HaloNoble6

Yeah this was pretty retarded.

You must not forget to wear your shinny pants to commencement!

The fact of the matter is that there isn't a "rather large difference", in principle, between the theft of property outside a country's borders, and the theft of property inside a country's borders. Theft is theft.

And just what, in principle, is that "rather large difference?"

Oh, OK. I've had people pronounce my name exactly the way you've spelled it.

Was this meant for me?

Huh, I just checked the moderator logs, and indeed the only changes made to that topic title prior to yesterday were by me. I'm sorry about that Felix; you know I have no bone to pick with you. We were doing some house-cleaning back then and clearing up titles to make them less obscure or less general; it looks like I took too much liberty in this case. It's weird because I've never used that word in regular speech--hence why I readily admited it wasn't me (in fact I had to look the word up to see exactly what it meant). My apologies, mate.

I didn't do it, but man is that subtitle funny (and accurate)!

Please keep us updated on his thoughts on Yaron's piece!

Is it just me, or does it seem like the lunatic Iranian leaders know more about America's cultural state than America leaders do? They speak clearly, smilingly, directly. American officials speak vaguely, apologetically, pleadingly. (link) I'm beginning to get very worried...

I don't understand this distinction between actual and official reasons. What, are there conspiracy theories out there saying we did it to test the bomb on actual people? Anyway, the point is that the principle behind the bombing of Japan can apply to bombing Iran. Japan, a proven threat, was given an ultimatum to surrender unconditionally, which it refused. The Japanese were going to fight to the death, to be 'martyrs', were we to invade. In response, the most efficient, least costly method of taking down the threat was to use nukes. Similarly, we have Iran, the heart of an Islamic culture that glorifies martyrdom, as a proven threat. Iran should be given an ultimatum: surrender unconditionally or be bombed. I agree with you that Iran has not committed the same injustices on the same scale as Japan. But the difference exists only because Japan was allowed to act out its ambitions, while Iran can't just yet. In principle, however, their ambitions are the same: world domination using a militant flavor of religious fanaticism. And so, in principle, the same solution applies: give up or die. As far as your second point, I think it's more of a tactical question, not a moral question. We must agree, however, that the most efficient, least costly option that results in the end of the threat is the moral option. If not, we can't discuss this issue. (That is, we can't discuss "containment" for the sake of preserving "economies".) If we have good cause to suspect that bombing of Iran would induce retaliation by it or other parties, then we cripple all capabilities for retaliation in one truly shocking and awing strike. Additionally, we may beforehand deliver an ultimatum to those who would be insane enough to think of such a notion: you make a single move toward such an act, you will be destroyed. It is truly a tragedy that non-freedom-loving nations were allowed to get the bomb. It is an indictment of our foreign policy. Fortunately it seems this policy is changing. Let me add that this is all moot anyway, since there is no way in hell a military guided by Just War Theory will ever act in a wholy selfish way by using nukes to break the will of the enemy.

And what point is there in wondering about the cost of such a war if such a thing as "cost" is irrelevent if we're all dead anyway?

The will of the enemy must be utterly shattered via a nuclear bomb. To avoid American casualties and skyrocketing debt in a long drawn-out "war on terror," end it by crushing its heart, Iran. Consider the points made in this article.

"HG," you make it seem as if you're dissapointed that the so-called "freedom fighters" aren't coming up with better strategies to promote their cause. What is their cause and why do you support it, if you do? I could think of more fundamental points to criticize these people for--like for example that they are barbarians. That seems to be overlooked in your sarcastic remarks over the way in which they are trying to promote their cause.