk here seems military-oriented. Anyone have any insight into Iran's culture? My impression is that it's a very repressive place. How does it compare to the US Bible Belt? Does the state sponsorship of terror arise from a cultural basis?

Rather than dream about how to conquer Iran, perhaps we'd do better to learn how to subvert it.

__________________

leejo

Oh I think a regime change in Iran is a foregone conclusion. We may play a minor role in making that happen or we may be the instrument of change, but I can't imagine any US administration not thinking that our national security situation would be greatly improved with a different, less hostile, less nutty Iranian government.

SmokingTarpan

Well, we were vehemently against N. Korea getting nukes, but haven't really done anything against them. On the other hand, we're also vehemently against Iran getting nukes, and are already considering our military options to prevent that. One has to wonder why it's okay to bail on preventing one nation from doing something, but to go after another for the same reason.

I don't view N. Korea as any less hostile toward S. Korea than Iran is to Israel; the two antagonists simply go about their hostility in different ways.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

xTYBALTx

This isn't relevant to the point I made.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

AMosely

Stick to speaking for yourself, and don't promise me anything about my intelligence, or how I judge issues. I've met Reagan, Bush Sr., and plenty of other White House officals and staff, on the left and the right, many before I could even vote - granted, on a "this is my son" level, but none the less - I know they are all human beings, with hearts and minds. It's the dirt of politics and policy that makes these people into what we might perceive them to be.

I don't have a kneejerk reaction based on who's in office, or what party affiliation they are. I voted for and support both of my state's republican senators, but voted for a democratic congressman. I've voted for republicans, democrats and independent/green candiates.

I do have a kneejerk reaction to brazen acts of imperial hubris, which I've been seeing way too much of from the current administration.

If you want to know where I stand on Bush, I'll outline my views:

I have been searching for things that I agree with Bush on since he took office. I've agreed with him on his post-9/11 intelligence reform efforts, the US Patriot Act (with some reservations), his stance on the importance of resolving social security's flaws (though I questioned his solution, as did most Americans), and most recently his stance on immigration reform. I also applaud his funding of scientific research into climate change - although I fear that his motivation for this is the opposite of mine.

I disagree with him on his handling of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but can see where he too may have been a victim of bad intelligence and advice. I'm angry at his lack of leadership and oversight during and after Katrina. I disagree with his pro-business, pro-money attitude towards the economy, and his resulting overconfidence in private interests. Lastly, I am disturbed and offended by his continual mixing of religious faith with government policy.

I didn't vote for him because I think he is underqualified for the office, his domestic agenda is too focused on money and power, and his diplomatic agenda subscribes to the theories of the Project for the New American Century, which I unequivocally reject on multiple levels.

If all that sounds like one giant kneejerk, I'd like to know.

leejo

You're putting words in my mouth again. Stop.

I think you may want to look at how many times you've responded to posts with comments about Fox News, Bill O'Reilley, the Weekly Standard, and so on, and recognize that you have absolutely no problem dismissing a position as "opinion" or "biased" when it suits you. That's merely what I've done here. I'm not attacking anyone, and I don't think I've called anyone names, I've simply stated that I believe some people are biased against the President and are inclined to take the position opposite of his.

When you do it, you're informing the readers that the writer has a bias and an agenda. When I do it, you accuse me of calling "everyone" a "Bush Hater" and get hissy that I've used an ad hominem attack.

There is evidence that the media will report economic news one way when a republican is President and another way when a democrat is President. I've noticed that myself. I merely think the same phenomenon is happening in this debate.

This is my opinion. I'm entitled to it. You are not entitled to shout it down or call me names for having it. If you disagree, then disagree, but don't attack my right to the opinion, or tell me that I'm attacking or insulting people with it, or imply that I'm violating forum rules or spirit.

You may wish to spend more time logically demonstrating how my opinion is wrong and less attacking the person who expresses the opinion, given your aversion to ad hominem attacks.

CingularDuality

The Koreas have been on the verge of reuniting, has Iran and Israel contemplated joining hands and singing Kum-bah-ya?

The Koreas share a culture, they share blood ties and are forced to work with each other every day. Basically, it's only their governments that don't get along. Can you say the same about Iran and Israel? Heck, Iran isn't even an Arab country but they want to get involved...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Steeler

There is a big difference between questioning the agenda or bias of a cited source and accusing someone on this forum of being less than honest in his or her posts. If you have evidence that someone is misrepresenting themselves for a hidden agenda (although why they would do this on an Internet forum as opposed to a public media outlet eludes me), then say so. If you have a problem with something I've said, call me out, but please do not hide behind a dismissive "some people." We all know who you mean when you say "some people," so just come out and say it.
No one is shouting you down, calling you names, or otherwise denying you your right to your opinion. However, you ARE insulting people by questioning their motives without reason or evidence. And I'm not going to just let that go unchallenged. Who's throwing a hissy now?

I think I've already trounced your arguments on their merits several times now, thank you.

__________________