BBC shows long Muslim propaganda videos during News (challange inside)

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I argue that bombing their oil fields will accomplish that and perhaps lead to the downfall of their evil regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt the former will ever be employed unless there's no other means to achieve the latter. We're kind of caught in this spot of separating the leadership in different Mid-East states from the people, and most of our tactics seem to be focused on preserving the welfare of the civilians while engaging the leaders.

Sure, we could take out Iran's oil pipeline, but that's really just an extension of taking out the their power, water, and food supply-line. There's nothing that could prevent us from doing this, just like there would be nothing to prevent us from doing that in Iraq, but it doesn't necessarily fit into our overall objectives.

I think the overall objectives are:
1) preventing the emergence of a ME super-power.
2) the establishment of a quasi-democratic states (1970's Iran).
3) complete instability if (2) can't be established.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I argue that bombing their oil fields will accomplish that and perhaps lead to the downfall of their evil regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt the former will ever be employed unless there's no other means to achieve the latter. We're kind of caught in this spot of separating the leadership in different Mid-East states from the people, and most of our tactics seem to be focused on preserving the welfare of the civilians while engaging the leaders.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I think you are correct.
There is a Chinese proverb that says, "A lion uses all its might when attacking a rabbit". My argument is to kill this rabbit with one mighty pounce. My view is in the minority....

Diplomacy with Iran is useless and other posters have made posts the Chi-Coms are giving UN cover to Iran in exchange for discounted oil. Only a decisive military option will change Iran's evil goals...

[stjohnychan]

Felix-
I've kindof even lost the thread of what you're advocating re: Iran. We are supposed to kill them w/ one mighty pounce, most likely nuclear? But what for, exactly?

This preemptive stuff is like when you're playing cards w/ a nutto so you decide to be a nutto too. And then you end up in a hand where you both have squat but you both five bet-bluff at it becuase each knows the other is nut... and most likely some third player ends up catching you both off guard and gettin all chips from both of you...

I just don't get the point. It's some dick measuring contest or something- relies almost entirely on the premise that "they're evil." Well maybe they are but more likely they're just different. And who's on the evil list these days anyways? Iraq was, Iran is, you also have mentioned Egypt, Saudi Arabia, probably Syria, you'd have to include Sudan... but why stop at just Islamic coutries? Throw in N. Korea, China, possibly Russia, why the hell not- "they're evil!" Are we supposed to fight every evil country? Or just the worst ones? And all at once or can we pick? And if we're picking why didn't we pick the most dangerous one? (N.Korea both before Iraq and currently) Or the most ready for democracy? (Iran before Iraq, but now noone really) Or the easiest? (Sudan- [censored], we could conquer the largest country in africa w/ a couple of helicopters and a jeep, stopping a genocide instead of avenging a couple of thousand deaths a decade old). Anyways attacking Iraq was stupid and attacking Iran would be worse.

For generations, Western foreign policy was defensive-- just fighting off whatever threat was coming at us, while relying on the strength of our ideas to win all the best immigrants in the short term and nations in the long term to our side... and it worked- democracy slowly and consistently expanded.

... Then came the neo-cons and their ridiculous reverse-domino theory. Didn't they learn anything from the cold-war? Nations aren't dominos, one doesn't become something just because the one next to it did- whether that something is democratic or communist. But anyways now we use trumped up excuses to invade countries, and clumsily.

Anyways I'm rambling now but your ideas are just so ill-formed and well, dangerous that they really bother me.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

I shall try to make myself more clear....I want to bomb the Persian oil fields. Then Iran won't be able to cause any more mischief for the USA. If they do, wait 6 months and bomb their oil fields again.
With regard to a nuclear option, I would only advocate this in case of nuclear terrorism...

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't get the point. It's some dick measuring contest or something- relies almost entirely on the premise that "they're evil." Well maybe they are but more likely they're just different. And who's on the evil list these days anyways? Iraq was, Iran is, you also have mentioned Egypt, Saudi Arabia, probably Syria, you'd have to include Sudan... but why stop at just Islamic coutries? Throw in N. Korea, China, possibly Russia, why the hell not- "they're evil!" Are we supposed to fight every evil country? Or just the worst ones? And all at once or can we pick? And if we're picking why didn't we pick the most dangerous one? (N.Korea both before Iraq and currently) Or the most ready for democracy? (Iran before Iraq, but now noone really) Or the easiest? (Sudan- [censored], we could conquer the largest country in africa w/ a couple of helicopters and a jeep, stopping a genocide instead of avenging a couple of thousand deaths a decade old). Anyways attacking Iraq was stupid and attacking Iran would be worse.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to introduce new topics then make a new post on Sudan, North Korea, etc... If I find your post interesting, I will respond. Personally, it matters little to me if other countries are behaving evil. It only mattters to me if they are directing this evil at my country....the USA. Iran qualifies..