:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
So very, very true!

Suggested reading: America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, by Mark Steyn.

I think you're misinterpreting what I meant, and reading it the day after it doesn't represent the same meaning I thought it did.

Basically I meant that a superpower or an empire or what have you which runs amok will not survive since it will draw all the world to be an enemy or at least uncooperative. And other than the Roman Empire and perhaps that of Alexander for a very brief time, how many empires were able to effectively invade anywhere and everywhere all at once? The US's foreign policy is erratic and dangerous to so many interests that should they tarnish they're "reputation" with an idiotic invasion of Iran it will only ruin their ability to even represent a noble face to the world. Political influence will be gone. Russia will throws its hand in with China because even China, which I consider to be a frightening state in its political psychology, because it will be obvious that the US is even more dangerous. The middle east will be united against the west TRULY and even the non-extremists will join.

That is my point. Not some morality or insincere idea of empires, but a pragmatic understanding that who is gonna want to deal with the US when its the most hated power in the world? There would be no practical reason to give them heed if their military is stretched through half of the Middle East, when every muslim nation is polarized against them and where their single action would likely topple the oil market.

Powers which invade invade invade make no freinds. The US cannot be at war with everyone, and invading Iran would do just that.

It's not just you...and not only the media has a corner on doom and gloom predictions here..lol.

A city divided against itself cannot stand...same as a world.

I dunno...

Invading 3 muslim nations in less than 8 years... probably levelling the third with nukes... overextending America's army... alienating its allies and galvenizing its enemies... not only driving the US into unrecoverable debt but also crashing the world oil market...

That sounds pretty bad to me. Now tell me how nuking Iran would make the world happy and wouldn't be dark. Even Skybird thinks it a lesser of 2 apocalypses and he wants it to happen.

:nope:

Wishing for something - and a.) not seeing an alternative to something, or b.) seeing something taking place and describing it as such, are two very different things.

Really? I thought that you were just being pragmatic and unemotional when you said that you thought it was the only way. You've already given up hope of avoiding it just like I've apparently given up hope of stopping Iran from getting the nuke (without destroying our economic era anyway). But yes, perhaps you don't want it to happen, but that doesn't mean its not the only way it can or will go. History is rarely accurately predicted, even by men as smart as you Skybird.

History repeats itself nonstop...you misunderstand my reply...there is no hope for this world if it relies on flesh and blood...history has taught us that repeatedly and brutally.Flesh is ravenous and loves the darkness.

You can hate on America all you want or blame, if it makes you feel better about things but evil and wickedness is a "Human" thing and knows no borders or languages...right and wrong is a choice.

Isaiah 51
[6] Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Funk, you said I wish for nuclear strikes on Iran, and in the context it sounded as if I would not have a happy day until the bombs start falling. That is almost malicious a statement.

I also said I assume they will use nukes, and that I think they would be needed indeed to get the job done. but do I know if the decision makers really are tough enough to make such a costly decision? Most people are not such a brutal beast as I can be (when I wish to be), and prefer to be seen as civilised and humane, and turning the other cheek when they got hit. I don't know, but assume that almost all european ones would shy away from that nuclear option. they will even demand many restrictions on a purely conventional attack, making it a doomed-to-fail affair from the beginning. And many American possible leaders will hesitate as well ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6909 - Thanks Fish for having posted this link first!). The too soft Lebanon war, and the example of Rumsfeld's many ingenious ideas, do not raise my optimism.

Hope is a nice word - if you are satisfied with simply believing something. I am a realist, and as a realist I see that chances are that there will be a showdown. else we would have to deal with nuclear terrorism orchestrated by Iran sooner or later, and an Iran multiplying the tensions in the region, and triggering the nuclear armament of other nations in the region, too. - What has hope to do with it? I leave that to the clerics and their "holy" scriptures.

War is for warriors, not politicians, starry-eyed idealists and managers of fate. And as a warrior you do not even allow your god(s) to come between you and your enemy. You kill the god(s) first and then your enemy, at all cost, no matter what.

Even at the cost of your own possible death.

But you are free not to actively wish for that latter outcome. Not caring for wether you live or die, is enough.