[Cobnat]

But to get back on topic.

Iran will be bombed within the next year. THey bought nuke technology from N.Korea, and they have uranium enrichement plants.

I say carpet bomb them before they attack.

How would you know that?

What if I said that the Isreal had nuke tech, would we bomb them within the year? What is Isreal started doing exaclty what Iran is doing?

[Gobbler]

Wait a minute, Isreal already has nuke tech since 1967. But they're not the problem, so we definitely ain't gonna blow'em up.

This post has been edited by Gobbler: 22 January 2006 - 08:23 AM

[J m HofMarN]

You bomb and kill from a far. It's not as glorious or romantic, but it's the way things are done.

Wars can never be won by the push of a button no matter how much hardware you have. Wars are fought and won by the courage and will power of brave men like those freedom fighters who bled the ground red at Fallujah. When people are afraid to suffer and die for their cause it shows that they don't believe in it and they will lose. No US soldier wants to give their life for Bush's lies, but tens of thousands have already given their lives or freedom for the liberation of Iraq.

Iran will be bombed within the next year. THey bought nuke technology from N.Korea, and they have uranium enrichement plants.

So does the US. No matter what country is developing nukes we whine about it because our tyranical government wants to have a monopoly in the world destruction market. Iran's nukes will serve as a deterent to invasion or assault by the US or it's puppet state the Zionist Entity. I see nothing wrong with Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

I say carpet bomb them before they attack.

Would you be in favor of carpet bombing Baslanistan as well just because the Bush regime says they're supposedly participating in the Muslim brotherhood in the Caucasus region?

JM: "Kill the other guy instead of your own men" is a sound military decision.

Risk your own men instead of risking defeat IS a sound decision. The US army is superior to its foes in every way so why are they so afraid of fighting real battles? To show fear of your enemy allows them a victory even if it's not a concrete or literal victory.

Pre-emptive warfare is wise warfare.

You can use the example of world war 2, but then so can I. What about when Hitler "pre-empted" every country in Eastern Europe as well as France? What about when he "pre-empted" Russia and got schooled? What about when the forces of imperialism "pre-empted" Vietnam or Iraq? Or when the USSR "pre-empted" Afghanistan or Chechnya? One man's pre-emptive strike is the rest of the world's aggression.

[Slade]

The point is that only the countries we like are allowed to have nuclear technology. Israel is part of the problem, but so is every other country in the Middle East.

I don't want ANYONE to have nuclear bombs, but that's not going to happen. And as it goes, nuclear bombs are just reserve stockpile in case the other guy uses them first. The US remains the only country to ever actually use them against people, and against civilian targets, no less. No country is stupid enough to risk a nuclear war by starting something like that. Concerning the Balkins, yes, if there was actually a possibility of an attack by a military force, then I would be worried. But since we're far away, it's rather moot. The only wars we'll get involved in are vicarious ones with the big countries.

There's also a big difference between attacking someone on the basis that he might become a vague threat some time in the future and the pre-WWII policy of appeasement. There's no excuse to just wag your finger at a leader who's conquering Europe by force and saying "Don't do that again." right up until he's at your front door.

[Jordan]

Modern day Pre-emptive strikes are possible to pull off. It has not always been the case however.

Spy technology and the invention of the phone has allowed nations to moniter enemies and communicate with allies with much greater ease.

WW2 is the only 'good' case where a pre-emptive strike could have helped? So what, maybe it is, how does that make a PE strike on Iran any less credible? You really couldn't have a PE prior to 1938. In todays world we can. Why would you allow a nation, whose bent on destroying a friend, the oppurtunity to do so?

Hitler did not make a pre-emptive strike. Nobody was going to attack him. Pre-emptive means you attack before they do. The 'they' are in a position to attack you. Nobody was in the position to attack Germany, Hitler was uncontested. The only real force against him was the British, who barely held on by a thread. The Americans where far out of the picture. The way you like them to be.

It's a silly argument really. Even if Hitler was using pre-emptive, it did work and he did supress every single country around him. So by that measure, pre-emptive warfare is a success. But he didn't use it. You're using the term a bit loosely.

So does the US. No matter what country is developing nukes we whine about it because our tyranical government wants to have a monopoly in the world destruction market. Iran's nukes will serve as a deterent to invasion or assault by the US or it's puppet state the Zionist Entity. I see nothing wrong with Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

So you do advocate the destruction of a soverign country, by means of nuclear genocide, just as long as they are friends of the Jews and Americans? Americans commited nuclear genocide once. It was the frist go at it for any one, and since then they've never used them, nor has any of the US's friends. Nor have there been official threats to other countries "we shall use WMD on you"

Iran, North Korea, and China are more prone to using them because militarially speaking, the odds are against them. The US did not have to Nuke Iraq, it could have, but it didn't. If Iraq had a nuke, it would have certainly used it on the US. IT would have been the only chance at hurting the heathen enemy. Iran is in the same boat, I believe she would use them if given the chance.

Iran is an intolerant, aggressive nation and is controlled by a muslim fantatic who wants to kill Jews and wipe any trace of them from Israel. You support it and feel comfortable with Iran owning nukes.

The US is as evil as any one else. But they are also 'nicer' than any one else. They give more aid and support than most countries out there. They allow all walk of life to become Americans. They are more open to the outside world than any other nation on the planet. The only reason you hate them is because you're anti-whoever-holds-power.

I think you're a romantic. You like the idea of an uprising and the strong falling, but you don't have a firm understanding of what that actually entails.

SLADE: Yes, nuclear power is an unfortuante reality. To bad we are using it for destruction. But why would you want any one, other than your own country, to have it? Just look at it as a simple game. Why let the opposition have a fair chance of snuffing you out?
-----
Why would you send your men in for the initial push when you can pave the way for them with bombardments? This is how warfare has been fought for 100's of years now. IF you can, you bombard, then send in.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 22 January 2006 - 08:20 PM

[J m HofMarN]

You really couldn't have a PE prior to 1938.

What about the second Napoleonic war, where all of Europe attacked France in a pre-emptive strike?

What about the siege of La Rochelle by Cardinal Richelieu?

Military intelligence does not require phones to work, and the idea of attacking before you can be attacked has been around since forever. Sometimes it's an honest intent to defend your country, and sometimes it's an excuse to take over someone else's country.

Iran is going to nuke the Zionist Entity? Brilliant idea, I'm glad Jordanian (pun) intelligence has discovered this plot. Clearly the Iranians must not be thinking clearly considering that the fall out and probably the blast as well would kill thousands of Palestinian Arabs and blow up land and history that belongs to said Palestinians. It's also funny that the Iranians hadn't considered the effect of a full global blockade on them if not an outright invasion under UN auspices. I'm really surprised that while they were making this plan the Iranians didn't consider the fact that the Zionist Entity has at least six nuclear devices and would almost certainly be able to retaliate. I'll have to send the Iranian government a letter describing all of these problems, since clearly they are planning to do this as you say and must not know about the consequences.

Hitler did not make a pre-emptive strike. Nobody was going to attack him.

Please Jordan, read something, for the children? Hitler pulled claims of aggression out of every orifice of his fruity lil body. He even dressed Nazis in foreign (Czeck or Polish I think) army uniforms and had them attack their own nation. The burning of the Reichstag comes to mind as well. All of the countries he invaded were on his borders, which gives him more justification than the US had for invading Iraq. Hitler's preemptive strikes had slightly more basis than Bush's, but not much.

And no, his pre-emptive strikes did not work. The heroic peoples of France and Poland and Denmark, various other nations, all fought back underground, helped the Alliance and resorted to "Terrorism" to defeat Nazi Germany. That's how Bush and Hitler's kinds of pre-emptive strikes will always end.

If Iraq had a nuke, it would have certainly used it on the US.

Let's treat this like something simple; an intent to commit murder trial. Attempted murder is indeed a crime, and all you have to do is prove intent and that the culprit planned to do it. Here's your evidence:

*Iraqis are a different color than us.
*Their leader is mean.
*They are non-believers.
*They might have, at some point, had some vague desire to get something that might be harmful to someone, possibly us.
*If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction they would have used them on an army that was illegally invading their country and trying to topple their government.

Now the evidence to the contrary:

There are no documents stating Iraq's intent to attack the US with unconventional weapons.

Iraq has previously only deployed unconventional weapons while being invaded by a far superior force.

Iraq did not have any unconventional weapons.

Even if they did have them, Iraq lacks the means to deploy them far enough to strike the US.

I think an acquital would be forthcoming since my evidence is real and your evidence is based on anti-Arab sentiments alone. You can't convict someone of murder because they might have shot someone who was breaking into their home IF they had a gun. That's insane. By the same logic I think I should invade your house because if you had a space lazer you would use it to blow up the moon, and who knows, you could be building one somewhere.

[Cobnat]

Wait a minute, Isreal already has nuke tech since 1967. But they're not the problem, so we definitely ain't gonna blow'em up.

What are you talking about!? They have been acting like facist pricks from 1948 to 2001, and the US doesnt talk about them being a problem.

(edit) I would also like to make a point that if a 3rd world, or 2nd world country makes a nuke, it wont reach the US... unless ofcourse that country is Mexico, also, the US has the "Star Wars Program" so any nukes that are heading for the US are automaticly destroyed.

(edit#2) Also it would be nearly impossible to sneak a nuclear weapon into the US and detonate it becouse a nuclear warhead is heavy... about 5 tonns minimum, its not like on Movies though, I love it how people in movies can sneak nuclear warheads in backpacks into NY.

This post has been edited by COBNAT: 22 January 2006 - 10:13 PM

[J m HofMarN]

And another thing Jordan, I'm still waiting to find out if you agree with the administration's stance on Baslanistan and want them bombed or sanctioned for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Renegade]

I just realized this thread has been ignited again.. not nuff time to respond but i shalll come back in due time

[Jordan]

If an country is moblizing, breaking international laws, or has the high possibility to launch an attack, then an attack on them is a pre-emptive attack. And attack to stop whatever the enemy faction is doing.

Naploeonic warfare was never really pre-emptive in that respect. Armies marched about. Other nations would reconnoiter the land and report back "army on the move". The nation would then muster it's forces and prepare of a defensive or offensive manuerver.

Military intelligence does not require phones to work, and the idea of attacking before you can be attacked has been around since forever

But now it's so much easier. If they had phones during the napoleonic era the world would have indeed launched a preemptive attack on France. They would have found out the intentions of Napoelon, how he re-wrote the books on warfare, and how his army was a well trained and war hardened lot, not a scruffy band revolutionarys. Napoleon was able to do all this in secert and the world was none the wiser. He was building up his grand tactics and nobody could foresee it.

Here is a website that lists the events that lead up to WW2

http://www.islandnet...olsson/ww2hist/

Nothing Hitler did was pre-emptive. He was clearly making aggressive moves and breaking laws/treaties. You could see it a mile away. Especially his annexing of Austria in 1938 by means of a military march on the capital.

The rest of Europe sat on their hands and pretty much well watched the Nazi's take towns, militarize, and mobalize without lifting a finger. They let stupid diplomatic talks prevail. Chamberlain was actually impressed with hitler after having a talk with him.
----

It's a good point that Iran would not want to destroy the landmarks in Israel. But why allow the remote chance of it? Why even risk it?

[J m HofMarN]

If an country is moblizing, breaking international laws, or has the high possibility to launch an attack, then an attack on them is a pre-emptive attack. And attack to stop whatever the enemy faction is doing.

And which of these actions were Iraq and Vietnam guilty of?

Other nations would reconnoiter the land and report back "army on the move". The nation would then muster it's forces and prepare of a defensive or offensive manuerver.

Are you implying that surprise attacks were impossible in the past or that they're more possible now? I can assure you the invasion of Iraq was in no way a surprise.

Nothing Hitler did was pre-emptive. He was clearly making aggressive moves and breaking laws/treaties. You could see it a mile away.

Yes but he said it was and Germans believed him. Ignorant Germans who's misguided patriotism allowed them to believe that unjustified wars were for the greater good, and for defenseive purposes. Poor, addle brained Germans who were too concerned with their white master race to worry about the Gestapo tapping phones or forbidding dissent or exiling and disappearing opposition. It's a good thing that there aren't any people in the US stupid enough to fall for stuff like that.

It's a good point that Iran would not want to destroy the landmarks in Israel. But why allow the remote chance of it? Why even risk it?

You're right. To prevent any danger of civilian casualties it's necessary that we "carpet bomb" Iran. That way there won't be any civilian casualties.

Bombing =

[Cobnat]

It's a good point that Iran would not want to destroy the landmarks in Israel. But why allow the remote chance of it? Why even risk it?

How about we just nuke Iran and Isreal, they are two countries that no one really cares about, and are doing nothing for the rest of the world, it would solve so many problems.

[Slade]

I don't think Germans were necessarily ignorant. Their country had been turned to shit following losing the first World War, and Hitler reminded them of how pissed off they should be. Essentially, the allies carved out neat little chunks of land for themselves at the end of the war; a spoils system. Germany had a very weak democratic government, the Weimar Republic, and Hitler first was given and then stole power from them, promising an end to the absurdly high inflation due to war debts it was forced to pay to the allies.

And diplomacy doesn't work when the leaders don't do anything but say "Ok. You can take this country, but only if you promise us you won't invade another country." every time a country is invaded.

The whole WWII - Iraq comparison is just absurd. I could see it just maybe if Saddam had marched into Poland, or actually done anything aggressive since Kuwait.

[J m HofMarN]

Maybe when you compare Saddam to Hitler it's absurd, but Bush to Hitler is very much spot on, of course that's not what I'm about at the moment, I'm just trying to show that they both used "pre-emptive defensive strikes."

[Otal Nimrodi]

Pre-Emptive strikes have almost always, to me, seemed to mean

Let's blast that guy to hell for no good reason. But say that he wanted to kill us.