|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 12/21/2006 : 06:25:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Denial is an amazing thing. Everytime I ask a Bush supporter if they are satisfied with the mess we now have and I get all sorts of responses of denial.
I agree. The dream of a democratic Iraq must be put on the back shelf, immediately.
quote:
"We're still better off than if Gore or Kerry were elected." "We haven't been attacked" Blah blah blah...
I agree again. To attack others, when the failed polices of your preferred party is the topic, is just lame.
quote:
Last night Bill Kristol tried to tell Jon Stewart the Iraq war was one of Bush's correct decisions because it made us safer.
I would disagree and agree at the same time. I would agree that it made it us safer from AQ, but I would not agree that it made us the safest possible, so in effect this would make Bush's decision not the correct one.
quote:
Stewart called him on it. Kristol tried to use the "We haven't been attacked" denial. Stewart brought up the fact we went longer under Clinton without being attacked.
Does he not acknowledge the first world trade center bombing?
quote:
Kristol brought up the embassy bombing in Nigeria and the Cole. Stewart said if you want to count those then you better count the Spain and England bomb attacks as well. WE AREN'T SAFER. Anyone who thinks we are is in denial.
But I would say that when taken in context when Kristol said the Iraq war has made us more safe, he was referring to America, and not Spain or England. see you have to be careful because Stewart can put spin on things very discreetly.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 09:32:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill Scott:
I simply followed his statement to it's logical conclusion.
Your logic perhaps…
quote:
Bill Scott:
…but because AQ is to busy trying to wage a war with us in Iraq, in effect making the homeland safer from AQ attacks.
So, some short-term increase in security, which I am not convinced of by the way, makes us more secure? This works only if you ignore the bigger picture. We have more enemies now because of this war, not less. And terrorist acts do not require a high level of technology or a large number of people to be effective. Just because there have been no major attacks on American soil since 9/11 does not mean that there will not be one tomorrow, or the next day, or whenever. Most people in the know are saying that we should count on it. It's only a matter of time.
quote:
Bill Scott:
Now I would say following the logic of tomk80's statement that you have to conclude that the war in Iraq has made us safer from AQ.
And again, I don't follow your logic.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 09:34:57 [Permalink]
|
You're right, Bill, context is important. In the four years since the Department of Homeland Security was established, there have been no attacks on U.S. soil by either Al Qaeda or Hezbollah. Now consider the devestating attack that occured between Bush's swearing-in and when the DHS was established, and one might see that the DHS has been wildly successful as compared to what the Bush administration allowed before then.
Just ignore the fact that there were zero attacks by either Al Qaeda or Hezbollah on U.S. soil before 9/11, a 20-year history of a lack of attacks by the in context groups. Just ignore that to make the DHS look good.
You can spin it however you like, Bill, my point was (and is) that crediting the DHS with preventing attacks is premature given that it has only existed for four years, and because attacks from other people have occured on U.S. soil since 9/11.
And your unwillingness to go and find out what the job description is for House IC chairman is noted. You assume that knowledge of two terrorist groups is a benefit for the job, but you don't seem to care to find out for sure. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 14:06:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
quote:
I simply followed his statement to it's logical conclusion.
Your logic perhaps…
One more time. In the context of a discussion concerning Al Queda I made the statement that the US has not been attacked since 9/11, so in effect this makes it hard to build a case the Bush homeland security has been a complete failure. Tomk80 followed with a post where he stated that he felt this was because Al Queda was concentrating it's efforts on the fight in Iraq, which in effect limited their ability to launch new attacks on the American homeland, as they appear unable to fight a two front war. I merrily pointed out that that statement meant the Iraq war has in fact made America safer from an Al Queada attack. This shouldn't be that difficult to follow.
quote:
quote:
…but because AQ is to busy trying to wage a war with us in Iraq, in effect making the homeland safer from AQ attacks.
So, some short-term increase in security, which I am not convinced of by the way, makes us more secure?
You might not be convinced, but at the vary least you said it was plausible.
quote:
This works only if you ignore the bigger picture.
As I said, just because I made the statement that the Iraq war has made us safer from another Al Queda attack on the homeland does not mean that I think that it has made us the safest we could be. I would have declared victory and pulled all combat troops after the search and destroy mission for all WMD's was complete.
quote:
We have more enemies now because of this war, not less.
Who are the new enemies that we did not have before the war?
quote:
And terrorist acts do not require a high level of technology or a large number of people to be effective.
I agree. And that is what makes this fight so difficult. That and you factor in the ACLU among others and it does not take long to see why this could be a very challenging position, to head up homeland security, no matter what side of the isle you come from. The possible scenarios are endless, but yet we need to prepare for any single one of them. I see only 4 reason that can explain no more attacks since 9/11:
1. The aggressive campaign against Al Queda since 9/11 has severely crippled the group. We have frozen much of their funding, we have attacked their training camps etc... etc...
2. Al Queda is busy trying to fight democracy in Iraq and cannot mount a two front atta |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 14:12:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
You're right, Bill, context is important. In the four years since the Department of Homeland Security was established, there have been no attacks on U.S. soil by either Al Qaeda or Hezbollah. Now consider the devestating attack that occured between Bush's swearing-in and when the DHS was established, and one might see that the DHS has been wildly successful as compared to what the Bush administration allowed before then.
I agree but for your last point, which happens to be the overall point of this thread, at this point. How about showing some objectivity around here, Dave. The 9/11 commission has concluded that there is plenty of blame to go around with the Clinton and Bush administrations as far as pre 9/11 actions. But yet you place the sole blame on Bush. If that is the case why did Clinton not stop the first attack on the WTC back in 93, shortly after taking office? I suppose that is Bush 41's fault in your eyes...
quote:
Just ignore the fact that there were zero attacks by either Al Qaeda or Hezbollah on U.S. soil before 9/11, a 20-year history of a lack of attacks by the in context groups. Just ignore that to make the DHS look good.
Ignore? All I said was that it was hard to build a case that HS has been a complete failure since he have not been attacked again since 9/11. There is a distinct difference between being very good and simply not failing. Maybe homeland security has not been all that great and the war in Iraq is the sole reason that Al Queda has not mounted another attack on our homeland? That has to be considered.
quote:
You can spin it however you like, Bill, my point was (and is) that crediting the DHS with preventing attacks is premature given that it has only existed for four years, and because attacks from other people have occured on U.S. soil since 9/11.
The only credit I intended to give HS was that I felt it was hard to say that they are a complete failure considering that Al Queda has failed to attack again. I guess my thinking behind this was that Al Queda would have had to have launched a successful attack on the homeland for HS to be consider a complete failure, or even a partial failure.
quote:
And your unwillingness to go and find out what the job description is for House IC chairman is noted.
Your notation is noted.
quote:
You assume that knowledge of two terrorist groups is a benefit for the job, but you don't seem to care to find out for sure.
So would you say that knowledge of the two would be of no benefit what so ever, or it would be a benefit if even just a minute one?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 14:43:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I agree. However, the problem is as soon as this happens our good friends down at the ACLU will file a lawsuit claiming racial profiling, or some such crap.
Now how come you were able to comprehend my statement in context while the Info Junkie struggled here?
I believe, since 9/11, we have severally crippled Al Queda abroad. This has severely hampered their ability to mount another attack. Their new found fame is also their worst enemy. We will never take our eyes off of them again, thanks to 9/11.
I pretty much agree, and that would mean that the war in Iraq has made the US homeland more secure against the likes of Al Queada. They are too busy getting killed in Iraq.
I'm not sure I agree there. Although this is pure speculation, I think that America would have been just as safe as it is now if Iraq would not have been attacked. First, because 9/11 itself forced a crack-down on the base camps and funds of Al-Quaida. This already happened before the attack on Iraq. Furthermore, Al-quaida did not have any base in Iraq, and neither was the Iraqi government supportive of Al-Quaida. As far as terrorist attacks and homeland security was concerned, Iraq was not a player. Third, the base camps were in Afghanistan and those have been attacked. Al-Quaida was already kept busy in Afghanistan.
If anything I think that attacking Iraq has made the situation worse for America. It has provided Al-Quaida with lots of fresh recruits, not only in Iraq but also from outside it. Since Iraq is far from being under American or Iraqi government control, it may well have served to provide furhter save-havens that Al-Quaida did not have before.
Al-Quaida has been crippled. But it would have been just as crippled without Iraq and without a lot of the measures taken by homeland security. Tracing the lack of terrorist attacks on the American homeland on these two measures is in my honest opinion a huge canard. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 15:26:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I agree but for your last point, which happens to be the overall point of this thread, at this point. How about showing some objectivity around here, Dave. The 9/11 commission has concluded that there is plenty of blame to go around with the Clinton and Bush administrations as far as pre 9/11 actions. But yet you place the sole blame on Bush. If that is the case why did Clinton not stop the first attack on the WTC back in 93, shortly after taking office? I suppose that is Bush 41's fault in your eyes...
Apparently, you'll just throw away the context of this point when it suits you: that you were giving credit to Bush's administration for DHS preventing attacks on the US. It had nothing to do with Clinton, and the World Trade Center bombing, while the guys got $660 from an Al Qaeda member, was not an Al Qaeda attack.quote:
Ignore? All I said was that it was hard to build a case that HS has been a complete failure since he have not been attacked again since 9/11. There is a distinct difference between being very good and simply not failing.
Indeed, and you said, "Where the Bush team has won is homeland security." There is a huge difference between winning and being a complete failure. Nobody here has argued that homeland security has been a "complete failure." Only that the idea that they've "won" is vastly premature.quote:
Maybe homeland security has not been all that great and the war in Iraq is the sole reason that Al Queda has not mounted another attack on our homeland? That has to be considered.
Al Qaeda has only ever planned two attacks on our homeland that we know of. The first was largely broken up by the Jordanians (and there was that one guy who was a part of it who got arrested at the U.S. border with nitroglycerin, intending to blow up LAX) during Clinton's presidency, and the second was 9/11. So it seems to me that the reason they haven't mounted another attack is because they don't actually attack the U.S. on U.S. soil all that often. Much easier to blow up hotels, ships, and other stuff full of U.S. citizens outside the U.S. - and you've argued that those attacks don't count as far as homeland security is concerned. Successful attacks attributed to Al Qaeda against U.S. citizens off U.S. soil occured in 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005.quote:
The only credit I intended to give HS was that I felt it was hard to say that they are a complete failure considering that Al Queda has failed to attack again. I guess my thinking behind this was that Al Queda would have had to have launched a successful attack on the homeland for HS to be consider a complete failure, or even a partial failure.
Homeland security has been a partial failure (when compared to a "win") because other attacks have occured on U.S. soil. DHS wasn't created just to protect the homeland from Al Qaeda.quote:
So would you say that knowledge of the two would be of no benefit what so ever, or it would be a benefit if even just a minute one?
Why won't you try to find out? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 18:54:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
I'm not sure I agree there. Although this is pure speculation, I think that America would have been just as safe as it is now if Iraq would not have been attacked. First, because 9/11 itself forced a crack-down on the base camps and funds of Al-Quaida. This already happened before the attack on Iraq. Furthermore, Al-quaida did not have any base in Iraq, and neither was the Iraqi government supportive of Al-Quaida. As far as terrorist attacks and homeland security was concerned, Iraq was not a player. Third, the base camps were in Afghanistan and those have been attacked. Al-Quaida was already kept busy in Afghanistan.
If anything I think that attacking Iraq has made the situation worse for America. It has provided Al-Quaida with lots of fresh recruits, not only in Iraq but also from outside it. Since Iraq is far from being under American or Iraqi government control, it may well have served to provide furhter save-havens that Al-Quaida did not have before.
Al-Quaida has been crippled. But it would have been just as crippled without Iraq and without a lot of the measures taken by homeland security. Tracing the lack of terrorist attacks on the American homeland on these two measures is in my honest opinion a huge canard.
I somewhat agree. I think destroying Saddam's WMD's, and his ability to make or obtain them in the future, was a must. He had already proved to be a naked aggressor in his dealings with Kuwait, and the Kurds, as well as Iran. Our problem is that we have stayed way to long. Building a democracy in Iraq is not realistic, and not what the military was designed to do. Once the search and destroy mission for WMD's was complete we should have got the heck out. We have all kinds of attack aircraft in the region that could be used to terminate any terrorist or militia training camps that pop up or currently exist, but no long term presence in the region for combat troops on the ground. This is how we should deal with Iran as well, even more intense then the start of GW two. Send in troops with the cover of air superiority, after weeks of precision bombing of their defences, and attack and destroy all of the Iran capabilities of producing any WMD's and then leave as fast as possible. What do you think? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 20:43:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill Scott:
This is how we should deal with Iran as well, even more intense then the start of GW two. Send in troops with the cover of air superiority, after weeks of precision bombing of their defences, and attack and destroy all of the Iran capabilities of producing any WMD's and then leave as fast as possible. What do you think?
I think it's good that you're not in charge...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 03:01:30 [Permalink]
|
Are you planning to enlist, Bill? Because I'm certainly not offering up my son so the fat oil-cats in America can take the Mideast oil and run puppet governments there. My vote is put the military-industrial money into alternative energy research. If the public wasn't so easily fooled by the corporate controlled government, we'd have already done that.
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 03:07:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I somewhat agree. I think destroying Saddam's WMD's, and his ability to make or obtain them in the future, was a must. He had already proved to be a naked aggressor in his dealings with Kuwait, and the Kurds, as well as Iran.
Which WMD's? Here is my problem. The weapons that he did have were effectively destroyed prior to 9/11, directly after the first Gulf war. Yes, he tried to play cat-and-mouse with the weapon inspectors, but if you look back at statements like those of Blix, you see that they saw it for what it turned out to be, namely trying to give the impression he still had some. Yes, he had shown himself to be a naked agressor in the past, but after the first Gulf war he was already effectively crippled to do anything. In fact, the only reason he had the chance to become a naked aggressor in the first place was because the US gave him the weapons to be one.
quote:
Our problem is that we have stayed way to long. Building a democracy in Iraq is not realistic, and not what the military was designed to do. Once the search and destroy mission for WMD's was complete we should have got the heck out. We have all kinds of attack aircraft in the region that could be used to terminate any terrorist or militia training camps that pop up or currently exist, but no long term presence in the region for combat troops on the ground. This is how we should deal with Iran as well, even more intense then the start of GW two. Send in troops with the cover of air superiority, after weeks of precision bombing of their defences, and attack and destroy all of the Iran capabilities of producing any WMD's and then leave as fast as possible. What do you think?
I think your scheme would effectively plunge the whole middle east into a civil war, with a lot of people seeing America as the cause of it. I think that after a few years some parties would gain power, either of regions or of the countries as a whole, and those parties would probably be a lot less willing to speak with the USA then even Iran currently is. I think those parties would probably hold a grudge against the USA compared to which your current relations with Iran could be described as friendly. If anything, I think that after the smoke would clear you'd have a problem on your hands that would be even worse then what you have at this point. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 06:08:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill Scott:
This is how we should deal with Iran as well, even more intense then the start of GW two. Send in troops with the cover of air superiority, after weeks of precision bombing of their defences, and attack and destroy all of the Iran capabilities of producing any WMD's and then leave as fast as possible. What do you think?
I think it's good that you're not in charge...
But what is the alternative? To let the likes of Iran, or Iraq, develop nuclear weapons. So far, to my amazement, cooler heads have always prevailed, and the world has yet to see a nuclear exchange. But do you think this will last forever? Not once one of these nuts gets hold of the technology. There is no reasoning with these people. There is no rationalizing, or rationalization to their madness. You've seen the videos. These people will chop your head off with a sword and not even bat an eye. Just wait till they have nuclear technology. My fear is one of these nuts will pass off a devise to Hezbulla or Al Queda who will then use this weapon on Israel. Once this happens it is on in the Middle East. Israel will take all gloves off in response. Then what? Israel vs. the Middle East. You know the USA is not going to just sit around if that goes down. Next comes Russia. Then you got a big big mess. Possible equivalent to a Armageddon scenario if nuclear exchanges start taking place. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 06:09:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
My vote is put the military-industrial money into alternative energy research. If the public wasn't so easily fooled by the corporate controlled government, we'd have already done that.
I am all for that. But renewable energy for the US, and Iran, Hezbulla, and Al Queda possessing nuclear weapons, while vowing to terminate Israel at the same time, are two separate issues. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/22/2006 06:22:31 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 06:15:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Which WMD's? Here is my problem. The weapons that he did have were effectively destroyed prior to 9/11, directly after the first Gulf war. Yes, he tried to play cat-and-mouse with the weapon inspectors, but if you look back at statements like those of Blix, you see that they saw it for what it turned out to be, namely trying to give the impression he still had some. Yes, he had shown himself to be a naked agressor in the past, but after the first Gulf war he was already effectively crippled to do anything. In fact, the only reason he had the chance to become a naked aggressor in the first place was because the US gave him the weapons to be one.
How do we know all his WMD's were destroyed? The inspections were a joke. He could move this stuff all around and out of their sight.
quote:
I think your scheme would effectively plunge the whole middle east into a civil war,
Shoot, like they are not already there. You have the sunnies and shites killing each other in Iraq, you have Fhata and Hamas fighting in the streets of Palestine. Lebanon is a ticking time bomb. The opposition in Iran is held under a tight thumb, just waiting to explode. And this is all before we even toss Israel into the mix. Now just think if these nuts had nukes...
quote:
with a lot of people seeing America as the cause of it. I think that after a few years some parties would gain power, either of regions or of the countries as a whole, and those parties would probably be a lot less willing to speak with the USA then even Iran currently is.
Who cares? As long as these barbarians don't have nukes and they are contained to their country. The US has the ability to obtain air supremacy in the region. Any time any terrorist or militia type training camp tried to open up we could unleash some attack aircraft on it and put that attempt to rest.
quote:
I think those parties would probably hold a grudge against the USA compared to which your current relations with Iran could be described as friendly. If anything, I think that after the smoke would clear you'd have a problem on your hands that would be even worse then what you have at this point.
We currently have a nut, who as the prez of Iran, has vowed the destruction the US and Israel and denied world history. He is not rational. He does not negotiate. Once this madman has nuclear technology how could it get any worse?
I don't want war. I think most Americans don't want war. The realities are that if these nuts are not confronted, and are able to obtain nukes, which they will pass off to Hezbulla and Al Queda, then we are going to have problems that make Iraq look like a summer picnic.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 06:59:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
How do we know all his WMD's were destroyed? The inspections were a joke. He could move this stuff all around and out of their sight.
If they were not, why haven't they been found by now? Where are the traces?
quote:
Shoot, like they are not already there. You have the sunnies and shites killing each other in Iraq, you have Fhata and Hamas fighting in the streets of Palestine. Lebanon is a ticking time bomb. The opposition in Iran is held under a tight thumb, just waiting to explode. And this is all before we even toss Israel into the mix. Now just think if these nuts had nukes...
So your argument is then to go in and just start the process? At least at this point there is some level of control. What you are arguing here is to negate even that level of control and using a method which would give the people there the idea that America was to blame, instead of themselves. How is that a solution?
quote:
Who cares? As long as these barbarians don't have nukes and they are contained to their country. The US has the ability to obtain air supremacy in the region. Any time any terrorist or militia type training camp tried to open up we could unleash some attack aircraft on it and put that attempt to rest.
How would you think to locate those if the entire region is thrown into complete disarray, with US troops moving out instead of in. What you are effectively arguing here is to negate all control the international community still has on the region.
quote:
We currently have a nut, who as the prez of Iran, has vowed the destruction the US and Israel and denied world history. He is not rational. He does not negotiate. Once this madman has nuclear technology how could it get any worse?
By having even more nuts. That's the problem you are facing now. What you are effectively proposing not only would leave a number of nuts in power (given the current state in Iran, it is very questionable whether a different regime would arise were America to decapitate the current one), but has the added probable effect of helping some more nuts gain power. You are effectively arguing to get more nuts into power instead of less.
quote:
I don't want war. I think most Americans don't want war. The realities are that if these nuts are not confronted, and are able to obtain nukes, which they will pass off to Hezbulla and Al Queda, then we are going to have problems that make Iraq look like a summer picnic.
But the answers you are proposing will not get those guys out of power, but make them more powerfull. How is that a solution? It also has the added drawback of further alienating the few regimes over there that are at least somewhat favorable to the west. How do you think to keep air-superiority in that region without the help (or at least the non-interference) of countries like Saudi-Arabia or Turkey? The line of action you are proposing would put a strain on the American efforts needed there to keep Americans safe that could not be coped with by the American air force. You want to negate the partial control you have now in favor of complete loss of it. I fail to see how that would help your cause. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
