25 Sep 09
Originally posted by sh76good point.
They might not have access as of right now. But who can doubt that, left unchecked, they will eventually get access to nuclear or biological weapons capable of reaching western targets?
If Iran gets nuclear weapons and has a falling out with the West, why would they NOT sell nuclear weapons for billions of dollars to terrorist organizations who are intent on ...[text shortened]... rder is impossible... Or, at least, counting on stopping terrorists at the border is a bad idea.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyWell, dead is dead, isn't it? What difference does it make, apart from not being able to make a juicy story with spectacular footage about a teenager who died of cancer?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]Well, any kind of religious extremism is a threat to my way of life, so islamic terrorism is not special in that respect. In any case I have no reason to suspect islamic terrorists have access to nuclear or biological weapons capable of reaching western targets on a grand scale, do you?
Of course it's tragic ...[text shortened]... nd you. You are just speaking gibberish to me now. This is pointless. Let's just drop it.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo diverting the money now spent in Afghanistan on a useless war to research against diseases and improving road safety would not save lives? Please. I already showed a while ago that getting US road safety on par with that of the Netherlands 20,000 American lives would be saved every year.
there are programs in place for all of these, and for afghanistan.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorrayeah, why bother with terrorists if you can build roads instead?
So diverting the money now spent in Afghanistan on a useless war to research against diseases and improving road safety would not save lives? Please. I already showed a while ago that getting US road safety on par with that of the Netherlands 20,000 American lives would be saved every year.
they can bomb the buildings but at least the roads will be of good quality.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by generalissimoYou're assuming that the war in Afghanistan stops terrorism. Will withdrawing from Afghanistan cause seven 9/11's every year? They are happening now, and they can be prevented. Easily.
yeah, why bother with terrorists if you can build roads instead?
they can bomb the buildings but at least the roads will be of good quality.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI know!
You're assuming that the war in Afghanistan stops terrorism. Will withdrawing from Afghanistan cause seven 9/11's every year? They are happening now, and they can be prevented. Easily.
so why keep fighting if you can just give up instead?
lets hope the terrorists eventually get bored.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou never proved anything! lol your correlation is absurd, as is comparing the U.S. to the Netherlands. Build/improve roads and don't fight terrorism? This is why i take nothing you say seriously.
So diverting the money now spent in Afghanistan on a useless war to research against diseases and improving road safety would not save lives? Please. I already showed a while ago that getting US road safety on par with that of the Netherlands 20,000 American lives would be saved every year.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraApparently you would choose to allocate resources to fighting non-existential threats (to the country as a whole) over existential threats. You would prefer to allocate resources to fight cancer, to hopefully save the life of individual citizens, rather than fight an ideology that threatens the American way of life for ALL citizens.
Yes, it is one thing or the other. Resources are limited, and choices have to be made.
It's like refusing to fight the fire that threatens to burn down your house because you're too busy taking an aspirin.
25 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyYou don't fight an ideology by promoting it. The Nato presence in Afghanistan is probably the biggest booster of islamic terrorism in the world currently. Besides, there is a larger domestic threat for the US so resources are more efficiently spent on intelligence investigating domestic threats.
Apparently you would choose to allocate resources to fighting non-existential threats (to the country as a whole) over existential threats. You would prefer to allocate resources to fight cancer, to hopefully save the life of individual citizens, rather than fight an ideology that threatens the American way of life for ALL citizens.
It's like re ...[text shortened]... ght the fire that threatens to burn down your house because you're too busy taking an aspirin.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyMaking an example of Iran in a "spectacular way" would just feed the monster. Ideologies like Islamic Totalitarianism feed on rage and grievance.
Mildly affecting? LOL. Like we were mildly effected by the attack on Pearl Harbor, eh? How asinine.
And again, I said to defeat the Islamic Totalitarian ideology we should start with Iran. Defeating the ideology will take more than just regime change in Iran, but that would be the logical place to start to work on discrediting it. We, ...[text shortened]... t that embracing the violent and backward ideology of Islamic Totalitarianism is a road to ruin.
On the other hand, if we somehow could use Iran (and Iraq) as an example of how a peaceful protest movement can bring about a free, democratic, and prosperous society that still allows Muslims to worship freely - that might take some of the teeth out of the extremists' appeal.