Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 8/30/2004 9:22:41 AM EST
Feeling a bit hawkish today, I am.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:25:28 AM EST
Hopefully that campaign can get started the day after the election...they are long overdue for a serious ass kicking.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:26:06 AM EST
You'll have to wait until after November.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:29:05 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:29:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Feeling a bit hawkish today, I am.



Extremely.

Especially after reading the article about how the Iranian justice system executed a 16 year old girl.

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:32:08 AM EST
We as a nation need to find a way to encourage the already growing movement within Iran towards democracy.

If the younger folks who have been leaning towards a true democracy had some help, we may be able to enact change without firing a shot.

Truth be told, this is why the mullahs are deathly afraid of whats happening in Iraq. All that the people of Iran need is a positive Arab role model and all bets are off.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:32:54 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:33:08 AM EST
We need to nuke Iran now, and stare down North Korea while we're doing it.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:39:57 AM EST
It's been a long time coming... Maybe one day.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:45:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 9:54:23 AM EST by Cato]
Yep, involve the US in even more battles! Let's spread forces over the whole earth!! Never mind that they already call the war in Afghanistan the "forgotten" one... yeah, since all has gone sooo well in southern Iraq, lets dream of the real hornets nest- Iran!

I guess you all are in the Army with your families thousands of miles away? Or is it just the warm fuzzy security of the armchair general, who isn't in danger to get drafted anyway?
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:45:24 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:46:57 AM EST
we can't in the near future, iraq hasn't gone as planned.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:51:58 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:52:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cato:
Yep, involve the US in even more battles! Let's spread forces!!
I guess you all are in the Army with your families thousands miles away? Or is it just the warm fuzzy security of the armchair general, who isn't in danger to get drafted anyway?



You might be surpised at who advocates war here on this board. Not all 'armchair generals'.

Maybe if we all start riding a bicycle and ignore the bullies it will go away by itself? And the answer is not to leave them alone (since '79 it has gotten worse).

The draft in WWII went well into the 40' year-olds IIRC.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:53:18 AM EST
Let me go talk to my jewish friend about this.


I think he can help.

Sgtar15
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:56:20 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:00:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 10:06:29 AM EST by Cato]
Don't get me wrong, I am for a surgical special forces engagement, fast raids & limited air strikes (non nuclear- we don't need the whole world branding the USA as pure evil) and I do think that the USA and Israel are the ones that guard the Westzern civilization, but even thinking of another Iraq scenario is simply crazy. IMHO the loss and sacrifices of the whole WWII generation is not something we should ask for. One can't win against muslim terror by mass bombardment. It wasn't very sucessful against the Nazis, I wouldn't be against those who sit in every western society...
I don't want the USA go down the route of the Roman Empire- with too many wars to fight- because I know in what chaos this would result...
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:06:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cato:
Don't get me wrong, I am for a surgical special forces engagement, fast raids & limited air strikes (non nuclear- we don't need the whole world branding the USA as pure evil) and I do think that the USA and Israel are the ones that guard the Westzern civilization, but even thinking of another Iraq scenario is simply crazy. IMHO the loss and sacrifices of the whole WWII generation is not something we should ask for. I don't want the USA go down the route of the Roman Empire- with too many wars to fight- because I know in what chaos this would result...



And a valid concern for sure...
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:08:43 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:12:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By RustyTX:

Originally Posted By Cato:
Don't get me wrong, I am for a surgical special forces engagement, fast raids & limited air strikes (non nuclear- we don't need the whole world branding the USA as pure evil) and I do think that the USA and Israel are the ones that guard the Westzern civilization, but even thinking of another Iraq scenario is simply crazy. IMHO the loss and sacrifices of the whole WWII generation is not something we should ask for. I don't want the USA go down the route of the Roman Empire- with too many wars to fight- because I know in what chaos this would result...



And a valid concern for sure...



Indeed it is. So how about this: we pull out of Iraq altogether, invade Iran, destroying all offensive capability, kill/capture their corrupt leaders, and then leave there immediately. Sure, not sticking around to rebuild them may not be the most "compassionate" plan, but it would get the job done, it would send the message to the world that we WILL deal with you if you plan to harm us, and it would cost the least American lives. To those of you who say, "if we do that we'll just have to go back in a few years", my response is: would that cost any more American lives than an Iraq-style occupation?
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:13:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cato:
Don't get me wrong, I am for a surgical special forces engagement, fast raids & limited air strikes (non nuclear- we don't need the whole world branding the USA as pure evil) and I do think that the USA and Israel are the ones that guard the Westzern civilization, but even thinking of another Iraq scenario is simply crazy. IMHO the loss and sacrifices of the whole WWII generation is not something we should ask for. One can't win against muslim terror by mass bombardment. It wasn't very sucessful against the Nazis, I wouldn't be against those who sit in every western society...
I don't want the USA go down the route of the Roman Empire- with too many wars to fight- because I know in what chaos this would result...



If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.
Thomas Paine
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:17:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By bulldog1967:

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.
Thomas Paine



This is my personal nightmare (that and the clown on the airplane thing, but that's for another thread).
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:50:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By AR-JR:
We as a nation need to find a way to encourage the already growing movement within Iran towards democracy.

If the younger folks who have been leaning towards a true democracy had some help, we may be able to enact change without firing a shot.

Truth be told, this is why the mullahs are deathly afraid of whats happening in Iraq. All that the people of Iran need is a positive Arab Shiite Muslim role model and all bets are off.



Arabs & Iranians (Persians) hate eachother, and have since the Persians took down Babylon...

However, the Iranians follow the same sect of Islam as the majority of Iraqis...

If democracy works in Iraq it will spread to Iran across religeous, not ethnic lines...
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:45:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 11:47:17 AM EST by swankforce]
Guys, come on, its a nuclear power plant, they need nuclear power because they dont have enough oil to power a traditional power plant.

on a serious note:
The Israelis had the right Idea in 81, took out Saddams Osirak reactor, no drones, just stupid Raqi's , some good American firepower & Israeli pilots, count how many times you see the word "france" or "french", hmm, I say we finish France, than Iran. Could someone call the Eagle Scouts to go invade France, we'll let the military handle these FUCKING PSYCHOTIC IRANIANS!!!

link to story


1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor
The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.

With remarkable precision, an undisclosed number of F-15 bombers and F-16 fighters destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

The army command said all the Israeli planes returned safely.

The 70-megawatt uranium-powered reactor was near completion but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of a leak, according to sources in the French atomic industry.



Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:57:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By AR-JR:
We as a nation need to find a way to encourage the already growing movement within Iran towards democracy.

If the younger folks who have been leaning towards a true democracy had some help, we may be able to enact change without firing a shot.

Truth be told, this is why the mullahs are deathly afraid of whats happening in Iraq. All that the people of Iran need is a positive Arab role model and all bets are off.




Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Again, NO US boot should ever HAVE to set foot in Iran in order to destroy their nuclear threat!

Nuclear reactors make excellent targets for a lot of different types of ordnance. A small coolant line being busted will spell the instant doom of the entire facility.

We need the goodwill of the Iranian people in order to continue the de-IslamoFacist crusade in the Middle East.

If there is not of collateral damage, i.e., dead Iranian citizens, we should not have any problem in keeping this goodwill!

Eric The(SurgicalStrikes,Anyone?)Hun



A combo of these two approaches is the best way to go, IMHO.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:58:44 AM EST
The only problem here is that the Iranians haven't concentrated their enrichment efforts in just one site. You can strike the reactor, but there are other efforts taking place in less detectable areas.

Unfortunately, the Muslim bomb is here. A well publicized MAD policy is most likely going to be the new strategy.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 12:04:51 PM EST
Iran is next.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 12:07:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sandguard:
Iran is next.



For those who think Iran is next, think again...
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 12:13:11 PM EST
Cato, I find you amusing...not funny, just amusing. If I'm sitting in an armchair, it's because I'm a 100% disabled veteran, no warm and fuzzy feelings involved. Not something I would wish on generation after generation of Americans. You seem to think we are in control of the situation, not defending ourselves from maniacs who want to wipe us off the face off the Earth. We can't make this just go away. At least the battle for Manhatten will look good on TV. 10,000,000 unarmed New Yorkers vs 5,000 Al-Queda law breakers, RPGs from 50 stories up, shooting down on the helicopters, smart bombs into skyscrapers...it's gonna look way cool.

Does the AUT stand for autistic?

Am I pissing you off? I hope so. Time to pick up your share the load.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 12:15:19 PM EST
There is a reason our aircraft carrier in the gulf is not nuclear.

If we hit Iran now we'd have no route to supply forces in Iraq, or to withdraw if that became necessary.

If we strike Iran it'll have to be a total war for victory, not a tactical strike on a reactor, they do have the capability to deny us the gulf if they choose, and lay the green zone waste. We'd need to destroy that capability.

We'll be waiting for a stable Iraq before we play games in Iran, waiting for a very long time. When the decision is made, after the election and assuming Bush wins, it'll be a war not a sortie.

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 12:38:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
There is a reason our aircraft carrier in the gulf is not nuclear.

If we hit Iran now we'd have no route to supply forces in Iraq, or to withdraw if that became necessary.

If we strike Iran it'll have to be a total war for victory, not a tactical strike on a reactor, they do have the capability to deny us the gulf if they choose, and lay the green zone waste. We'd need to destroy that capability.

We'll be waiting for a stable Iraq before we play games in Iran, waiting for a very long time. When the decision is made, after the election and assuming Bush wins, it'll be a war not a sortie.





Couldn't have said it better myself.

Obviously Iraq needs to be under control before we undertake a WAR in Iran. No one is advocating it be next month. TOTAL WAR is a very accurate term. We don't have enough boots right now to do it AND keep our iron in other fires. Might even require a draft. So be it.

We should NEVER repeat the mistakes of Iraq, i.e. not enough troops, not an aggressive enough stance during the occupation phase, "negotiating" with murderers, etc. And before you get started with the preaching, I DON'T CARE how many Muslims get pissed at us. They friggin' hate us to start with and the sooner we as a nation realize this and act accordingly the quicker we'll succeed. I'm not advocating the wholesale slaughter of civilians but the old addage of "get off the tracks when the train's coming" pops into mind. And if they show hostility during an occupation they get treated as they did in post-WWII Germany---harshly. The Arab/Muslim mindset puts a premium on the respect of force. The carrot they don't understand, but the STICK, now THAT rings a bell!!!
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 1:02:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 1:04:20 PM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By Cato:
Don't get me wrong, I am for a surgical special forces engagement, fast raids & limited air strikes (non nuclear- we don't need the whole world branding the USA as pure evil)

Nuclear strikes against Japan seemed to work without the world branding the US 'Pure Evil', even the Japanese got over it

One can't win against muslim terror by mass bombardment. It wasn't very sucessful against the Nazis,

Oh yeah? Hamburg, Dresden and a few others seemed to get their attention

I don't want the USA go down the route of the Roman Empire- with too many wars to fight- because I know in what chaos this would result...

I would say that the problem is the VERY FACT that the US is not following the Roman Empires model in dealing with it's enemies… ie, being an utterly ruthless and implacable foe when attacked. Rome was top dog when it was expanding its empire, attack Rome and you would die… no mercy, no negotiations, you would die… usually horribly. Rome became soft and started negotiating with its enemies… thats when things started going wrong


Link Posted: 8/30/2004 1:47:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 1:59:14 PM EST by Cato]
Well, most historians agree that the mass bombardements of cities in WWII only
strengthened the fanatism & will of Germanys population and that it did NOTHING
to end the war sooner. Occupation was still necessary. Quote:


In December 1943, he declared that his bomber force could bring about the collapse of Germany by April 1944. Yet Harris's high hopes proved unfounded. By the end of March, German morale was nowhere near breaking point, and Hitler's war machine was far from crippled. German armament production continued to rise until mid 1944.

It was not, as Harris had expected, the destruction of German cities that proved decisive for the Allies in 1944 - it was the superiority of the RAF over the Luftwaffe in the air. It enabled the bomber forces to neutralise strategic and tactical targets in France, which was crucial for the success of the D-Day landings and the subsequent advance of Allied ground forces.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/area_bombing_03.shtml

Guess what- if you declare open "world war" on the muslim world, you will loose.
The muslim world is hysterical beyond all rational thought, they would LOVE to
finally have the great war against the "big satan". Just look at the palestinians-
instead of building a nation of their own, they sacrifice generations to fight Israel.
They are loosers, who think they can make up for it in war. Our soldiers and
technologies are so much better, but we have a lot more to loose too. Like cancer
cells, they are already implemented in every western society, so a nice little civil war
with suicide bombers blowing up whole districts, would disrupt our economy and
take away all civil liberties (but then, you don't got any in Great Britain anway).
Let me try an analogy- I don't know how they treat cancer now in Tony Blair's
little paradise, but certainly the best way isn't a head shot.

Surgical strikes and low key warfare are far more effective than a hysterical
world war III declaration.

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 1:52:50 PM EST
No Way! We must not attack peaceful nations even if they do have WMDs. Better to absorb one or two nukes before we make a decision.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 2:27:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 2:37:43 PM EST by vito113]
-
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 2:37:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 3:00:36 PM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By Cato:
take away all civil liberties (but then, you don't got any in Great Britain anway).





Thats pretty rich for someone from Austria!

Austria's most famous export, and just as popular in Austria now as he was in 1938……



ANdy
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 2:55:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
We need to nuke Iran now, and stare down North Korea while we're doing it.



I thought the invastion of Iraq had little to do with Saddamn and a lot more to do with letting North Korea know we'd play hardball if they pushed us.

Link Posted: 8/31/2004 6:10:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 6:25:12 AM EST by Cato]

Originally Posted By vito113:
Austria's most famous export, and just as popular in Austria now as he was in 1938……



Do you have anything rational to say or are you just trolling away with insults?
You have just proven that you know nothing about contemporary Austria (and it's polls).

Sorry, even if it is hard to swallow for you, I can prove my point that Great
Britain IS a police state. You don't even have the most basic civil rights granted:


A. Freedom of Speech and of the Press
[...]Conversely, British law is being used to undermine American free speech principles.
[...]Prior restraint of speech in the United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances.[188] In England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even having notice or the opportunity to present an argument.[189] The prohibition of such prior restraints was one of the primary goals of the authors of the First Amendment. Thus, one of Blackstone's fundamental rules of civil liberty--the prohibition on prior restraints[190]--has disappeared as Britain in the 1990s regresses to a standard below that of the 1760s.
[...]Free speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any government agency, and allows government to forbid publication of any "secret" it pleases.[193] Notably, the Official Secrets Act was enacted in 1911, a year in which Britain was suffering from anti-foreign, anti-gun national security hysteria.[194] The Official Secrets Act was expanded in 1920 and again in 1988, both years when gun controls were expanded. While the American government carries the burden of proving that a document was appropriately classified as secret, the British subject carries the burden of proving that a document should not be secret.[195]

B. Terrorism
The British justice system's response to Irish Republican Army terrorism within Britain has been particularly disturbing. In 1974, terrorists bombed pubs in Birmingham, killing twenty-one people. Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, author of the 1967 shotgun controls, introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Approved without objection in Parliament, the Bill was supposed to expire in one year, but has been renewed every year. Under the Bill, the police may stop and search without a warrant any person suspected of terrorism. They may arrest any person they "reasonably suspect" supports an illegal organization, or any person who has participated in terrorist activity. An arrested person may be detained up to forty-eight hours and then for five more days upon the authority of the Secretary of State. Of the 6,246 people detained between 1974 and 1986, eight-seven percent were never charged with any offense. Many detainees reported that they were intimidated during detention and prevented from contacting their families.
[...]
The Birmingham bombings that led to the Prevention of Terrorism Act resulted in the conviction of a group of defendants called the "Birmingham Six." The defendants confessed while being held incommunicado by the police. The various confessions were so factually inconsistent that they could not have been true.[217] The forensic scientist whose testimony convicted the Birmingham Six later admitted that he lied in court. Amnesty International charged that the defendants' confessions were extracted under torture. Civil libertarians fear that the Birmingham case is only one of many instances of police obtaining coerced confessions.[218]
[...]

C. Judicial Review and the Courts
While the United States has the Miranda rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods.[233] The American doctrine of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" bars use of evidence derived from leads developed in a coerced confession.[234] Britain allows use of such evidence.[235] Even the traditional right to silence has been abolished, as 1994 legislation now allows a defendant's silence to be used as evidence against him.[236] Further, defense trial lawyers (barristers) often serve as prosecutors on other cases. The clubby, collegial relationship between prosecution and defense counsel discourages defense counsel from aggressive defense of clients.[237] Four out of five defendants pleading innocent do not even meet their barrister until the first day of trial.[238] It is not difficult for the police to obtain legal authorization to search wherever they want since, for example, wiretaps do not need judicial approval.[239]
[...]
To enforce the gun control laws, the police have been given broad search and seizure powers. Sections 46 through 50 of the 1968 Firearms Act authorized the police to search individuals and vehicles without warrants, to require the handing-over of weapons for inspection, and to arrest without a warrant, even in a home.[246] The principle of warrantless searches for firearms was expanded to include searches for "offensive weapons" by the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill of 1984. Since "offensive weapons" are never defined, the police have nearly unlimited authority to search and seize. African combs, bunches of keys, and tools have been considered offensive weapons. In one case reported by the National Council of Civil Liberties, a workman carrying tools to his car was asked, "Would you use this tool to defend yourself if attacked?" Had the workman given an affirmative answer, he would have been subject to arrest for the felony of carrying an offensive weapon.[247](p.447)
[...]
2. Checks and Balances
In contrast, the British Parliament is supreme. An act of Parliament that is clearly expressed cannot be questioned on constitutional grounds by any British court.[260] A majority in Parliament means control of the entire government. The party leader--the Prime Minister--and the leader's close advisors have a much easier time turning their unchecked will into law than do their counterparts in the United States or Canada.[261] The British system does not mean legislative supremacy, but rather executive supremacy, since the leader of the dominant party in Parliament faces no effective opposition or check.[262] There is, 300 years after the Glorious Revolution, an unexpected new "monarch"--the Prime Minister. As a practical matter, the Parliament today acts as less of a check on the supreme executive's power than Parliament did in 1613, when King James I asserted the divine right of kings. The modern "servile but supreme parliament" is no longer a restraint on executive power, but instead an instrument of that power.[263]


All quotes from All the Way Down the Slippery Slope, by David Kopel & Joseph Olson. I suggest you read that before you start insulting me again.


Link Posted: 8/31/2004 6:17:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cato:
Well, most historians agree that the mass bombardements of cities in WWII only
strengthened the fanatism & will of Germanys population and that it did NOTHING
to end the war sooner. Occupation was still necessary.



Sorry, but you're talking crap.

As an example, Hamburg surrendered relatively early on, and it was no doubt due to the heavy allied bombing that had completely broken their will - and they wanted to AVOID additional bombing.

It's completely insane to suggest that mass bombardement of cities did NOTHING to end the war sooner, when it was precisely the "mass bombardement" of Hiroshima and Ngasaki that effectively ENDED the war. (the fact that each city only got one bomb with the power of thousands, instead of thousands of smaller bombs is irrelevant).

Mass bombardment of CITIES is what ended WW-II, and there is NO historical ambiguity about that at all.

Plus, whether or not occupation was necessary had nothing to do with what ended the war and how quickly.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 6:37:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Mass bombardment of CITIES is what ended WW-II, and there is NO historical ambiguity about that at all.



Where did you get that? I quoted a BBC article, but for you, here is another quote which sums
up the mainstream opinion quite well:

The main issue was whether we targeted the correct targets. In 1944 Britain dropped thousands of tons of bombs on Germany - the highest annual figure of the war. Yet in that year Germany was producing more industrial and war goods than ever before. It was only in 1944 that we changed targets and bombed strategic targets such as railway lines, bridges, motorways etc. and Germany’s ability to make industrial goods was smashed. Even a report set up by the British in 1945 to assess the impact of bombing admitted that the impact of the bombing campaign on Germany’s war production had been "remarkably small".

Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:28:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Cato:
Don't get me wrong, I am for a surgical special forces engagement, fast raids & limited air strikes (non nuclear- we don't need the whole world branding the USA as pure evil)

Nuclear strikes against Japan seemed to work without the world branding the US 'Pure Evil', even the Japanese got over it

One can't win against muslim terror by mass bombardment. It wasn't very sucessful against the Nazis,

Oh yeah? Hamburg, Dresden and a few others seemed to get their attention

I don't want the USA go down the route of the Roman Empire- with too many wars to fight- because I know in what chaos this would result...

I would say that the problem is the VERY FACT that the US is not following the Roman Empires model in dealing with it's enemies… ie, being an utterly ruthless and implacable foe when attacked. Rome was top dog when it was expanding its empire, attack Rome and you would die… no mercy, no negotiations, you would die… usually horribly. Rome became soft and started negotiating with its enemies… thats when things started going wrong





are you aware of what century we're in?
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:30:18 AM EST
We (The U.S.) should have did Iran in back in 1979
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:38:41 AM EST
Have fun being drafted, fellas.

Right before the Iraq disaster, message boards like this one were all a flurry of activity about why it is necessary to get Saddam. None of those reasons were even remotely accurate or correct. I am not the only person who observed what took place. Now I am hearing "GET IRAN" with the same fervor and it is almost Sept. 1 and "you don't roll out a new product in August." So you figure it out. If you are foolish enough to believe in the lies, then fine. But the real truth is that this nation is not under siege and it would be bad if we instigated a world war as some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

The US has thousands of nuclear weapons. That should be a good enough deterrent to Iran since it took care of THE ENTIRE SOVIET UNION just fine.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 11:03:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sierra_Hombre:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Originally Posted By Cato:



are you aware of what century we're in?



I certainly am, the point I am making is that not since the Roman Empire has any nation weilded so much overwhelming power as does the US today. Whether the liberals like it or not, (and they don't) the US can now do pretty much whatever it pleases and slap down anyone who pisses it off, much like Rome, however, the Politicians seem to be reluctant to use the enormous clout they have at their disposal.

ANdy
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 11:15:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 11:17:24 AM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By Cato:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Austria's most famous export, and just as popular in Austria now as he was in 1938……



Do you have anything rational to say or are you just trolling away with insults?
You have just proven that you know nothing about contemporary Austria (and it's polls).

Sorry, even if it is hard to swallow for you, I can prove my point that Great
Britain IS a police state. You don't even have the most basic civil rights granted:





Yeah, whatever… at least we don't elect neo-nazis, we also actively side with our friends in the War on Terror and other issues like Gulf War I &II, not sit on the fence pontificating.



Jörg Haider in Carinthia


Jörg Haider (born January 26, 1950) is an Austrian politician.

Jörg Haider was a leader of, and leading figure in, the rightist Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ). Haider is Governor of Carinthia. His politics are widely viewed as neo-fascist.

Haider was born in the Upper Austrian town of Bad Goisern in 1950. His parents were enthusiastic Nazis, who were punished after the Nazi defeat in World War II. Haider became wealthy when he inherited an estate bought from a fleeing Jew during World War II.

The Austrian Freedom Party was founded in 1955, and initially held liberal political views. In 1970 Haider became the leader of the FPÖ youth movement. Haider rose rapidly through the party ranks, becoming party leader in 1986.

Under Haider's leadership, the party moved sharply to the right, reflecting Haider's nationalist, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU views.

The Freedom Party attracted protest votes and those who desire no association with the other major parties. The party's mixture of populism and anti-establishment themes propagated by its aggressive leader steadily gained support over the years. It attracted about 27% of the vote in the 1999 elections.

Haider made a number of statements that seemed to imply support for the ideas of Nazism, and made a point of associating with and praising Waffen-SS veterans.


Haider on his way to a press conference


In 2000, Haider's Freedom Party and the People's Party joined to form a coalition government. This caused widespread outrage in Europe, and the other 14 member states of the European Union initiated diplomatic sanctions against Austria.


End of February 2000, Haider stepped down from the leadership of the Freedom Party. This was widely seen as a cynical move to appease foreign criticism, as he appeared to continue to control the party from behind the scenes, with Susanne Riess-Passer, the following party chairwoman, a mere puppet.


In November 2002, after a irregular party meeting ("Sonderparteitag") in Knittelfeld (Styria), Riess-Passer lost the support of many party members. This meeting is also sometimes considered as a rebellion against the members which are currently involved in the government which was thought to be started but at least supported by Haider. Thus Riess-Passer resigned as Vice Federal Chancellor and Party Chairwoman and with her went Karl-Heinz Grasser, the finance minister, and Peter Westenthaler the head of the Freedom Party's Parliament Club which resulted in new general elections.

They resulted in a landslide victory (42.27% of the vote) of the conservative People's Party led by Federal Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel. Haider's Freedom Party, which in 1999 was stronger than Schüssel's party, was reduced to 10.16% of the vote.

In response, Haider stated that he had demanded that the leader of the FPÖ must step down to allow him to be leader, and on being refused, stated that he would leave federal politics permanently. On August 31, 2003 he announced that he would run again for Governor of Carinthia in 2004.

In October 2003, a cabinet reshuffle instigated by Haider took place. Haupt had to step down as Vice Chancellor to be replaced by Hubert Gorbach.

On March 7, 2004 the FPÖ won a plurality (42.5%) of the vote in the elections for the Carinthian parliament. On March 31, 2004 Haider was re-elected Governor of Carinthia by the FPÖ and ÖVP members of the regional parliament. In Carinthia there will be a coalition government between Haider's FPÖ and the Carinthian SPÖ.

Have a nice neo-nazi future.

ANdy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%f6rg_Haider
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 8:33:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 9:42:16 PM EST by Cato]

Originally Posted By vito113:
Haider's Freedom Party, which in 1999 was stronger than Schüssel's party, was reduced to 10.16% of the vote.
[...]
Have a nice neo-nazi future.



You are really absolutely clueless- congratulations!
Are you so remote from democratic institutions that you can't gasp
how little damage a 10% party can do in a democracy with broad
civil rights and a written constitution?

It is so sad that Great Britains population doesn't even WANT to realize
that you are enslaved by a draconic police state. YOU are to blame if the
whole EC is going after civil rights- because it has worked so well in
"Great" Britain...

Thank God the USA fought the British Empire before mental slavery
had a chance to take over there too!


PS: In a few hours I am going to shoot my handguns, which- beside
being a natural right- are granted by the Austrian constitution, thinking
of the poor subjects of GB.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:20:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cato:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Haider's Freedom Party, which in 1999 was stronger than Schüssel's party, was reduced to 10.16% of the vote.
[...]
Have a nice neo-nazi future.



It is so sad that Great Britains population doesn't even WANT to realize
that you are enslaved by a draconic police state.



Fortunately for the rest of Europe our supposed 'Police State' stood up to your lot and helped rescue the rest of them from Austria and Germanys 'Police States' in 1914/18 and again in 1939/45. The German speakers start the wars and the English speakers sort out the mess… and when Europe goes down the economic shithole, as it will shortly, this time we'll just sit back and laugh!

Personally I'm quite happy with our "Police State" in which it's almost impossible for Terrorists to operate freely, unlike the rest of the Europe.

So your going to shoot your pistol… big deal, as I'm actually an Irish Citizen I can own a handgun in Ireland…
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:25:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Cato:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Haider's Freedom Party, which in 1999 was stronger than Schüssel's party, was reduced to 10.16% of the vote.
[...]
Have a nice neo-nazi future.



It is so sad that Great Britains population doesn't even WANT to realize
that you are enslaved by a draconic police state.



Fortunately for the rest of Europe our supposed 'Police State' stood up to your lot and helped rescue the rest of them from Austria and Germanys 'Police States' in 1914/18 and again in 1939/45. The German speakers start the wars and the English speakers sort out the mess… and when Europe goes down the economic shithole, as it will shortly, this time we'll just sit back and laugh!

Personally I'm quite happy with our "Police State" in which it's almost impossible for Terrorists to operate freely, unlike the rest of the Europe.

So your going to shoot your pistol… big deal, as I'm actually an Irish Citizen I can own a handgun in Ireland…



You can own machine guns in the US...


Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:25:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR-JR:
We as a nation need to find a way to encourage the already growing movement within Iran towards democracy.

If the younger folks who have been leaning towards a true democracy had some help, we may be able to enact change without firing a shot.

Truth be told, this is why the mullahs are deathly afraid of whats happening in Iraq. All that the people of Iran need is a positive Arab role model and all bets are off.



+1

Many of Irans older generation of males were whacked in the Iran-Iraq war. A good portion of Iran's population are youngins... and they are an uppity "moderate" bunch... but I do use the term loosely.

- BUCC_Guy
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 12:28:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 12:29:04 AM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By ARDunstan:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Originally Posted By Cato:
Originally Posted By vito113:



You can own machine guns in the US...





Expensive to feed tho! I do have a fun gun…



ANdy
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 3:23:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 3:26:13 AM EST by Cato]

Originally Posted By vito113:
Personally I'm quite happy with our "Police State" in which it's almost impossible for Terrorists to operate freely, unlike the rest of the Europe.



"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin


Nothing learned...
Top Top