Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist_McDrowner]

More along the lines of the punisher, really. Bats usually wasn't much for the mass murder of innocent civilians in order to get at someone he didn't like. Don't think the punisher was either, but that's a bit closer.

Really, though, the second someone starts proclaiming happiness at the thought of hundreds or thousands of innocents dead because of some political bullshit, you can pretty safely... I wouldn't say ignore, per se, but discount and revile? Yes. Bloodthirst is not a virtue. S'in fact kinda' disgusting, especially if you're intending to exercise it on actual human beings.

I guess a lot of people don't realize that "some B-2" would put dozens of innocents into the grave, but that doesn't really excuse the sentiment. It's either they don't realize it, or have dehumanized the population of whatever place they dislike to the point it's acceptable. Which is even worse.

The deaths of a few, to save the dozens of innocents Iran kills every day. We'd only need to blow up airbases and their nuclear plants. Iran is destabilized enough it would turn into the next Libya anyway.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We'd get a better result from covertly (or not so covertly) supporting pro-democracy Iranian factions. Iran's regime is already heavily criticized by its own people, there just needs to be a push. Direct military intervention is something that rarely goes well unless reserved until absolutely necessary.

[Mego]

Romney: gets elected, retroactively changes his campaign promises.

Mitt Romney has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.

I love you for this.

Also guys if you don't feed the troll, he'll starve to death.

[mainiac]

I am certainly not eager and happy at the idea of going to war with Iran, but I can see it as a better option than not going to war with Iran under the right circumstances. And things seem to be heading towards those circumstances at some point in the next decade.

They seem to be headed that way only because there is a consensus among chickenhawk editorial writers that they are headed that way.  I find it trivially easy to imagine a decade without war with Iran.  I imagine that after a decade the editorialists will have grown bored and moved on.

[Urist_McDrowner]

We'd get a better result from covertly (or not so covertly) supporting pro-democracy Iranian factions. Iran's regime is already heavily criticized by its own people, there just needs to be a push. Direct military intervention is something that rarely goes well unless reserved until absolutely necessary.

You mean like Libya, or Nazi Germany, or Imperialist Japan, right?


I fail to find one example, including Vietnam, where it wasn't effective. We lost vietnam politically. They made us not want to fight anymore, and that was how they won. After Tet, the NVA was broken, the VC nonexistent. Due to the invasion of Czechloslovakia, Sino-Soviet tensions rose and China backed out of Vietnam. Cambodia was now hostile to the North and allowed the US to come in and try to purge the Viet Cong. It was over. But we got to the last foot of the marathon and said "screw it" and walked away, rather than win.

[Il Palazzo]

But war is bad, man. Like, really, really bad. Random people die, good and bad, old and young. And the worst part is, you cannot undie them.
It's true.

[Zangi]

We'd get a better result from covertly (or not so covertly) supporting pro-democracy Iranian factions. Iran's regime is already heavily criticized by its own people, there just needs to be a push. Direct military intervention is something that rarely goes well unless reserved until absolutely necessary.

You mean like Libya, or Nazi Germany, or Imperialist Japan, right?


I fail to find one example, including Vietnam, where it wasn't effective. We lost vietnam politically. They made us not want to fight anymore, and that was how they won. After Tet, the NVA was broken, the VC nonexistent. Due to the invasion of Czechloslovakia, Sino-Soviet tensions rose and China backed out of Vietnam. Cambodia was now hostile to the North and allowed the US to come in and try to purge the Viet Cong. It was over. But we got to the last foot of the marathon and said "screw it" and walked away, rather than win.

Ah, yea... keeping the civilian population in the dark and only releasing good news.  I believe that is one of the results of Vietnam in today's wars...

[Leafsnail]

And what would've been achieved by "winning" in Vietnam other than pride?  Getting even more civilians and US servicemen meaninglessly killed at huge expense?

Incidentally there was no "direct military intervention" in Libya - instead simple measures were taking to prevent Gadaffi from killing his own civilians.  Iran is not remotely comparable to either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan as it's not anexing its neighbours.

[darkrider2]

Ah, yea... keeping the civilian population in the dark and only releasing good news.  I believe that is one of the results of Vietnam in today's wars...

Agreed, I think they learned pretty quickly not to report about us losing.

[Heron TSG]

Except for that one time shortly after the Tet offensive where they reported us losing, and the North winning. Then we backed out.

[Eagle_eye]

Look at it this way: Millions of people are going to die in an invasion. That's basically guaranteed. Even if the U.S. military doesn't kill any civilians(unlikely), the Iranian government is still going to conscript massive numbers of people, impose medicine and food rations, etc. Iran does not have deathcamps like Japan or the Nazis did. The worst thing they're doing is imprisoning a few thousand political dissidents indefinitely, giving several thousand more shorter sentences, and killing a few. That's awful, but it doesn't even compare to the damage an invasion would do. People aren't an extension of the government,except in a consensus democracy, which is totally impossible,  and the Iranian people shouldn't suffer because of what their government did.

[Nadaka]

Or Iran nukes Israel for shits and giggles.

[Il Palazzo]

Or Iran nukes Israel for shits and giggles.

Because they're insane Nazi Sith lords.

[Nadaka]

Or Iran nukes Israel for shits and giggles.

Because they're insane Nazi Sith lords.

Because they are run by fundamentalists who have publicly stated that they want to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth.

There are about as dangerous than the American Christian Fundamentalists who want to see Israel get nuked so we can finally kick off Armageddon, only they have more direct power over their country and any nuclear weapons they get.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Except Iran isn't stupid enough to believe they'd have a chance if they did act as the aggressor, so that's nil.