Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

BWhite · 2004-09-30 13:58:03

My worry is what we do with the Islamicsts 30 years from now or 50 years from now if birth rates continue the direction they are heading.
One person, one vote is the American ideal.
I wonder how big an electoral vote prize China and India are...
...wait a minute, they're not US states! </sarcasm>
The fact that there is a population explosion somewhere else is no reason for fearfulness here. As far as immigrants go, you cut the numbers back to where you feel you can assimilate them; it's not like the Middle East is right over the border. No need to bring in Nazi references. They're free to screw up their own lands however badly they want, and their military strength is so pathetic that I'm unworried about them going on a spree of conquests in 30 to 50 years. By that time the US will probably be technologically advanced to the point where they might as well be fighting the Borg ("Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Your cultural distinctiveness will be obliterated by an endless sprawl of Wal-Marts and McDonalds...").
Ultimately, Islamic terror loses the War on Terror. The only question is how many people die in the process.

The moral legitimacy of the American system of government originates with the Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson did not opine on the rights of Englishmen, he opined on the rights of man.

The rights that are safeguarded by the United State Constitution did not originate with that document and those natural rights extend to every member of the human race. Deny that and the genuis of America is nullified.

Euler · 2004-09-30 14:01:45

It's an unreasonable gamble, since they know that Libya wasn't invaded and no noises about invading Libya are being made... look, this isn't difficult to understand: Iraq, crazy dictator, thought to be developing WMD, smashed. Libya, crazy dictator, ostentatious display of abandoning WMD, still in power. Very simple!

Iraq: part of "axis of evil", not developing WMDs, invaded.
North Korea: part of "axis of evil", has nukes, not invaded.

BWhite · 2004-09-30 14:13:29

It's an unreasonable gamble, since they know that Libya wasn't invaded and no noises about invading Libya are being made... look, this isn't difficult to understand: Iraq, crazy dictator, thought to be developing WMD, smashed. Libya, crazy dictator, ostentatious display of abandoning WMD, still in power. Very simple!
Basically, all this proves is that the mullahs are irrational. Which we already knew anyways, to be honest.

So why are we talking about it?

Hopefully the Iranians will back down. But are you sure they will?

If not, we need to take out those facilities.

But if we take out those facilities we also need to take out their air force and their missiles to prevent retaliation against US forces in Iraq and against Israel. General war with Iran via pre-emptive US/Israeli strikes.

Covert support of Iraqi Shia will become overt and if insurgents seize control of Basra, where do we draw our supplies from?

Trebuchet · 2004-09-30 15:18:07

Iraq: part of "axis of evil", not developing WMDs, invaded.
North Korea: part of "axis of evil", has nukes, not invaded.

Iran: Part of axis of evil, does not have nukes, invadeable

Wanting nukes is not having nukes. North Korea is a special case because they already had a pseudo-nuclear threat in the ability to level Seoul with conventional artillery. This allowed them to bridge the gap between wanting and having.

Iran does not have that capability. Ergo, this is suicidal on the mullah's part. Not that that's unusual for Islamic fundies.

Hopefully the Iranians will back down. But are you sure they will?
If not, we need to take out those facilities.
But if we take out those facilities we also need to take out their air force and their missiles to prevent retaliation against US forces in Iraq and against Israel. General war with Iran via pre-emptive US/Israeli strikes.

As I said once before, these clowns couldn't beat Saddam. They have zero chance at even fighting to a draw against us.

Covert support of Iraqi Shia will become overt and if insurgents seize control of Basra, where do we draw our supplies from

The insurgents only have the ability to take what we're willing to let them take. Fallujah was taking a beatdown before someone (Cobra's 'weak Romans') decided it was better to not clear out the town, same with Sadr. They have the strength to push the troops out of places that we want to stay in only in their fevered imaginations.

BWhite · 2004-09-30 15:35:41

Okay then, time to sleep easy.

Thanks!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-09-30 13:58:03

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#152 2004-09-30 14:01:45

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#153 2004-09-30 14:13:29

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#154 2004-09-30 15:18:07

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#155 2004-09-30 15:35:41

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

Board footer