[
I agree the muslims have said more then once they will kill the great satan while they burn our flag and shot their guns in the air they couldn't be more clear, hell they teach their young to hate America and are promised 42 virgins to blow us up, or highjack a plane.
How can anyone defend them when they won't even defend themselves.
They are proud and happy when Americans are killed.



QUOTE=Trikala;130317]I think I agree with Lancer. I believe the greatest threat to world peace is radical Islam or Islamism and the countries that harbor it. In fact, I sometimes wonder if these countries aren't fighting a proxy war with the west as the Soviet Union did in Viet Nam, Angola and other places.[/quote]

I fear America, their casual attitude towards war scares me. A country with one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons is definatley a threat to world peace, espcially when they appear to give little thought when considering who they want to invade.

Russia should also be feared, aswell as China. The Chinese economy is moving so quickly, and everyone is well aware of the size of their army. The Taiwan situation will show the world that China should be feared.

And the alternative was?

You would be less fearful if we just let the fundimentalist Islamic radicals just take over the ME? YOu would have been less fearful has we let the former Soviet Union take over Europe and in the end the UK? You would be less fearful had we just let NK with the aid of the Chinese take over SK?

What was it 20something UN resolutions, 14 months of debate, another vote here, one more chance for the inspectors to try inspections and you say that is giving it little thought?

What was your plan?

The countries I fear most are the USA and Israel.

The reason why I fear them is that they think they are always right and the others are wrong. And they have the most firepower. And from all the countries in the world that have nucleair weapons there is only one country that ever used them.

And the incidences where we were wrong and the other guy was right?

It would have been better had we not? And ever since we did all the opportunities to use them again and we didn't. In fact the US could have pretty much taken over the world but we didn't.

When has the US ever not supported the liberty and freedom of people and their right to form their own representitive government? When was the goal for us to take over another country and make it a part of the US rather than removing a tyranical dictatorial ruler and freeing the people of that country?

I guess we should never have gone to war Europe and should have let Hitler just have it.

Not to use the military option doesn't mean that you let them take over or do nothing at all.

hm. They were created by..? They get their weapons from...? We fight them with...? And they are still in Afghanistan and more were created in Iraq because of the invasion. That shows that our strategy is wrong.

There is always an alternative to the military option.

It would have been better. But this is not the right discussion to argue about historical moments.

I agree.

Honestly? Iran 1953, Iran 1979, Allende - Chile etc. etc.
Hussein - Iraq, war in the gulf, Taliban/Mujahideen - Afghanistan, Pakistan - Musharraf, Saudi Arabia.

It is the same as it was with the Shah in Iran: It is about ("modern")imperialism. In fact: oil.

There were men who let Hitler grow and those were anticommunists. To the situation in the Third Reich: It was too late. But there were some situations managed successful by civilians without violence.
And the Third Reich was build on? Militarism.

It does when they are willing to use military force to do so.

They were created by their own zealots, they get their weapons from arms dealers, we fight them with our military and itelligence resouces, they are still in Afghanistan because we shut the door to Iraq, the ones in Iraq are there to try and take over and fight us there which is better than having to fight them in the mountains of Afghanistan and we are whipping their butts in Iraq which is what we want to do.

What was the alternative with Hitler and Tojo?

What is the option with the radical Islamic who want to kill you?


re: using the atomic bomb against Japan

Well yes it is the right discussion, the poster brought up the fact we used it. Would it have been better if Japan had surrendered and we not have to use the A bomb yes. They refused.


Yep, there have been many cases where the US could have taken over most of the world, certainly this hemisphere, but we haven't have we.

And in each case we were trying to get rid of an oppressor and move the country to a more democratic government and a less oppressive ruler. Sometimes that is not possible in on fell swoop it takes time and diplomacy unless we just go in with the military and take them out. In the case of Iraq Saddam gave us Casus belli.

We never tried to take over Iraq and lots of wars are fought over vital natural resources.

And appeasors, those who believed war was never necessary and that even the most evil forces could be negotiated with.

You said there were ALWAYS options, now you say the situation with Hitler was too late. Well which is it?

Sure, and some are not and some are managed by citizens soldiers.

Moot point, they had to be stopped. What was your plan? Had you been Churchill or Roosevelt, what would your peaceful alternative have been?

do you have a clue what you're talking about? Mosaddegh was elected by people and shah was the dictatore thanks to CIA the first was overtrown and the second brought back to power in 1953 in Iran.
is it so hard to speak of things the way they actually happened instead of what makes US look good?

Yes, do you understand that when it comes to world politics you sometimes have to deal with people you wouldn't ordinarily like to and that it works very slowly usually through small steps. We dealt with Arafat didn't we. He wasn't such a great guy either, but sometimes we can't choose whom we want to deal with. But in all the cases you mention, our goal was to make it better and sometimes that takes decades.