Terrorism? I thought we were talking about prior hostilities between the US and Iran, you mentioned 1979 as a demonstration that such hostilities had existed for decades while I provided an ealier date demonstrating it wasn't necessarily one-sided. I certianly didn't say (or mean to suggest) that blame rested with the US, fwiw 1953 seems to be, if anything, UK inspired. But on the "you either agree with the terrorists or you do not" certainly leaves room to disagree with current US policy against terrorism even if one doesn't agree with the aims of terrorists, "You're either with the terrorists or with the US" is a false dichotomy.

Well maybe you should reread the topic again. We were talking about ripened pieces of fruit floating in cesspools. Like the "innocent" Iranians floating in a cesspool of terrorists. Their involvement in 9/11 was questioned and I said maybe not 9/11 but how about the The Hostage Crisis of '79.

BTW, using money to influence governments is considerably different than using the lives of hostages to influence government. The situation IS one-sided regardless of your liberal agenda to make it "our fault".

Umm, I only see comments from you referring to 9/11, this being the 2nd, the first in full is a reply to Robert Waite:

Interesting concept, sounds to me like you don't make exceptions for ripened fruit floating in cesspools.

...and yet when we look at your stance concerning the War on Terror, you want to make exceptions for the alleged pieces of fruit floating in that cesspool of terrorism. No involvement in 9/11...ok, how about the Iran Hostage Crisis of '79? Make no mistake about it, the middle east has been waging war on western culture for multiple decades and it's time folks like you woke up to that fact.

You ask what gives us the right to keep a country like Iran from going nuclear? Humanity...

My response to this somewhat one sided view of the waging of war by the middle east against the west was to cite the west's earlier involvement in Iranian politics that many feel had negative consequences.

Again with the reference to "justification", I haven't said nor will I say something along the lines "CIA intervention in Iranian poltics in 1953 justified Iranian revolutionairies taking and subsequently releasing US hostages in 1979/80 and/or justifies Iranian policies for acquiring the technology to build nuclear weapons" because I don't believe this to be true.

Of course not, you just implied it was our fault and cited a biased source as evidence... It's how folks like you tip the scales without actually taking a stance.

If you think my saying:

Indeed, I'm sure BrainSmashr meant 1953 when referring to an earlier US/Iranian conflict.

btw, if 1979 is to be used as a demonstration of Iranian hostility to the US, just how many of those hostages were killed during the crisis?

implies I'm suggesting anybody is at fault for the current situation, you've read a whole lot more into what I wrote than I intended. It is true that I believe the west's involvement in 1953 makes US/Iranian relations a lot more complex than a view from 1979 onwards suggests, but that doesn't mean that I blame the west. As for not taking a stance I believe I did just this by saying I do not believe it to be true that CIA involvement in 1953 justifies taking hostages in 1979 and/or Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, or is that just a little too complicated for what appears to be your good or evil world view?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Quite a while ago I said that the US has entered a "War on Terror" and all this can lead to is eternal war.

The corporations making gobs of money from this won't allow it to end.
They profit from every aspect of this war, from weapons to kill and destroy to reconstruction and healthcare for the survivors.

The eye of Sauron must cast it's gaze on ever new targets to keep the wheels of industry rolling.
Thus, Iran is now in it's sights.
Who comes next? I don't know, but one thing is certain...it won't be any formidable nations.

I predict a return to Central America in the next few years. I understand there's lots of real bad terrorist down there too.

Buy some stock and be part of it, or do you want to destory all of the corporations and we will be back in the middle ages!
You seem to want to join the side that will always eventually fail.
Unions are no different than the so called [bold]corporations[/bold] you claim are greedy.
A lot of corporations have closed shop because they couldn't pay what the unions had forced them to pay with striking and the unions finally get the contract they worked so hard to get. Afterwards they have no job.

Gentlemen,

I'm a bit of a student of the history warfare. I had an idea I haven't seen published anywhere and I'd welcome your opinion on it. :]]

Generals are often found to be fighting the strategy and tactics of the last war and don't adapt quickly enough to the conditions any current war.That phenomena is well known. A good example is your own American War of Independence. While the British were marching up and down the country roads in full regalia, the redcoats were continuously being picked off by American riflemen dressed to hide in the woods.

I think that is happening with the American Army today.

My thought is this: The main development in warfare, in the last fifty years or so, has been in defensive resistance. The world has come a long way from the French Resistence in occupied Vichy France in WWII.

Resistance was greatly enhanced by the Viet Cong during the Vietnamese War, especially with the building of underground tunnel systems, secret supply routes (the Ho Chi Min trail) and (what we now associate with terrorism)the planting of hidden bombs in places where the occupying armies relax or move about. It seems to me that, until generals learn methods to respond to resistence, armies are well advised to limit themselves to strikes and damage (infrastructure, supply routes etc) only. They should avoid occupying other countries altogether.


Your thoughts? Thanks! :]]

---

Your thoughts?

You can train a person to think like a robot, but you can't train a robot to think like a person... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

"secret supply routes (the Ho Chi Min trail)"

Well I was only a SP-4 but even I knew about the ho chi min trail; how secret was it?

"secret supply routes (the Ho Chi Min trail)"

Well I was only a SP-4 but even I knew about the ho chi min trail; how secret was it?

Shhh! "Ancient Vietnamese Secret!" (Calgon?)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

"secret supply routes (the Ho Chi Min trail)"

Well I was only a SP-4 but even I knew about the ho chi min trail; how secret was it?

I was never there, but I assume it kept moving even though it is stationary. :)