This Sh*t has to stop!

Yeah, more Holy Wars!

 

Yeah, comparing nuking Tehran to nuking Japan is a piss poor comparison. Japan was a highly centralized, top down, authoritarian govt, where the emperor's word was law. That's why McArthur treated him with kid gloves. Hirohito says "Everyone stop fighting" and everyone stopped. Had he said "fight to the death" and then committed seppuku we would have had a nasty, prolonged war of attrition.

Nuking Tehran is like going out and dumping a whole bottle of round up on one dandelion patch in the yard, declaring "mission accomplished" and ignoring all the rest. They're not the same root system. You'd have to burn the whole damn yard to the ground, or spend every day crawling around with the round up.

Personally, I'd rather not see the world burnt to the ground.

 

If you do what I suggest, no other terrorist group would say peep. If they did, their own brothers would kill them immediately, knowing full well what would happen if they did not shut them up. As I said before, this is what is lacking--the general muslims say and do nothing, ZERO, NADA. Nuke the 2 major source of problems, and they will take care of their difficult idiots, for sure.
Otherwise, sit by and wait for more Airbuses to ram your tall buildings. It's what terrorists do. Cowards apologize for them, saying, "its a complicated issue".
You all say the USA is the best country ever. Rome said the same thing. So, if you want to be like Imperial Rome, you had better act like Imperial Roman armies....ruthless. They gave up by letting the hordes in; they are now Italy which has had 75 communist/socialists governments since WW2.

 

I am not advocating for central control, so don't put words in my mouth.
Neither am I advocating surrender because "it's too complicated".
Allowing destructive people in is not smart.

As I said--it is either them or us. Pick your side.

 

yea...I disagree. I just don't see nuking the two as a solution (see Tlokein's round up analogy above), nor do I think it makes since from a Global peace standpoint (although I totally disagree with the deal the current admin made with Tehran).

It's more like a metastatic cancer working to shut down the whole body...you can try to nuke it (high level Chemo).....may end up damaging the body for good, may end up salvaging some life (time), then it comes back and/or spreads....you know the rest. Think Metastatic = 21st Century Islamic Terrorism.

 

btw, I don't think we should be sitting on our hands by any stretch of the imagination.

 

tlokein is wrong.
It is not cancer.
It is other human groups trying to kill you and yours.
Defend yourself.

 

would you nuke Belgium?

O'Barry, I think we should defend ourselves but we can't decimate the world trying with dropping nukes everywhere.

If you don't think that this modern day jihad is analogist to cancer, then you need to quit taking hits from da bong!

 

Ok, so in summary, I think we have decided to hold off on nuking the Middle East for now, although thank you for your input Barry. Some feel we should block all Muslims from entering the country, however, we do not know if that would actually be possible since religious affiliation is not currently on passports, and we have yet to fully decide on what to do about the MINO's (Muslims in Name Only), you know, those were technically raised Muslim, but think it is a load of crap. Nor have we fully decided on what to do about Muslims from peace-loving nations such as Sumatra, and Indonesia for example, where a possible Muslim boycott could have potentially serious surf access implications. So I propose we form a sub-committee to investigate these issues in more detail.

On the topic of continuing to letting Muslims in the country, after some compelling arguments mind you, it was decided that since none of us are in any positions of power whatsoever, that we would continue with this policy even though some of the committee members remain vehemently opposed to it's continued implementation.

Furthermore I would like to inform the committee that due to a potential SW wind swell later this week, that I may not be available later this week, and may need to find a substitute.

And lastly, I would like to bring to the committees attention that in this committee member's opinion, yankee may possibly be a cyber-bully.

 

I do agree with the above. Our government has plenty of blame for being involved in that region and entering into Iraq. Several innocent civilians have died and I can see why they would hate us. As you say, you have to look at it from their point. The problem is we are now at the point where we must take care of our fellow US citizens and not new immigrants. I was once a liberal and then I grew up. NOYA.

I always thought isolationism was the right call especially regarding the military. We would have far less enemies and a secure border. We would harvest our own food and live in thriving communities. The problem is that we ****ed all that up by butting into everyone's business and the blowback has brought us to this point in time.

 

True indeed, well said T.

And throw in domestic USA lack of political will & taxation insanity yah-yah, and we got trouble. We got trouble right here in River City.

Apropos of nothing, Thatcher's quote in re Socialism is very accurate, then & now.
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

 

'Sigmund' as in Freud...? You have a long way to go, sparky.

Just because you couldn't blither your response to several of my basic postulations doesn't make me a cyber-bully. On the other hand, if you think that's what I am, I couldn't give a shiiite.

This is you: a passive aggressive regurgitator without one original thought in that echoing cranium that sits upon your shoulders. That sounds like the definition of a cow, actually. Hey, isn't it time you got milked again by the PC Barn Patrol?

So how tough is this to figure out: don't take in people from Syria. Or Saudi. Most of Yemen. Most of any 98% dominant Muslim nation. It's called an immigration policy for a reason. Need one, have one, get one America. It simply can't be an open lifeboat for everyone to jump into. You don't seem to comprehend that, siggis, and therein lies our problem, cause people like you get everyone else hurt.

 

There's a reason why most Middle Eastern countries are run by brutal dictatorships, theocracies and monarchies.

The large majority of peoples only understand the power of the sword and the fist.

Words and diplomacy mean nothing to them.

 

Bingo ^^ it's simple & it's true.

 

So, Sigmund let's hear how you would deal with this situation. You just sit there taking pot shots at anyone who has conviction. Let alone a thought.

Let's hear your solution.

BTW, if it's 'let them in because they will see the way & the truth of democracy' then just get it over with & say that & then head back to the barn for your nightly shearing.

 

Well that depends on your point of view.

Iran certainly didn't help themselves geopolitically by "nationalizing" (aka "stealing") the UK's largest asset in the region. Yes, the oil was in Iran, but Iran at that time didnt have the brains, technology, resources, finances or wherewithal to pull it from the ground.

When they were effectively shunned by the world community, Britain's assets were rapidly deteriorating when the West obviously financed a coup and placed the Shah as head of Iran. OK, not good...but taking something without certain attempts at diplomatic solutions erases credibility. Subsequently, a Western coalition was built to protect the aggrieved's substantial interests. I personally find it difficult to defend Iran's actions, but placing a de facto government for your own personal puppet state doesn't rate very high on the diplomacy ladder, either.

Anyways Stank, I tried to avoid using absolutes when I made the previous statements by using words like " most" and "majority". Of course I don't mean to insinuate that 100% of all Iranians, Saudis, or whoever need an iron fist. And being " secular" like Iraq or Syria appears to not make much difference regarding radical idealization.

Countries such as Jordan, Qatar, Oman, Egypt, Turkey and Morocco have continually been beacons of relative stability in the region without the dictatorships or theocracies that are so pervasive in the region. They seem to be the exception, rather than the rule.

Again, just my humble opinion.

 

You, my friend, are slow to understand what EXACTLY I am saying. BTW, Colbert is an idiot; funny at times, but still a liberal idiot--he would have you killed if it helped his career.
My point:
If you bomb out the enemys CENTRAL command, that is Tehran and ISIS controlled area, they are done.
I did not advocate bombing Belgium, London, Moscow, Pyongyang, Beijing.

We are going to get there anyway. You will not avoid it. Sending our troops on the ground is ridiculous; do you want them to "die for their country?" The idea is to make the terrorists die for theirs. All of them in one swoop. One B-2 loaded goes to Tehran, when we know the Mullahs are having a rally; Another B-2 loaded goes to ISIS central area (Syria, Iraq area, whatever it is called now) and annihilates them all.

Problem ends there, gentlemen. It goes no further.
They will then want to sell you nice persian rugs.......

 

Joking dude, J.O.K.I.N.G.

We've come to an impasse yank. slash spelled out the arguments I believe in far more eloquently than I ever could. You feel blocking muslims will save American lives, I feel it will cost American lives. You're right I'm wrong, I'm right you're wrong. All we can do is sit back and see how the world unfolds, and play our small bits in this life, and surfing the whole time of course.

 

Nuke the phuckers. Impasse over.
Persian rugs sold inexpensively--Americans get best deals ever!!!

 

So after we nuke Iran who does Russia get to nuke in retaliation?