BF2S Forums Media Conspiracy against Ron Paul.

At this point we should not be asking "will there be a war with Iran"?  We should be asking "how can we fight it without a draft, without enough tax revenue, and how much worse will it be if we do it without those things"?

Bombing Iran without completely dismantling their society will likely unite them against us and embolden the regime Santorum and people like him are so against.  And lets not kid ourselves, Iran may end up being ten times worse than Iraq.  Perhaps not, but it'd be foolish to not at least assume it.  Better safe than sorry.

FEOS wrote:

Out of all of the "Axis of Evil" exactly how many have been attacked by the US?

One. And everyone knew that was coming when he said that.

And your assertion that Iran "had done nothing whatever" flies in the face of fact. State supporter of terrorism. That was the basis of the "Axis of Evil": known state supporters of terrorism. It's not like he picked some random countries out of a hat.

So, what, they should just do nothing and wait to see if they're next?

Spearhead wrote:

I'd love to hear Santorum comment on the rights of women in Saudi Arabia.  Who are arguably worse off than in Iran...

Santorum and his ilk have a lot more in common with Islamists than they would ever like to admit.

In either case, religion trumps rationality for these people.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Out of all of the "Axis of Evil" exactly how many have been attacked by the US?

One. And everyone knew that was coming when he said that.

And your assertion that Iran "had done nothing whatever" flies in the face of fact. State supporter of terrorism. That was the basis of the "Axis of Evil": known state supporters of terrorism. It's not like he picked some random countries out of a hat.

So, what, they should just do nothing and wait to see if they're next?

What REAL reason do they have to think they would be attacked?

Israel has made it pretty clear that they would attack if we let them.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So, what, they should just do nothing and wait to see if they're next?

What REAL reason do they have to think they would be attacked?

Israel has made it pretty clear that they would attack if we let them.

Israel can do whatever they want. Probably the only reason they haven't yet is operational limitations. Osirik was right at the limit of their abilities, and they had complicity from Arab neighbors for overflight.

FEOS wrote:

I don't recall Santorum or "his ilk" calling for a single religion in the US, punishable by prison or death if you choose differently.

So because he has a different view on when life begins--and thus abortion--he is equated to an Islamist on women's rights? What a ridiculous comparison. I'm sure his position on every other "women's rights" issue is likely right in line with your own and the majority of the West. I suppose that makes you and everyone else "a lot more in common with Islamists than (you) would ever like to admit."

The point being that his reasoning for limiting abortions (which I do not agree with, btw) is completely different in intent and scope than the massive oppression of women by Islamists. If you cannot see that, and automatically jump off the deep end with comparisons like that, the world is a pretty binary place for you.

You're as jumpy as bravo these days.

It's interesting that Santorum is trying to paint the Iranians as socialists. Collaborating in South America with well known commies. Even Cuba.

Is that just tough talk too, Feos? Or should the US really be fearing everything the GOP tells you to?

Spearhead wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Santorum and his ilk have a lot more in common with Islamists than they would ever like to admit.

In either case, religion trumps rationality for these people.

I don't recall Santorum or "his ilk" calling for a single religion in the US, punishable by prison or death if you choose differently.

So because he has a different view on when life begins--and thus abortion--he is equated to an Islamist on women's rights? What a ridiculous comparison. I'm sure his position on every other "women's rights" issue is likely right in line with your own and the majority of the West. I suppose that makes you and everyone else "a lot more in common with Islamists than (you) would ever like to admit."

The point being that his reasoning for limiting abortions (which I do not agree with, btw) is completely different in intent and scope than the massive oppression of women by Islamists. If you cannot see that, and automatically jump off the deep end with comparisons like that, the world is a pretty binary place for you.

My point was that historically, besides the right to vote, the right to abortion is really the only thing that has ever distinguished women's rights in western democracies from other systems.  Maybe some labor discrimination laws as well, which do not do nearly as much.

If you overlook the reasoning for the various strictures on behavior in various societies and look only at a binary comparison, of course you will think them remarkably similar or different, depending on the situation. But reality isn't that simplistic, and making such analogies based on such simplistic thinking is, well, simple. And not in a good way.

most of our major military conflicts occured under a democratic controlled congress

FEOS wrote:

What REAL reason do they have to think they would be attacked?

Sponsoring global terrorist organizations wasn't enough. Thwarting the UN and international community with their nuclear program wasn't enough. Constantly threatening to shut down the Straits of Hormuz and subsequently manipulating the global price of oil wasn't enough.

The two of the other three on "the Axis of Evil" have continued doing what got them there to begin with, with zero consequences.

But being called a name. THAT'S enough. Honestly....what color is the sky on your world?

They're pursuing a nuclear program, and threatening to block the straits of hormuz since being threatened.

'being called a name' - They've seen two of their neighbours invaded on pretexts, seen themselves and other members of the 'axis of evil' harassed through sanctions and threatened with annihiliation, its somewhat more than being called a name.

The US misinterprets and then overreacts to comments Iranians make, why are you surprised they take crystal clear threats very seriously and react accordingly?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

What REAL reason do they have to think they would be attacked?

Sponsoring global terrorist organizations wasn't enough. Thwarting the UN and international community with their nuclear program wasn't enough. Constantly threatening to shut down the Straits of Hormuz and subsequently manipulating the global price of oil wasn't enough.

The two of the other three on "the Axis of Evil" have continued doing what got them there to begin with, with zero consequences.

But being called a name. THAT'S enough. Honestly....what color is the sky on your world?

They're pursuing a nuclear program, and threatening to block the straits of hormuz since being threatened.

Wrong. They've been pursuing nukes since before the rhetoric (as opposed to threats--one of the reasons why they were added to "the Axis") and have threatened to close the Straits many, many times since the revolution of '79. But, since in your world, history didn't start until Bush was elected, I can see how you might view things that way.

'being called a name' - They've seen two of their neighbours invaded on pretexts, seen themselves and other members of the 'axis of evil' harassed through sanctions and threatened with annihiliation, its somewhat more than being called a name.

Afghanistan: What pretext, exactly? You seem to be the only human being in the West who doesn't see the clear casus belli there. Oh, that's right. Bush was involved. Must be wrong.

Iraq: go ahead and beat that dead horse.

The US misinterprets and then overreacts to comments Iranians make, why are you surprised they take crystal clear threats very seriously and react accordingly?

What "crystal clear threats" exactly? The one where they were put in the same league as Syria, North Korea, and Iraq? How are they not? There was no threat there, only a categorization.

What misinterpretations and overreactions to comments are you referring to? Would it be the ones where Iran says "we're going to continue our nuclear program, regardless of what the UN says", or would it be the ones where they say, "do anything we don't like and we'll shut down the Straits of Hormuz"? How exactly would one "misinterpret" or "overreact" to those, since the US is acting and speaking in exactly the same way as dozens of other nations in regard to Iran? Are they all misinterpreting and overreacting, as well?

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Where did I say "commies who hate freedom?" Use your tired strawman elsewhere.

Cuba and Venezuela have other reasons they hate/dislike the US. Cuba: primarily the embargo, as well as long-held grudges regarding the 60s. Venezuela: Chavez is crazier than a shithouse rat and thinks the US is Satan. Falls right in line with Iran. Iran is simply looking for people with similar views, leveraging those, and attempting to expand their influence into the Western hemisphere.

You know it works both ways, yeah? The US still holds the same grudges regarding the 60's, along with the embargo.

How is Cuba worse than China, or Russia? Why not trade with them?

They're not. I don't have any problem with lifting the embargo.

FEOS wrote:

Wrong. They've been pursuing nukes since before the rhetoric (as opposed to threats--one of the reasons why they were added to "the Axis") and have threatened to close the Straits many, many times since the revolution of '79. But, since in your world, history didn't start until Bush was elected, I can see how you might view things that way.

They have been pursuing a peaceful nuclear program, supported by the US at various times, and open to public scrutiny.
Now we don't know what they are doing.

Afghanistan: What pretext, exactly? You seem to be the only human being in the West who doesn't see the clear casus belli there.

The Taliban weren't the enemy, AQ were and yet they were allowed to slip away into Pakistan while we concentrated on the Taliban - don't you find that odd?

Iraq: go ahead and beat that dead horse.

Because you still don't have any answers, OK.

What "crystal clear threats" exactly? The one where they were put in the same league as Syria, North Korea, and Iraq? How are they not?

You're going to need to try to stick to one argument.

There was no threat there, only a categorization.

If your name was list of people someone planned to kill, where other names on that list had already been killed, would you be at all bothered?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-30 04:37:59)