how will it all end?

[Zoso]

I'm sure this has been done before, but I'm new, so I'm doing it again.

It is only a matter of time before America is attacked again. The next time might not be airplanes...I wouldn't be surprised if I woke up one morning and turned on the TV to find out that a nuclear bomb had gone off in Manhattan or LA. Loss of life will be severe and it will all but obliterate the American economy.

I see two solutions to this situation. The first is total isolationism. Pull troops out of every foreign country and close all foreign embassies and consulates. Fortify our borders and use the military solely as a defense for U.S. soil. The other solution is abject destruction of the Islamic world. These people are not going to accept freedom. They will not accept individual rights. The only thing that they understand is death, and it may be up to us to give it to them.

This half-ass way of fighting the war on Islam (that's right, I said it) is the worst thing we can be doing. George W. Bush is a fucking pussy. If you're gonna make the decision to go and fight a war, you fight a goddamn war. What happened ot the days when, when the United States went to war, it fucking went to war? We saved the world twice in the twentieth century because we were willing to do what needed to be done. We are on the verge of seeing the civilized world fall. As soon as the United States falls, the rest of Western civilization follows. Take your pick: isolationism or unconditional victory. This in-between shit just won't cut it.

Am I off-base here?

[Zoso]

75 views and not a single reply...this thread must really suck.

[Zoso]

I demand that someone respond to this.

[Inspector]

I refuse on the grounds that you are demanding it. On what basis do you demand? What are you going to do if nobody responds?

(BTW, no one is likely responding because this has been done before. Do a search or read capmag)

[Zoso]

Yeah, I figured it had been done. Damn, don't get all pissed b/c I said I demanded it. I just want to see if anyone else on here agrees with me.

[The Durande]

ok. I agree that we should win. Since we can't go back in time and correct things, and nobody in office is going to take any lasting measures, a policy of isolationism is called for. But that isn't going to happen either. So let's not play make believe. We can only say that, relatively, Bush is better than a lot of the alternatives.

[Zoso]

He's better than Kerry but, personally, I would favor isolationism over the total destruction of the Islamic world. The reason is that the rest of the world will start to view us as the next Nazi Germany. Don't get me wrong, I don't give a shit about world opinion. But, if the rest of the world decides to do something about it, we're pretty fucked.

[AisA]

The fact is America has the military power to completely and utterly annihilate Iran -- and that is precisely what we should do. We should take down their air defenses, bomb to smithereens all 350 suspected nuclear development sites and every significant government building, destroy all of their oil fields, refineries, shipping terminals, gas and oil pipelines, all the major highways and rail lines into and out of the country, carpet-bomb every army, air force and naval military base and depot we can identify and every airport of significance -- just to name a few things.

At the end of our attack, there should be nothing of military significance left in existence and no economic means of rebuilding it. What is left ought to resemble a 40,000 hole golf course. Then, we should tell the world that any regime that harbors or otherwise aids and/or sponsors terrorists of any sort can expect the same treatment.

Then, we probably would not have to destroy the entire Islamic world, and the rest of the world won't do a damn thing.

[Oakes]

He's better than Kerry but, personally, I would favor isolationism over the total destruction of the Islamic world. The reason is that the rest of the world will start to view us as the next Nazi Germany. Don't get me wrong, I don't give a shit about world opinion. But, if the rest of the world decides to do something about it, we're pretty fucked.

I doubt they would do anything - we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. More importantly, the Global Left doesn't have the spine to back up their whining with action.

[Inspector]

I doubt they would do anything - we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. More importantly, the Global Left doesn't have the spine to back up their whining with action.

Precisely. The militaries of the rest of the world are fast becoming paper tigers. European military budgets are TINY compared to ours, and are mostly consumed by pensions.

North Korea and China's armies are only powerful insomuch as we are too spineless to use all of our available arsenal to defeat them.

I agree with AisA. If we did precisely that, then we would not NEED to fight too many other wars.

[Zoso]

I agree with AisA's take on Iran, but I still think it would be begging for the rest of the world to unite against the United States. Yeah, the individual countries may be weak, but if they joined forces against us, we wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

[Inspector]

I agree with AisA's take on Iran, but I still think it would be begging for the rest of the world to unite against the United States.  Yeah, the individual countries may be weak, but if they joined forces against us, we wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

Yes we would, and they haven't got the wontons to do it. They're all talk. Why do you think that they're so terrified of the idea that we don't care what they think? Because: us caring what they think about us is the only effective weapon they have against us.

[Zoso]

Well, I hope you're right. But I really don't think the rest of the world would just sit there and watch us obliterate an entire region of the globe. And I think that's the only reason we haven't done that in Iraq.

[James]

Well, I hope you're right.  But I really don't think the rest of the world would just sit there and watch us obliterate an entire region of the globe.  And I think that's the only reason we haven't done that in Iraq.

I suspect the reason we've not unleashed our full military might in Iraq; has more to do with Bush's religious beliefs than world opinion.

If the U.S. obliterated Iran the rest of the world isn't capable of doing anything. Europe is militarily impotent, Russia's military has fallen apart, and China has alot of manpower and no way to transport them. Israel is more powerful than most countries around the world.

[DavidV]

What happened ot the days when, when the United States went to war, it fucking went to war?  We saved the world twice in the twentieth century because we were willing to do what needed to be done.

By the way, the United States has not done “what needed to be done” in a very long time. The Civil War, the Spanish American war, the two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and Bosnia are all cases in which an unnecessary war was compromised by politicians. When, after decades of appeasing terrorists, we were faced with a real threat, there was little reason to except a philosophical epiphany from our intellectuals.

[drdriveby]

I'm sure this has been done before, but I'm new, so I'm doing it again.

It is only a matter of time before America is attacked again.  The next time might not be airplanes...I wouldn't be surprised if I woke up one morning and turned on the TV to find out that a nuclear bomb had gone off in Manhattan or LA.  Loss of life will be severe and it will all but obliterate the American economy.

I see two solutions to this situation.  The first is total isolationism.  Pull troops out of every foreign country and close all foreign embassies and consulates.  Fortify our borders and use the military solely as a defense for U.S. soil.  The other solution is abject destruction of the Islamic world.  These people are not going to accept freedom.  They will not accept individual rights.  The only thing that they understand is death, and it may be up to us to give it to them.

This half-ass way of fighting the war on Islam (that's right, I said it) is the worst thing we can be doing.  George W. Bush is a fucking pussy.  If you're gonna make the decision to go and fight a war, you fight a goddamn war.  What happened ot the days when, when the United States went to war, it fucking went to war?  We saved the world twice in the twentieth century because we were willing to do what needed to be done.  We are on the verge of seeing the civilized world fall.  As soon as the United States falls, the rest of Western civilization follows.  Take your pick: isolationism or unconditional victory.  This in-between shit just won't cut it.

Am I off-base here?

You are quite on base. Many are unaware that Islamic thought mandates totalitarian globalism. Many are also unaware that Islam's monstrous 'Prophet' was a mass murderer, child molestor, and serial rapist. No wonder Mohammed is revered in American prisons.

[Randrew]

I demand that someone respond to this.

You demand that we think about writing a good response? But force and mind are opposites

Speaking of which, I have a "demand" of my own: could someone please explain to me how to insert both the name of the person I'm quoting and a link to the quote when I quote someone? I feel kind of bad that I'm not doing this in my posts, but I really have made an honest effort to figure it out on my own, with no success. Thank you very much.

Many are also unaware that Islam's monstrous 'Prophet' was a mass murderer, child molestor, and serial rapist.

Wow, I never heard about this in any of my history books/classes. Is there really solid proof of these? (I do know that he had warmongering tendencies, but the rape and child molesting?) Also, could you cite some references to said proof? Thanx.

[Brian Faulkner]

You demand that we think about writing a good response?  But force and mind are opposites 

Speaking of which, I have a "demand" of my own: could someone please explain to me how to insert both the name of the person I'm quoting and a link to the quote when I quote someone?  I feel kind of bad that I'm not doing this in my posts, but I really have made an honest effort to figure it out on my own, with no success.  Thank you very much.

Wow, I never heard about this in any of my history books/classes.  Is there really solid proof of these?  (I do know that he had warmongering tendencies, but the rape and child molesting?)  Also, could you cite some references to said proof?  Thanx.

Check out Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not A Muslim". Some good history written by a courageous man.

[Oakes]

Speaking of which, I have a "demand" of my own: could someone please explain to me how to insert both the name of the person I'm quoting and a link to the quote when I quote someone?  I feel kind of bad that I'm not doing this in my posts, but I really have made an honest effort to figure it out on my own, with no success.  Thank you very much.

1. To insert a name (ignore the asterisks):

[*quote=Randrew]Blah Blah Blah[*/quote]

2. A link to the quote is usually automatically inserted at the bottom, but the format is (ignore asterisks again):

[*right][*snapback]65793[*/snapback][*/right]

You can find the number by clicking the number on the upper-right corner of the post, which gives you the url to it:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...iew=findpost&p=65793

[Citizen Publius]

Wow, I never heard about this in any of my history books/classes. Is there really solid proof of these? (I do know that he had warmongering tendencies, but the rape and child molesting?) Also, could you cite some references to said proof? Thanx.

Randrew, Islam does require Muslims to kill those that they cannot convert. A good place to learn this first hand is to read it in their holy book, the Koran. An interesting link to begin this study is HERE.