This is by far the scariest idea in this thread.

If you believe it, and I think you do based on the context of your other statements, then by this logic, war is inevitable. Do you also believe this is true for other countries, say, Israel or Iran? Then war is inevitable, since the *removal of the threat of such an attack* will not come from the holders of such weapons.

The ONLY time voluntary disarmament has happened has been in the framework of the START treaties. And still, unimaginable destructive power still exists. If your position listed above is true, then how can we avoid war? Do you think Iran can be persuaded to stop their work that some find threatening? Where is the path to peace?

As I've posted before: *If you know someone is coming to kill you, get up early in the morning and kill them first.

I'd say 'their' intention (to kill 'us') is clear.

So: get up early...*shrug*










*not original to me...this is an old Hebrew saying, applicable pretty much all the time, in any circumstance.

Total nonsense. George Jr said we would unilaterally attak them. The Axis of Evil. So N Korea and Iran desperately need nuclear weapons programs. Which any country should do when overtly threatened by an irresponsible nuclear power. Especially when the US said it would and did attack Iraq (Axis of Evil) for the same bogus reasons.

We 'Pearl Harbored' Iraq using your reasoning. Causing massive harm to our economy. And now you recommend doing same to Iran and North Korea? Iraq was the easy one. How much more damage do you want to do to America?

At what point do you learn from mistakes in history? At what point do you finally learn why 'big dic' thinking is not found where intelligent leaders make decisions?

Your logic is why you would be arrested and executed because a neighbor threatened you. And why everyone and their unborn offspring would remember you as despictable. Described was a "fool's errand" that demonstrates your bogus logic. And still you would recommend the same 'big dic' thinking that got us into this mess?

At what point will you learn from the massive mistake called Mission Accomplish? Or simply learn a well understood concept called "Deja Vue Nam"?

The world is not "liberal vs. conservative". The world is "wacko extremists vs moderates". Only wacko extremists see solution in military boondoggles. How many times must we foolishly refight the Crusades because the 'wacko extremists' will not learn from history? Because Netanyahu is that dumb, then that makes 'big dic' thinking acceptable?

Please. Stop listening to hate so routinely promoted by 'wacko extremist' talk radio.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is term limited. I think it is surpassing strange that we take every nonsensical threat the lame duck President of Iran makes as absolute truth, ignoring that he is playing to his audience when here in the States Romney is campaigning for an economic agenda we all know he doesn't believe in, taking it for granted that he is lying to maintain his base but would actually get real after he's sworn in. I wonder where he really stands on being Israel's bitch? We don't help the peace process one bit by stepin fetchin for Netanyahu.

That is the Israeli position, I believe. I don't believe war is inevitable, but you know the old expression:

"Only the dead know peace"

We have known a long period of peace, only because we are one of the reigning super powers, and we are not trying to take over anyone's country. Also, we will go to war with those who try to take over another country, if we can, for example {Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait}. In other words, it would be very risky for another country to start a war, that might involve us.

War is inevitable in the Middle East, as long as the Muslims are intent on starting one - yes. The Jews can't run, they have to fight - that's clear.

The only thing in the long run, that will stop the drive to yet another war in the Middle East, is when the people of these aggressor countries, rise up, and tell their leaders:

NO WAR!

There is simply NO solution possible, except a degree of tolerance and acceptance of all your neighbors -- not just the one's you like the most.

If the Iranian rial continues falling in value, the resulting economic crisis may help force a shift in opinion, away from the nuclear effort. Finally, Iran may be forced to negotiate, and allow inspections of it's nuclear plants.

The Iranian leaders have proven so unwilling to negotiate, it's unimaginable that they would ever agree to a START type treaty, unless their economy collapsed very harshly.

The problem with nuclear weapons proliferation, is that it can get out of hand, entirely by accident, very quickly - and lead to a war. If it involved nuclear weapons, it would be incredibly disastrous.

Until the media, the mosques, and the leaders, are talking tolerance instead of sweeping the Jews into the sea, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

That's based on historical fact, not an opinion of support for either the Jews or the Muslims. I don't believe it's a question of right or wrong, it's a matter of either choosing tolerance and peace, or sliding towards war, by default.

Just a quick few notes:

We are currently in the longest war in our nation's history: Afghanistan. We did take over the country...along with Iraq.

The world is easier to digest with sweeping generalizations but they rarely hold up to reality.

There are inspectors of Iran's nuclear facilities. That is why we haven't attacked them. We know where they are what they are doing.


Adak, does Urbane Guerrilla mean anything to you?

Adak, you seem determined to view these issues through a lens of religion, and I think that distorts what you see. Do you consider the war in Afghanistan a religious one? On our part? On the part of our enemy? Who is our enemy? Are we fighting against their religion?

Why do you insist that it will be MUSLIMS who are intent on starting a war?

I think your view would be much clearer if you substituted POWER for RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS in much of what you've said here. The number of non-violent Muslims is many thousands of times greater than the number of violent Muslims, for Islam's sake. Just as it is for Christians. And for Jews.
Perhaps... let's take that as a starting point. If you think that's their position, then what? Attack? Since they'll never disarm? You, yourself, have to be the person who says

We have not annexed or put in our own leaders, into power in Iraq. The Iraqi people are voting for their leaders. Kicking out Saddam and his ruling party, is not the same as taking over the country, and making it ours.

Same with Afghanistan. We are leaving soon, and everyone knows it.

We didn't ask for the war with in Afghanistan. They provided support and protection for Al Qaeda, and chose to fight with them.

Yes, Urbane Guerrilla means you misspelled Urban. Sounds like a new runway fashion trend. :D I can see it now - designer camo for the latest Paris fashions.

Without a firm treaty however, they are free to kick the inspectors out of any of their sites, whenever they wish.

Yes, I am determined to view these issues through the lens of religion, because the countries in the Middle East that have gone to war recently, view their fight through the lens of religion.

Islam is not just a religion. It is a religion with a substantial ideology that may go hand in hand, with it.
Yes, but the non-violent Muslims have not been able to rein in the spread of the violent ideology of their fellow faithful. As long as Muslim schools, orphanages, and mosques are preaching how the infidel, the Christian, and the Jew, are all worth something akin to the pig, and that violence against others is OK, there will be religious violence. You can call it Jihad or anything you like, but it's killing, and Muslims are the one's doing it (far more than anyone else), worldwide.

People are susceptible to propaganda. They will come to believe what they hear over and over, eventually.

I'm all in favor of peace, but I know better than to believe that the leaders in Iran, feel the same way. They've made their "sweep Israeli's into the sea" speech, too many times to somehow keep ignoring it. It isn't just that I'm tired of hearing their saber-rattling. (Which I am). It's that I believe they intend to do just that. It won't be this year. It won't be next year, it may not be for another 10-20 years, but they will attack Israel. No doubt in my mind. You can't just keep saying you're going to attack another country, and then never attack them - you lose all credibility with your people.

If they have nuclear weapons, I'm not sure they would use them, but they might. Who knows?

I know I don't want to see nuclear weapons proliferation, in the Middle East, for sure. THAT would be a recipe for disaster.

Right now, our best option is to see if the sanctions will collapse their economy, and thus force the Iranian leaders to stop their program to enrich Uranium. That's a hard thing to cause, but far better than a war.

"intelligent leaders"

HA!

Find one.

#

"you would be arrested"

Only if I'm caught.

#

"'wacko extremist' talk radio"

I don't listen to the talking heads on either side.

##

"NO WAR!"

As real a notion as ghost farts...good luck chasing rainbows...let me know when you catch one (I ain't holdin' my breath).

I can't believe you've overlooked my signature for the past several hundred posts.

"OBAMA"
 

'Cunning, glib, and mercenary' is not synonymous with 'intelligent'.

'nuff said... ;)

No, they're not. Neither are they mutually exclusive traits. Obama is intelligent, and to say otherwise is wrong, whatever the reason.

He -- like his opponent, like pretty much any 'politician' -- is mediocre in intelligence and idea...he's a used car salesman looking to sell a lemon.

And: I don't care if that assessment is 'wrong'.

henry, who WOULD be a good leader, or who HAS been a good leader? Anyone? Your neighbor? Your grocer? Some guy on TV? Churchill? Stalin? Juan Carlos of Spain? Generalissimo Francisco Franco (who, by the way, is still dead.)

You think NO ONE can be a good leader...therefore good leaders do not exist. Certainly PERFECT leaders don't exist, but 'shitty leader' is an oxymoron and frankly I get so freaking tired of people who rant and rail about how much everyone sucks and no one should ever lead or follow.

Which makes us LESS individualistic not MORE. We're all the same, then.

:mad: