been a while since I’ve been able to check this site…

Here’s an interesting observation.

The US decides to go in and remove saddam. Many complain that we are invading them, and we shoudl have let Iraq mind itself. We should not get involved in Iraq’s business.

The war is basically over, and now is in a recovery stage. A recovery that is very hard, and actually nastier than the technical war was.

Saddam is tried, convicted and sentanced in an Iraqi court.
The Idea being, that Iraqis shoudl decide his fat, for it was Iraqis that he harmed.

the same people I know who wanted to leave Iraq ALONE, now want the international community to try and sentance Saddam.

I say, if invading Iraq was a bad thing to do, as it was invading another people’s country (in my opinion, an NECESSARY evil, if you will). Wouldn’t it be just as bad to not allow Iraq to try the S.O.B. themselves?

Really, it is the only way to get them started to recovery. If you deny the Iraqis the responsibility of dealing with THEIR problem, you are invading them, figuratively, all over again!

Let them, as a nation, deal with their problems.

It depends on the type of insurgency…

In WWII, the French Insurgency VS the occupying Germans – I’d go with the French Insurgency. In this situation, the insurgency had pretty much the total support of the people.

Same war, different time – the German insurgents VS the occupying Allies – I’d go with the Allies. The insurgents were remnants of an evil, regime, trying to hold onto power. I’m sure they felt justified, and had some support of their citizens, but they were on th elosing end of a war.

Same deal with the Japanese insurgents – they were the remnants of a force that had lost a nasty war. They felt justified in their actions, but were esentially reaping what they had sewn.

The situation in Iraq is not a classic insurgency. The majority of the populace is NOT in support of the fighters. In fact, they are the targets of the fighters. Part of the insurgency is composed of foriegn invaders, fighting as, and acting like, insurgent Iraiqi. The other part is composed of Saddam loyalists – esentially like the German insurgency post-WWII – in that they lost a war, and have a LITTLE popular support, especially amongst the sunni population.

The situation is unique, as the Allies are allied with the main Iraqi people and army, and are fighting together against a pseudo-insurgency composed of some real insurgents (Baathists and some shia militiamen), and foreign invaders (sunni Al-queda fighters and Iranian extemist fighters).

However, in a REAL, CLASSIC insurecction, you’d expect the insurgency to be composed of a milita, that is defending their homes against an invading force. If it were an invading force against the US (even the US military against it’s populace – it’s happened before), I’d rather be an insurgent. (Depending, of course, on the REASON for the fighting.)

No way in hell is an army going to take the US militia without Geneva convention-shattering tactics. 100+million armed fighters, most of which have shooting experience.

Now, an insurgent in NK/Iran following an invasion – no way in hell would I want to be a part of THAT insurgency.

It looks pretty cool. I think, when operating, the SVTOL varient will
look really cool. The videos of it transforming, and opening up in mid
flight are just too cool. that’s going to be awesome. The harrier is col
to watch – these are going to be even better, since the transition is going
to be even more drastic due to the reconfiguration.

Also – I’m not going to believe that it’s the lightning II until I see an
official naming ceremony. Everyone thougth the Raptor was lightning II
until the ceremony itself.

Nuke weapons are dangerous. I hope US as a symbole of freedom and a devoloped country be the first to distroy its nuke arsenal so that the rest of nuke countries do the same.

Well, that would be nice. Here’s a tip: It can’t happen, and it won’t happen. That wishful thinking is not something that is possible in reality.

Why?

Because there will always be evil people.

If the US and Russia destroyed their nukes, then any other nation WITH nukes would dictate world policy. The US and Russia and the rest of the world would be at their mercy.

Besides, military technology is one of our best methods of advancement. When we’re invaded by aliens, or about to be hit by an asteroid, we’ll all be damn glad for nukes!

(and delight in the irony wil be shared by all humanity.)

Normaly, I would feel it is a “bad ” thing for Iran to develop Nukes – under the pretense that the fewer WITH nukes now, the better. BUT, I wasn’t too worried – who’s going to do something as stupid as starting a nuke war with a country with more nukes, right?

However, it was the comments made by the Iranian leader, that changed my mind.

These are not direct quotes, but they were esentially what he said:
Israel will be wiped off the map…
Any nation that does not support us(in wiping them off the map) will also be wiped off the map…
Iran has the right to distribute the weapons to whomever it chooses…

IF Iran was saying they wanted nukes to strike some balance, then that’s one problem to deal with. Still an issue to be delt with, but it’s not a horribly unprecidented thing.

The reason the world’s all worried, is that Iran’s leader is saying that they are going to destroy Israel, and all their enemies, AND they want to build a bomb.

You are all arguing that Iran is justified to build nukes as a deterrant – but that’s not the point. Iran is SAYING they’re going to do all sorts of bad stuff, and the world can’t ignore it and let it happen unchecked.

Think from the Israeli perspective: A country within missle range is promising to destroy your country, over and over. There are some insane, suicidal, terrorist muslim extremists involved in the country’s leadership. We all know the majority of the people are not crazy, but the entire populace of Germany wasn’t nuts, were they? What the people of Israel have to worry about, is a crazy leader of Iran developing a nuke, and nuking their country, without regard for the consequence!

If Iran was being led by a non-crazy, then this woulnd’t be as much of an issue.

Well, I’m not living within potential Iranian-ICBM range like you guys. If you feel comfortable with Iran having nukes, given the state of Iranian politics as of late AND their proximity to Europe, then fine.

I think it’s just easier to prevent them from building nukes than it is to intersept them on their way to our European friends.

hehe.

Throw him in jail. After all the money and fame, he’s still no better than the drug dealer he was before. Disgusting behavior by him and his entourage. This is what happenes wth many celebrities, who get millions of dollars thrown at them , but didn’t have to work hard to earn it. they think they are above the law – even when they go out of the country.

If it wouldn’t be such a disrespect to you guys – I’d say leave them over there.

Bowing to the terrorists. That’s it.

If the terrorists hijack a plane with the intent to use it as a weapon, they
WANT to crash it into SOMETHING.

If they WANT to crash it into a soccer stadium full of tens of thousands,
that;’s their objective. If they crash a hijacked plane into a stadium full
of fans, they accomplish exactly what they wish to.

If the government “lets” them by not shooting them down, they are
allowing the trrorists to accomplish their goal.

If they ANNOUNCE it publicly, they are simply telling the terrorists that
if they manage to get control of a plane in the air, they win! It’s all on
the terrorist’s terms.

If the plane is shot down, the terrorists don’t get what they really
wanted. Sure, people die, but you thwart the terrorists main goal.

Theonly way to win against terrorists is to do exactly the opposite of
what they want.

When you give in, relent, or comply, you lose.