All Hank, all the time.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Re-read the question. "Now"?

If Abemehudhjah (sp) keeps rattling the sabre and threatening to wipe Israel off the map, there may be little choice.

And tactical nukes aren't necessarily the option. We have plenty of other non-nuclear hardware that could level Tehran.

But again, does the West have the stomach to level an entire city [a la Berlin, Hiroshima]?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
does the West have the stomach to level an entire city [a la Berlin, Hiroshima]?

No. Possibly if there were an actual world war going on, but as an opening attack? Hah.

eta probably you were not asking that with any seriousness and I am just tired and didn't pick up on it. because no one could ask that with any seriousness.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Until we somehow educate these people and give them money, they'll be Islamic nuts, and nothing we can do with them.

I used to agree with you. However, the 9/11 attackers are a perfect example. They all came from middle to upper class families and were extemely well educated.

Many of the so-called leaders of the Islamist movement are the better-educated among the throngs.

The old thought that "Westernization" would win them over isn't playing out

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Do the people on this board calling for Bush's head every day honestly believe things would change if we elect a Democrat?

I wonder if they think a Dem could actually bring soldiers home.

It's kind of funny. These people seem to think we can elect our way out of tangles with the Islamic World. As if Arabs might suddenly shift gears when they see we elected a "reasonable" person who recognizes their right to exist in the the 14th Century and behave like Barbarians.

Iraq was a mistake. Done. No Dems going to fix it. The belief we can, in some absurd Kosian fantasy, "fix it" by electing someone who hates Bush, is, well, perfectly Kosian.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I used to agree with you. However, the 9/11 attackers are a perfect example. They all came from middle to upper class families and were extemely well educated.

Many of the so-called leaders of the Islamist movement are the better-educated among the throngs.

The old thought that "Westernization" would win them over isn't playing out

They were those high school murderers in Colorado on a global scale. You're right. You can't fight that sort of thing. With culture or bombs. Lunatics will be lunatics.

You're not giving westernization enough time. Bush was more than mainly correct when he said this thing was a long haul.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Many of the so-called leaders of the Islamist movement are the better-educated among the throngs.

I do agree with killing them like dogs. Of course, they can also be bought... Particularly where reminded the option is death.

Musharraf needs to let us burn the madrasses to the ground.

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
No. Possibly if there were an actual world war going on, but as an opening attack? Hah.

eta probably you were not asking that with any seriousness and I am just tired and didn't pick up on it. because no one could ask that with any seriousness.

And I ask it with entire seriousness. Do we hand-wring, fret and worry about "collateral damage" (see Vietnam, now) or do we go after the enemy with fury and desire to win (see union army, WWII)?

By saying "if there were an actual war going on" - you actually mean "should we retaliate if attacked"?

And having watched an "opening attack" first hand, I honestly have no moral problem whatsoever with pre-emptively leveling an entire city and killing everything that moves if they're trying to get us first.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If Abemehudhjah (sp) keeps rattling the sabre and threatening to wipe Israel off the map, there may be little choice.

And tactical nukes aren't necessarily the option. We have plenty of other non-nuclear hardware that could level Tehran.

But again, does the West have the stomach to level an entire city [a la Berlin, Hiroshima]?

I do.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And I ask it with entire seriousness. Do we hand-wring, fret and worry about "collateral damage" (see Vietnam, now) or do we go after the enemy with fury and desire to win (see union army, WWII)?

By saying "if there were an actual war going on" - you actually mean "should we retaliate if attacked"?

And having watched an "opening attack" first hand, I honestly have no moral problem whatsoever with pre-emptively leveling an entire city and killing everything that moves if they're trying to get us first.

I'm with ya bro! At least someone has the courage to tell it like it is!!! Go Slave, Go!

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Do the people on this board calling for Bush's head every day honestly believe things would change if we elect a Democrat?

I wonder if they think a Dem could actually bring soldiers home.

Funny story - Bechtel apparently has offices in our building.

Today, a bunch of losers with nothing better to do (i.e. typical SF protestors) blockcaded both our front and back doors - protesting Bush and the war - such that everyone couldn't leave for lunch.

Quite surreal actually - about 20 hippies, as many cops, keeping about 200 hungry office workers from grabbing a sandwich and milling about the lobby.

Finally, the cops arrested a few and we were able to escape to the salad place. I might even be on the news tonight, excoriating the lead hippie to "get a damn job" while she was being interviewed, standing in the doorway, with an upside-down flag

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Funny story - Bechtel apparently has offices in our building.

Today, a bunch of losers with nothing better to do (i.e. typical SF protestors) blockcaded both our front and back doors - protesting Bush and the war - such that everyone couldn't leave for lunch.

Quite surreal actually - about 20 hippies, as many cops, keeping about 200 hungry office workers from grabbing a sandwich and milling about the lobby.

Finally, the cops arrested a few and we were able to escape to the salad place. I might even be on the news tonight, excoriating the lead hippie to "get a damn job" while she was being interviewed, standing in the doorway, with an upside-down flag

That reminds me, yesterday I saw that bum who called you a gay that one time. I flipped him off for you.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Spanky -- since you are sane,

There are many people (including many on this board) that would dispute this assumption.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
and since you apparently need something to talk about, maybe you could comment on this. Do you advocate nuking Iran?

We should definitely not Nuke Iran. At least not at this time. And it is hard for me to imagine a scenario when we should be the first to use Nukes in a confrontation.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do you think that we have a realistic chance of targetting and eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities and programs with a quick set of bombing raids?

Probably not. Obviously I am not an expert, but it is my understanding that the system is spread out or to far underground to be vulnerable.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do you think we could pull off another invasion?

We could if we had to, but it would seriously tax our armed forces (and our nation) and should only be used as a last resort. We are very overextended and right now the country really hasn't had to make serious sacrfices for our current military involvement. An invasion of Iran would require some sacrifices by the US public. That would go over like a lead balloon. I think Iran (unlike Iraq before the invasion) is headed towards a more democratic country. It will never like Israel but they may warm up to us over time.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Put more simply -- as I asked before --- do we have a military option in Iran?

We can always bloody their nose if they don't do what we ask. But for now I think there are lot more things we can try short of a military attack. Unless there is some dramatic changes, I don't think a military attack on Iran in the near future would be prudent.

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
That reminds me, yesterday I saw that bum who called you a gay that one time. I flipped him off for you.

Still successfully surving on the streets as a vagrant. Gotta love that kind of can-do American spirit.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton

So much for "Jews Control the Media." Looks more like Mel Gibson's at the reigns.

There are a lot of Jews in the media, and definitely a lot of Jews in Hollywood (especially in positions of power), however, there is a subtle anti-Semitic undercurrent (and sometimes not so subtle) to our media and to most of the stuff that comes out of Hollywood. A friend once told me that no one loves to stereo type the Jews more than the Jews. Whatever the case is, Hollywood promotes negative Jewish stereotypes giving more ammunition to heartland militias and zealots (and to nut balls all around the world).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
We could if we had to, but it would seriously tax our armed forces (and our nation) and should only be used as a last resort.

The population is 70 million, well more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. It's hard to imagine that the population would be on our side. The terrain is generally less conducive to the kind of operations we would want to stage, and our supply lines presumably would come through hostile (Shi'ite) territory in Iraq. Considering how stretched our forces are now, an invasion would be a tall order.

Of course, what's possible depends on what we try to do. Occupying Tehran would be a nightmare. But invading less populated parts of the country less so.