Stop Iran

[quote=MikeWM]Not all that many of us supported Iraq, but Tony Blair decided to ignore us and help America anyway. Fortunately, there is very little chance of us allowing any more aggressions, short of Iran nuking London. Iraq burnt far too many bridges.

Mike
[/quote]

Agree.

The probem is that ballistic nuking is no longer the concern in these days where C137 is as common as foot powder. A pound of this stuff can wipe out vast expanses of lands and metropolitan areas making it uninhabitable for centuries. It is believed that 2% of illegal drugs and material still makes it into the US in spite of all protections. Given these facts, I don’t understand why the US leadership would put their people at risk at home. Not only them, but their generations. Far from continental US, their offensive wars wipe out whole generations of families on their own soil, is it reasonable to expect them to behave and stay at home after this.?

Conventional wars are a thing of the past, evidence the strenghting of the US borders. Even Canada won’t fair too well, but it is hoped by them it’s low key policy will bring on minor retaliation, and who’s to blame them.

These people fight wars in generational terms, unlike our standard surrenders on carrier decks. The war ends when Amoud’s future offspring decide not to fight. They are also suicidal, having nothing to lose by the loss of all family members, and dieing of leukemia after carrying this stuff to it’s destination means nothing to them.

No, we won’t see a conventional nuclear attack because they don’t have the infrastructure and technical ability to produce these weapons. What will happen is a Jerusalem/Palestine situation arising, people using gasmasks, cancer rates rising, and a level of cahos we will come accustomed to.

I feel we have to stop muscle flexing, the backup military might allowing us to do so is no longer effective. Every nation must be low key and stop the arrogance and boisturous displays. I plead to the world community to help our generations to live in a nuclear free world. I ask that everyone behave themselves and stop feeling so militarily self-confident. In this “live now, forget tomorrow” mentality, it is hard to convince anyone to think of the generational family unit of tomorrow, and not only imminent concerns. Help our future generations to live in a nuclear free world.

Andy

[quote=Ani Ibi]And you can justify expecting us to take you on the face of that statement in the absence of any supporting links in what way?

When did this become about resource grabbing? It was about Iran’s headlong tumble into producing nuclear weapons, was it not? Oh I forgot: the everpresent arbitrary raison d’etre for the war: oil. You have yet to give us a link to the Resolution taken to go to war. You have yet to even refer to it. And you expect us to take our oil pretext seriously justified by what logic?

As for my statement being wrong, see:

Canada threatens Iran with UN action on rights record

(Fri. 05 Aug 2005)

And which president would that be?

Faith and reason is enough for this little Catholic. Hypocricy impacts the justness of a war in what specific way? And by the way, since it was you who introduced the notion of taking this to a religious level, it falls on you to argue for religion and to give links to authoritative opinion on same.
[/quote]

For information that is commonly known, I won’t supply links. If there is a likelyhood that perhaps information is not well known, I do.

Andy

[quote=AndyF]Tone.?
[/quote]

Point?

[quote=AndyF]Lets’ be honest
[/quote]

OK.

[quote=AndyF]you dislike anyone disagreeing with US policy in general?
[/quote]

Claims to mindreading capabilities are an honest contribution to dialogue in what way?

[quote=AndyF]The truth hurts sometimes, especially when an individual not restrained with conflict of interest makes an unbiased opinion.
[/quote]

To what specific truth do you refer? Any links to offer? The rest of your statement is not comprehensible to me. Can you explain what you mean, please?

[quote=AndyF]This explans the national psyche, when every individual manifests the suppression of free opinion especially if it does not conform to his.
[/quote]

And your evidence for this suppression of free opinion appears in which main stream media outlet? :slight_smile:

[quote=AndyF]Well, you can be reassured your leaders are doing their job and conveying the same bias.
[/quote]

A bias evidenced by what?

[quote=AndyF]What is the threat, that they wish to modernize to nuclear energy? C’mon. What examples do we have in the past to show you the paranoia is unfounded?
[/quote]

Traditional Anglican has just explained this to you. If Iran were only wanting to modernize nuclear energy, it would not have built 15 breeder reactors. It also would not have issued inflammatory, warmonguering statements to the press.

[quote=AndyF]Why the sudden swing from focus of attention from NK to Iran.
[/quote]

The topic of the thread is “Stop Iran.”

[quote=AndyF]Perhaps the difference is these people were discovered to be more insane than the US, and they will suicidally actually do something?
[/quote]

Insane? Namecalling usually indicates that a point of view has exhausted its claims to reasonable discourse.

[quote=AndyF]If you really feel this way why aren’t you lobbying for an attack on NK first.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting that NK be attacked first? If so, what is your line of thought on this? Who do you suggest do the attacking? What form should that attacking take?

[quote=AndyF]I think your JCS will tell you they are afraid of China, just like in Vietnam. In other words they came to the conclusion “we can live without whatever the invasion would have given us”.
[/quote]

I don’t know what a JCS is. I don’t understand the rest of the statement. Could you explain it please?

[quote=AndyF]Strange that you would even consider force at this stage, not very charitable.
[/quote]

What was that the our Pope said about charity? Ah! It is in the forum rules. Here it is:

“Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like ‘a clanging cymbal’ (I Cor 13: 1).”
– Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Homily

[quote=AndyF]Sounds almost threatening and expectant, but what else would we have expected from a “Roman” citizen after 1/4 of the known world was conquered.
[/quote]

I agree. The rhetoric of Iran and NK has indeed been threatening and expectant. I was not aware of any expectations concerning Italian citizens in the face of Jihad. Can you explain these expectations please?

[quote=AndyF]For information that is commonly known, I won’t supply links. If there is a likelyhood that perhaps information is not well known, I do. Andy
[/quote]

Sorry, bud. That doesn’t cut it. I have just shown you – by means of providing a link – that the information in question is not common knowledge. It is merely your unsupported opinion.

Therefore, if you persist in refusing to do the homework in order to provide a link for your unsupported opinion, then you have conceded the point. Canada was quick off the blocks to condemn Iran’s headlong rush into nuke-building and war rhetoric.

[quote=Ani Ibi]Sorry, bud. That doesn’t cut it. I have just shown you – by means of providing a link – that the information in question is not common knowledge. It is merely your unsupported opinion.

Therefore, if you persist in refusing to do the homework in order to provide a link for your unsupported opinion, then you have conceded the point. Canada was quick off the blocks to condemn Iran’s headlong rush into nuke-building and war rhetoric.
[/quote]

It was you that deverted my focus to Canada’s current involvement in Iranian affairs. I was making a point specifically on Chretiens reaction to not get involved in the Iraqi war.

So since you refuse to remain in my context, and I see you are not as informed as I thought you were, I’ll bow out and bid you a good day. :slight_smile:

Andy

It’s an interesting question, isn’t it? :slight_smile:

Mike

[quote=MikeWM]It’s an interesting question, isn’t it?

Mike
[/quote]

I don’t think anyone in the Administration has stopped focusing on NK. The press might have, but they have their own motives for covering a story or not covering a story. Right now, Iran is juicier.

The NK negotiations are being held with China’s help, and China tends to keep these things quiet.

[quote=AndyF]The probem is that ballistic nuking is no longer the concern in these days where C137 is as common as foot powder.
[/quote]

When did this become a question of ballistic nuking? Who – besides you – has said that this is a question of ballistic nuking? This is a strawman. It has for some time been a question of mini-nukes been walked into the centres of cities in backpacks or floated into harbours on fishing boats. How is that ballistic?

As for the concern about C137: is this common knowledge or do you think it might be a courtesy to provide a link?

[quote=AndyF] A pound of this stuff can wipe out vast expanses of lands and metropolitan areas making it uninhabitable for centuries. It is believed that 2% of illegal drugs and material still makes it into the US in spite of all protections. Given these facts, I don’t understand why the US leadership would put their people at risk at home.
[/quote]

How does a terrorist walking a Cesium 137 tube bomb into the middle of a Canadian city equate to the US putting their people at risk? What part of Al Queda is going to kill us if we do not convert to – their particular brand of – Islam do you not understand? We are not putting our citizenry at risk. Al Queda is.

[quote=AndyF]Not only them, but their generations. Far from continental US, their offensive wars wipe out whole generations of families on their own soil, is it reasonable to expect them to behave and stay at home after this.?
[/quote]

False dilemma. Another option is to prevent the Cesium 137 tube bombs from ever reaching the centre of our cities and that prevention is what we are attempting to do.

[quote=AndyF]Conventional wars are a thing of the past, evidence the strenghting of the US borders.
[/quote]

Our part in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are non-conventional in what way?

[quote=AndyF]Even Canada won’t fair too well, but it is hoped by them it’s low key policy will bring on minor retaliation, and who’s to blame them.
[/quote]

You know this how? And who is ‘them’?

[quote=AndyF]These people fight wars in generational terms, unlike our standard surrenders on carrier decks. The war ends when Amoud’s future offspring decide not to fight.
[/quote]

Or when ‘these people’ (your words) have much greater access to well-rounded schooling and the economic benefits of democratic government. Or when we just plain remove Amoud’s and his future offspring from the planet.

[quote=AndyF]They are also suicidal, having nothing to lose by the loss of all family members, and dieing of leukemia after carrying this stuff to it’s destination means nothing to them.
[/quote]

The War on Terror is a war of logistics: their ability to drug and brainwash folks into blowing themselves up in the middle of innocent civilian populations; our ability to deploy shock and awe with one hand and democratic buttresses with the other hand in quantity.

The weakness of Al Queda is its strategy and its tactics. It’s strategy and tactics directly compromise any logistic strength they may have had.

Our strategy, tactics, and logistics – on the other hand – are well orchestrated. Our weakness is continuing to draw back from prosecuting those who give comfort to the enemy.

[quote=AndyF]No, we won’t see a conventional nuclear attack because they don’t have the infrastructure and technical ability to produce these weapons.
[/quote]

A conventional nuclear attack? When did nuclear warfare become conventional? They – meaning the terrorists – do not have the means of producing nukes while living in caves. However rogue nations do have the means of producing nukes. And that is why we are talking about Iran on this thread.

As for delivery systems: we are talking about small yield nukes being walked into the centres of cities or floated into harbours. When detonated in certain configurations, these produce gigantic fire storms which can – particularly when coordinated across a number of cities and harbours – knock a nation back to the stone age in a matter of seconds.

continued…

[quote=AndyF]What will happen is a Jerusalem/Palestine situation arising, people using gasmasks, cancer rates rising, and a level of cahos we will come accustomed to.
[/quote]

The WOT is a war of logistics. Consider the logistics of a rogue nation producing WMD and of nationless combatants taking delivery of same, hiding same, resisting detection, staying alive in the face of shielding problems associated with Cesium 137, and delivering undetected their ordinance to the target grid.

[quote=AndyF]I feel we have to stop muscle flexing,
[/quote]

In what way do you consider Iran and North Korea to be ‘we’?

[quote=AndyF]the backup military might allowing us to do so is no longer effective.
[/quote]

And – in the face of Iraq and A-stan – you know this how?

[quote=AndyF]Every nation must be low key and stop the arrogance and boisturous displays.
[/quote]

Where in OBL’s Fatwa does it say that if we all drink decaf and keep our hands folded in our laps that he will stop attacking us? His Fatwa can be summed up in three words:

Islam or death.

[quote=AndyF]I plead to the world community to help our generations to live in a nuclear free world.
[/quote]

Do you include Iran and NK in the world community?

[quote=AndyF]I ask that everyone behave themselves and stop feeling so militarily self-confident. In this “live now, forget tomorrow” mentality, it is hard to convince anyone to think of the generational family unit of tomorrow, and not only imminent concerns. Help our future generations to live in a nuclear free world.Andy
[/quote]

The presence of the Coalition in Afghanistan and Iraq and the response of the Coalition to the dangerous sabre rattling of Iran and North Korea ignores future generations in what way?

[quote=AndyF]It was you that deverted my focus to Canada’s current involvement in Iranian affairs. I was making a point specifically on Chretiens reaction to not get involved in the Iraqi war.
[/quote]

The thread is about Iran.

The context around Canada not going to Iraq is this:

We do not have the troop strength to deploy to Iraq while we are honouring our commitments elsewhere in the world – notably A-stan. Chretien made it about playing into the Family Compact’s anti-Americanism.

There is a thread of anti-Americanism which remains in Canada from England’s manipulation of Quebec, the First Nations, and the English colonists after the American Revolution. However, I must point out that we are no longer an English colony and appealing to anti-Americanism in Canada which depends on America for the defence of our homeland and for 80% of our exports – is ultimately a wild goose chase.

[quote=AndyF]So since you refuse to remain in my context,
[/quote]

The context of the thread is Iran. Rather than addressing the multiple questions which have been posed in response to your unsupported and often hard to understand opinions, you have done the same old same old which is:

sidestepping
and
changing the subject.

[quote=AndyF] and I see you are not as informed as I thought you were
[/quote]

You are several hundred links short of being in a position to point fingers at others as to their not being informed. Personal attack normally indicates that the author of such an attack has exhausted his willingness to contribute to productive discourse.

[quote=AndyF]I’ll bow out and bid you a good day.
[/quote]

Off to do some googling, are you? :tiphat: One can only hope.

[quote=Jeffrey]Man… just Nuke’em and be done with it. :frowning:
[/quote]

And the threat to the world is Iran? :rotfl:

How many more are you?

Andy

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.