http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350470,00.html

You see what I am saying- iran is attacking us through terrorist proxies worldwide through hezzbolah, attacking our troops in iraq and arming our enemies worldwide, and is provoking us. They want this conflict. This conflict is inevitable. iran's britches are WAY out of proportion to their muscle and its going to be very satisfying to see them get utterly crushed.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

Do you even know the implications of attempting to "utterly crush" Iran?
How many American soldiers are you willing to make the ultimate sacrifice? How many more billions of dollars would you like to be in debt to China? God forbid, how many American civilian lives are you willing to place in greater danger? All to show a country 6000 miles away how great, strong, and powerful our country is compared to theirs?

You say you hate terrorists, but not only do you do exactly what they want you to do, you also give them incentive and justification to continue their vile atrocities.


ETA: You do realize that the January Iranian boat encounter was a false story planted by the Pentagon, correct?

You speak as if its a choice. Most of what you said was true about hitler and the nazis before we entered WWII. But, this conflict, as that one was, is inevitable. nothing can stop it. Its not a matter of my choice or desire for war. Thats silly. Its a simple recognition that we face an evil, fanatical enemy that is very dangerous to the world, more dangerous than hitler and the nazis, and which must be destroyed.

Appeasement and retreat will not end the threat.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

Inevitable? Death is inevitable. Why, then, do we continue to live? Using that logic, we should all resign ourselves to our grim fate. After all, the Reaper is not susceptible to appeasement and he will follow us wherever we go. Might as well end this whole life experience now.

Fortunately, I'm not so discouraged that I plan on committing suicide or helping send others to their deaths by rooting for a nonsensical war. But alas! Godwin's Law is proved right yet again.

Citing "Goodwin's Law" is a cop-out. The comparison between war and death is interesting. As one must prepare for death when it is known to be approaching, one must prepare for this inevitable war. The reality is that we will have a war with iran, but delay is serving to strengthen them right now due to oil revenues, not us. So, delaying the inevitable will make the war more difficult and more deadly, for both sides.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

If you actually did a bit of research, there are groups inside Iran who actively (and covertly) are the political dissidents of the country. They have a following, and most of that following is a young one. They do not like the Iranian leadership, and want to end the religious rule -- they want freedom, and they want democracy.

And yet you insist (as most Neocons do), that we need to invade to get that to happen. I would insist we need to support the dissidents and let them work their own magic, and overtake the rulers internally. Imagine this for a moment -- the United States does not win its Revolutionary War, but instead it is won by France. Then we get the 'spoils' of war, whatever France decides to give us. There is no pride in this for us, and most people would realize that what they are getting is not real democracy, they are getting what somebody ELSE wanted for them. Democracy, since you fail to realize it in all your posts, does not mean the same thing for every region. But it DOES lead to more peace, fairness, and openness for everybody. But it is something that has to be SEIZED, not GIVEN. Iranians will never accept a government handed to them by the US if we remove their leadership.

The same is true in Iraq. Right now, the path to peace is THRU IRAN. Even Petreus acknowledged that much in the last hearings, and that's why none of military leaders are going to label al-Sadr a terrorist, or criminal -- he is the rule of the land, and while he is guilty for much of the violence against the US forces, he is also the way the country will get settled. George Bush and co are against working with Iran to get that accomplished, but most of the military leadership has already admitted that Iran is our path to salvation. We have given them exactly what they wanted in our invasion, and we've decimated our world-wide readiness for our military. Imagine if North Korea decides to march on South Korea -- who will support the troops on the DMZ? NOBODY. That's what they said in alternate hearings while Petreus was testifying.

Iraq is in a holding pattern. The violence is down because most places have been "ethnically cleansed". Militias rule most of the country, and they already have gathered the support they need to rule effectively. Millions of Iraqis have left the country entirely due to the instability. There is no 'victory' to be had. Read up on your history. This is EXACTLY what happened in the early 1900s with the British. People went peaceful, calmed down, violence was down for the same reasons I am saying now. And when the Brits left, it erupted and Iraq got yet another set of dictators for the years to come. And to boot, we are paying people off NOT TO FIGHT US. Do you think we can do that forever?

While i am a big proponent of optimism in Iraq -- I am also a realist. You're a dreamer if you think that we are going to have a democracy in two years. They didn't SEIZE their democracy, they were granted it. And mark my words, when we leave (and eventually, we will HAVE to), it will devolve into violence and power struggles almost immediately.

I suggest you talk about subjects you've done a little more homework on. Right now, you're speaking from point of view that is idealistic, but not based in reality. If you want to read up on the early 1900s Brits in Iraq, re-read the hearings with Petreus and the adjacent hearings on our military readiness, then get back to me. Right now, you're just repeating the Limbaughs and Coulters who have nothing to say other than warmongering.

Tell me then... if China invaded Mexico and started to plant flags and put up embassies, and LOTS of military bases...

Do you think we'd let it go by and sit there idly?

Iran isn't stupid. They are doing this for their OWN protection, but since we just eliminated their #1 enemy in the region, they really have the material to work with now to put themselves in a forward position. And that's what ANY country would do -- look out for themselves.

Hercules, I think you made a few good points and will address them. But, right off the bat, several contradictions are striking.

So, my first question is if you believe all these things about me, that I am an ignorant idealist, than why do you want to discuss the issues with me? Why would you ask my opinions about the issue?

I am well aware of the internal opposition to the iranian regime and our covert support of them. There are many iranians working with us to bring democracy to their country, seizing democracy as you say. There is no reason we can't help them. Further, your point that they MUST seize it rather than having it handed to them, while valid, is directly questioned by numerous examples of cultures conquering others and then being willingly assimilated (Greek, Roman, etc), even in the case of democracies, like Germany and Japan for instance.

As far as the difficulty of occupying large areas of hostile territory, I agree the British made it clear that this is not only undesirable but impossible, no matter the military mismatch. I was against long term occupation and democratization of iraq. I thought we should keep our bases, let them work it out for themselves, and destroy anything that emerges that we consider a threat. I thought we should encourage them to civil war and killing each other, and focus on having them fight each other, keeping them poor, and essentially harmless. This is because I am not sure they are culturally capable of democracy, given the dominance of the evil ideology of islam and its incompatibility with freedom and peace.

But, I do feel the goal of a democratic, free, peaceful iraq is worthwhile and would represent a tremendous victory in the war on islamofascism. It amounts to convincing the enemy we are right and they should adopt our culture, just as Japan and Germany were convinced. This is the ultimate victory, a McDonalds on every muslim corner. So, I am willing to give the effort my full support once. If iraq fails, then I advocate nothing but destruction for the muslim countries that fund/assist terrorism. If and when they completely and utterly surrender, we could try and help them again.

Its not a valid comparison. You are speaking as if the antagonism is one-way or recent, and it is not. This is something that has been going on since muhammed started rampaging around to conquer and convert people to his insane religion. Its a totally different situation. We wouldn't be exerting so much force in the areas of the world they have already conquered if they didn't keep trying to wage their stupid jihad.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

There are differences again -- Greek and Roman are far too old to compare in this. I will use German and Japan for that purpose, since they are your examples.

Firstly though, we do NOT support the internal dissidents in Iran. We don't support ANYTHING in Iran. That's the inherent problem. We are looking at a military solution without considering the diplomatic or covert one. If it was true that we were already helping internal residents rally the people instead of trying to force change down their throats, then I'd give it a pass -- we aren't doing anything of the sort. If you say we should be helping them, it would be fitting to try that before war, no?

In BOTH cases (German and Japan), the inhabitants of the country were the ones rebuilding it. Germans build the foundations for buildings. They reconstructed their roads. They put up the power plants. This is the same in Japan after the war. In Iraq, we have 180,000+ contractors taking away the jobs Iraqis could do themselves -- willingly, and ably. This is a HUGE resource drain we have, because the American taxpayers are paying increased prices in order to rebuild Iraq to American firms, rather than a price MUCH less than paying Iraqis themselves all the while giving them jobs and stability in a region that needs it badly.

Every society is capable of democracy, but not in the context of what WE view as democracy. Remember that early on in the US, we elected very religious officials to Congress and the Senate. This may well be true in Iraq, that certain regions want a religious leader rather than a secular one. The inherent challenge here is for us to LET THEM HAVE IT. If you have a democracy in Iraq, there are going to be secular people and religious people. The secular people are going to be the ones getting things DONE, and the religious people will talk a big game and not do anything. And in a few generations, you will see that Iraqis themselves will elect less and less religious leadership. But we have to give them that time, because their democracy will be stronger and more vibrant because of it. This has little or nothing to do with the religion of Islam, just like it has little or nothing to do with Christianity in the US. It's just an issue -- like in every democracy. Islam under educated minds is certainly capable of democracy, just like any other religion is. We just have a bunch of illiterates explaining what their view on religion is, without any reference of history. And even with Christians, the combination of the two was a deadly force in the Crusades and other wars.

There will never be a McDonalds on every Muslim corner. To believe this is a victory is foolish -- there is a cultural difference between Iraqis and the "West" (and I use that term loosely). You think Japan adopted our culture? Have you ever been to Japan? They HATE Americans. They hate ALL foreigners. And they suffer because of it too -- there's a lot of ingrained racism in Japan you will find only there. Germany is probably a better example but it is in the midst of trade with countries that are no farther than going from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. It is ingrained and intertwined with the economies of the EU, and as such -- it will adopt a culture that reflect a "European" aspect, and not just a "German" one. Iraq is dissimilar in that regard, since it is flanked by countries (Iran, Kuwait) who are enemies to it for years, and other countries who are too despotic to allow intertwining of ANYTHING (Saudi Arabia). Again, your example is flawed.

It is a valid comparison, and you sidestepped it. Iran is going to do what is in ITS best interests. If that means supporting internal groups in Iraq to keep the US from having strategic advantages against them, then they will do that. The US would do exactly the same if China were to invade Mexico. There is a security risk there that would be stupid NOT to invest resources into. And now that Iran doesn't have to invest so much in shielding itself against Iraq, they are more able to do what they want to do, thanks largely to the US.

Antagonism has nothing to do with it. We invaded a country that is a neighbor to somebody else. This is exactly the same as if China invaded Mexico or Canada.

There are always differences but history is replete with constant examples of cultures conquering others and then having their culture adopted by the conquered, even with the muslims conquests. Its actually far more common than the conquered maintaining their culture unaffected, which is very, very rare.

Sure we do. Its just done covertly. You are extremely naive if you think we are taking a hands-off approach inside iran.

In theory, yes. But, then we have been doing exactly that for decades and yet we are in a defacto state of war already, fighting each other in iraq. the reality is that the iranian regime is not going to be destroyed without the USA making it happen. And, we will.

Perhaps. I believe people of all races are certainly capable of democracy. But, the islamotard ideology is incompatible with Western concepts of freedom so the only way its going to happen is if they abandon islam or at least confine islam within a democratic framework, something in complete contradiction with the nature of islam.

This is incorrect. The muslims certainly are referencing history, the history of muhammed and islam, a history of violence and totalitarianism. It is you that wishes to ignore the history of muhammed and islam in favor or some hope for the best fantasy that it will somehow eventually change, and only will change if we don't fight it. further, the Crusades were a reaction against the muslim aggression thats been going on ever since muhammed started spreading his stupid cult.

Just exactly what people said about Japan, and yes they certainly have adopted our culture. people like you said we could never force them to abandon their emporer in favor of democracy. They have, they have McDonalds, and yes, they love us, which is why they are now creating a real military for the first time since WWII so they can help us against the islamotards.

Finally, you can't justify the iranian regime with the invasion of iraq. iran has been committing acts of war and war crimes against the USA and the world long before we invaded iraq.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.