I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Jun 4th, 2005 09:07 PM

Anonymouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussoNWM

Twat is sometimes used as a euphemism for vagina.

that was a very important point and added immensely to the discussion thank you for clarifying that.

Jun 4th, 2005 01:31 PM

Ant10708

Re: Clarification

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

As far as the discussion with Ant, I realized that the point I was making was probably taken a bit out of context so I'll refrain from debating WWII history as it's the topic we started with. My only point there was that as a soldier, the moral justification for war in Europe was much more compelling then it is in Iraq or would be in say, Iran.

When a soldier goes to war facing the risk of giving his life, he is much more apt to go honorably when he feels that it is for the greater good. Such was the case in the European campaign of WWII (whether real or imagined, I'll leave you to debate). Its much more difficult to convince yourself that the sacrifices are worth it when you're potential giving up your life for a "potential threat" no matter how ominious that threat appears to be.

Agreed.

Jun 4th, 2005 12:15 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

http://www.policyreview.org/jun05/sokolski.html

Didn't wanna post the whole thing, but an interesting policy analysis on Iran. Pretty good, a lot of the same old stuff, but raises some other interesting points.

Jun 3rd, 2005 11:50 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Re: Clarification

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

My only input here is that whether it is right or wrong, a conflict with Iran will be vastly more economically, strategically, and humanitarianly ( ok so thats not really a word) more costly than anything we've dealt with in the last three decades. And that cost, in my mind, must be weighed with the benefit or the effect on the stated goal, in this case being the reduction of terrorism. In my opinion such a conflict would only be marginally beneficial and not worth the cost.

I think we're in agreement. From what I've read (and I may be incorrect), we simply don't have the numbers for a land confrontation with Iran. You're right, the +/- analysis of it doesn't look to good. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't talk softly and carry a big stick, so to speak. We need to be firm with Iran, and we need the global community (particularly Russia) to be firm with Iran. Like I said, I personally think that were the process put in place, Iran could be a diplomatic success story. A bloodless transition from islamic extremism to real democracy. I think the people thee want it, and I think they'd be willing to push harder for it if they knew they had the world community behind them.

Jun 3rd, 2005 11:44 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

Thats a fascile argument. Are you going to attack every country that might do something bad, just to be on the safe side? China? North Korea? Russia? Israel?

Iran has had their fingers in the proverbial cookie jar for years now. They, along with Syria, have been supportive of Hezbollah's efforts in Palestine. Iran was supportive of Osama Bin Laden's efforts to militarize and develope in Sudan.

Im not saying we should simpli invade Iran, but I am however acknowledging the fact that this regime is not very good, and would've probably made a better case for war than Iraq, IMO.

Jun 3rd, 2005 09:44 PM

Archduke Tips

Twat is sometimes used as a euphemism for vagina.

Jun 3rd, 2005 07:09 PM

GAsux

Clarification

Kev,
Thanks for your input. I don't disagree with a lot of it. As for Iran, I'm on the fence as to whether it's worth it or not. I don't at all underestimate the potential and for a variety of reasons I personally see the risk posed by Iran being far greater than that of say North Korea, but that's for another thread entirely.

My only input here is that whether it is right or wrong, a conflict with Iran will be vastly more economically, strategically, and humanitarianly ( ok so thats not really a word) more costly than anything we've dealt with in the last three decades. And that cost, in my mind, must be weighed with the benefit or the effect on the stated goal, in this case being the reduction of terrorism. In my opinion such a conflict would only be marginally beneficial and not worth the cost.

As far as the discussion with Ant, I realized that the point I was making was probably taken a bit out of context so I'll refrain from debating WWII history as it's the topic we started with. My only point there was that as a soldier, the moral justification for war in Europe was much more compelling then it is in Iraq or would be in say, Iran.

When a soldier goes to war facing the risk of giving his life, he is much more apt to go honorably when he feels that it is for the greater good. Such was the case in the European campaign of WWII (whether real or imagined, I'll leave you to debate). Its much more difficult to convince yourself that the sacrifices are worth it when you're potential giving up your life for a "potential threat" no matter how ominious that threat appears to be.

Jun 3rd, 2005 09:41 AM

Dole

Quote:

I think the dispute might be over want constitutes a "unprovoked" attack. Does a nuclear Iran need to bomb Israel and/or somebody else before you take them seriously....?

Thats a fascile argument. Are you going to attack every country that might do something bad, just to be on the safe side? China? North Korea? Russia? Israel?

Jun 2nd, 2005 07:54 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Re: Interesting

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

I think Afghanistan was the right place, we just missed our chance. By not taking a proactive role in nation building after the Soviet pull out, for a decade actually, we sort of fostered an environment for the Taliban to happen in.

I agree, and I think we're repeating perhaps the same mistakes in Afghanistan. Karzai, while there are things I admire about him, is in a sticky spot me thinks. The heroine biz is booming there, and we failed initially to give Afghanistan the proper post-invasion that it needed to fight off the regional warlords and get rid of the nasty crops.

Now the Afghan people are claiming that "somebody" is crop dusting their poppy (poppie?) fields, and they think it's us.

Quote:

But I see the Afghan war as more vital to the global war on terror then the Iraq war. The Afghan situation didn't seem to have the same high profile rallying potential for Arabs that Iraq did. We were able to go into Afghanistan and be only marginally affected by Arab jihadists.

Iraq on the other hand instantly became a rallying cry, a 2005 version of 1980s Afghanistan if you will. It's become the front lines for jihadists all over the world to come and make a name for themselves. I think to some degree Afghanistan actually dissipated the threat, even if only in the short term, whereas Iraq magnified it by giving it a focal point.

I think I agree with you partially. In retrospect, I think Afghanistan was the right war, despite the negative consequences. I also think you're right about Iraq as a destabilizing factor, however I question the sincerity of those declaring "jihad" all of a sudden. Many of them are simply Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians coming over the border to take advantage of Iraq's weakened state. Is that our fault? It certainly is, but I think there is some validity to Bush's point that we'd rather be fighting these people en masse over there, rather than in the shadows over here.

Quote:

As for the "shift" it makes sense in theory although I don't suspect it will be any more successful. Regardless, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Iran is the place to go. The jihadists are coming from Syria, Africa, Indo, etc.

I think you're right, except for the fact that Iran has been linked to sketchy funding throughout the last decade or so. They had a very conscious role in what went down in Sudan with Bin Laden and company. They also have a population waiting for free markets and liberty and all that stuff. I don't recall who wrote the article, but one guy refered to them as a "red state." Their democratic process is unfortunately obstructed by courts that are ful of islamic extremists. In terms of whether or not they fit the definition of a "terrorist comforting" state is up for argument I guess, but they come pretty damn close.

It makes sense to go after the nation states supporting this stuff, cuz although you're right about where these jihadists are coming from, it may be pretty tough to go after them wherever they are.

Jun 2nd, 2005 07:39 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

Why on earth would anyone with a few brain cells support another unprovoked attack on a middle-eastern country?? Fucking ludicrous.

I think the dispute might be over want constitutes a "unprovoked" attack. Does a nuclear Iran need to bomb Israel and/or somebody else before you take them seriously....?

DON'T LET THE WARNING BE THE MUSHROOM CLOUD, MAN!!

Jun 2nd, 2005 07:25 PM

ziggytrix

Re: Are you serious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ant10708

Also do you know how many war crimes the Allies must of committed during WW2 before the media was following our soldiers with cameras and reporting the slightest incident of abuse?
American planes and British planes bombed German civilian targets on purpose to lower the moral of the German enemy. The average prisoner of war was treated decently since we hoped they would treat our POWs the same but half the time we just shot them when they surrendered instead of taking prisoners.

The rest of the Allies have NOTHING on what the Russian Army did when they came into Germany. They weren't there for the Jews - they were there for REVENGE. It was so bad that some German civillians, particularly rape-fearing women, would kill themselves when the Russians overtook their towns. I'm not trying to sound particularly sympathetic to Nazi Germany or anything, but let's be realistic. Sometimes it's not good guys versus bad guys, but bad guys versus worse guys.

My granddad was telling me you stayed away from the Russian troops. I got the impression they fought like wounded animals. He didn't like the sight of their Thompson guns either.

Jun 2nd, 2005 05:39 PM

Ant10708

Re: Are you serious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

Are you kidding me? Are you saying that no one knew prior to the end of the war, or even prior to the start of U.S. involvement in it, that the Germans were rounding up Jews and murdering them? That was some kind of secret unrevealed until after that war and had no impact on U.S public opinion prior to the war?

And further you're saying we DIDN'T get involved in the European theater to "save" Europe? The only reason we got involved was becuase they attacked one of our allies? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you've said.

Im pretty confident that as the Germans marched across Europe, both their attrocities AND the fear of the economic impact on the U.S. if the Nazi march was allowed to coninue all the way to Britan probably played a bit of a factor.

Yes to your first paragragh. No one knew about the concetration camps as far as I know until we got into Germany which was very near the end of the war in Europe. Isn't it weird that still now people like you think it was only Jews,or atleast thats what you mention when you discuss nazi camps, that he was rounding up. 11 million people died in camps and 5 million were non Jews. Gypsies had more long term damage done to them than Jews. Because of WW2, Jews got their our country and now they are close allies with the only super power. I bet Hitler's punching his balls because of that. Why does everyone cry for them but not one tear is shed for the poor gypsies

I didn't say we got involved to save an ally or to save Europe. We declared war on Germany and Italy because they were allies with Japan and Japan attacked us directly. And the Japanese did some pretty horrible things during that war also before Pearl Harbor to other asians and that didn't rally the American civilians and I bet the average American today probaly doesn't even know Japan committed some terrible atrocities during WW2. The Japanese barely admit what they did.

The Nazis may not of marched to England(since its an island) but they bombed the friggin jebus out of it. It may be hard to believe now but the U.S. wasn't always eager to get into wars even when our good allies are involved.

Also do you know how many war crimes the Allies must of committed during WW2 before the media was following our soldiers with cameras and reporting the slightest incident of abuse?
American planes and British planes bombed German civilian targets on purpose to lower the moral of the German enemy. The average prisoner of war was treated decently since we hoped they would treat our POWs the same but half the time we just shot them when they surrendered instead of taking prisoners.

I can't belive you actually think that it was the atrocities of the Nazis that convinced us to fight in a war. That still doesn't make us(or any country in position too) to go to war now. Rwanda, Bosnia, ongoing in the Congo and now Sudan. And this is during the age of information where no one has an excuse to be ignorant to the atrocities. Which is why I find the U.N. to be tremedously ineffective when it comes to solving disputes.

I don't know much about the attitudes towards the economy at that time but the war started as our Great Depression was beginning to end, our entering the war def helped us completely pull out of the GD. After that horrible economic time I doubt people were overly concerned that Hitler would make the American economy worse. But I honestly could be wrong on this because I plead ignorant on how Americans thought the German war with other countries, would effect our economy.

Jun 2nd, 2005 05:18 PM

GAsux

Are you serious?

Jun 2nd, 2005 05:02 PM

Ant10708

Re: Yeah

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

Its one thing to die or lose a limb to save Europe from the Nazis. Its another to die in the sands of Iran to prevent a hypothetical.

We had no idea that the Nazis were committing the type of crimes that we now think of when we hear Nazis. We declared war on Germany because one of their allies attacked us directly it didn't have much to do with saving Europe at the time. And didn't we get all pissed at Germany for attacking a passenger cruise ship carrying American civilians and the Germans claimed it was carrying weapons to the Allies and we denied it but it turns out we did have weapons for the Allies on it. So Germany had a more legit reason to declare war on us than we did on them. And saving Europe from the Nazis really fucked over eastern europe for the next half century since we just handed their countries over to another terrible dictator.

But after the whole Iraq blunder, it would be really fucking dumb to start another unprovoked war especially on an Islamic country. But if we ever find out that Bin Laden is in Iran with their knowledge instead of hiding in Pakistan then we are going to attack them for sure

I just hope he is still hiding in Pakistan or better yet dead.

Isn't a signicifant portion of Iran like in their teenage years? Ripe for terrorism if we start an invasion on their country.

Jun 2nd, 2005 09:33 AM

Dole

Why on earth would anyone with a few brain cells support another unprovoked attack on a middle-eastern country?? Fucking ludicrous.

Jun 2nd, 2005 02:11 AM

Immortal Goat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype

empires do it right

"I said that in a bar once and got slapped for it!"

Jun 2nd, 2005 01:28 AM

sspadowsky

I don't agree with Eye Tai on a lot of things (especially the imperialism angle), but he's the goods. For reals.

Jun 1st, 2005 11:07 PM

ItalianStereotype

I'm not so much a fascist as an imperialist. empires do it right :o

hooray willie! :D

Jun 1st, 2005 08:38 PM

executioneer

hahahaha "TWAT"

Jun 1st, 2005 08:27 PM

GAsux

Interesting

Kev,
That's an interesting theory. I actually see it the other way. Well, maybe a bit farther back even. I think Afghanistan was the right place, we just missed our chance. By not taking a proactive role in nation building after the Soviet pull out, for a decade actually, we sort of fostered an environment for the Taliban to happen in.

But I see the Afghan war as more vital to the global war on terror then the Iraq war. The Afghan situation didn't seem to have the same high profile rallying potential for Arabs that Iraq did. We were able to go into Afghanistan and be only marginally affected by Arab jihadists.

Iraq on the other hand instantly became a rallying cry, a 2005 version of 1980s Afghanistan if you will. It's become the front lines for jihadists all over the world to come and make a name for themselves. I think to some degree Afghanistan actually dissipated the threat, even if only in the short term, whereas Iraq magnified it by giving it a focal point.

As for the "shift" it makes sense in theory although I don't suspect it will be any more successful. Regardless, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Iran is the place to go. The jihadists are coming from Syria, Africa, Indo, etc.

Just my feeble thoughts anyway.

Jun 1st, 2005 08:19 PM

ziggytrix

*shrug* maybe. but short of talking to him person to person - not online on AIM or here - I think he'd keep talking the neofascist bluster.

Jun 1st, 2005 08:11 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

You should talk to him more often, then see what you think.

Jun 1st, 2005 08:10 PM

ziggytrix

i'm not referring to the enlisting remark, but the rest of it. the whole "i support the US taking over the world" routine. i don't buy it.

Jun 1st, 2005 08:00 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Well actually, I know he isn't, b/c I remember when he tried to enlist, and I also believe he sincerely wants to kill Chinese people.

Anyway, as for the policy shift, is this really new? I mean, wasn't this pretty much the deal with the last SOTU address? Ya know, terrorism and tyranny can't exist where democracy and open markets take their place, etc. etc....?

I read a piece in Current History magazine last year which pretty much made the same point. Attacking Afghanistan seemed like a good idea, but it basically scattered Al Qaeda across the globe, and thus allowed every crazy jihadist movement to fall under the "Al Qaeda" umbrella. The comparison this historian made was that of a bulky and beaurecratic corporation essentially turning into a franchised brand name of sorts.

Jun 1st, 2005 06:14 PM

ziggytrix

IS, you're so full of shit.

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off