Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Not any different than teen mags
[Read the article: Barely legal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While at the doctor's I've often read magazines that normally wouldn't interest me, and many aimed at the tween crowd have similiar pictures.
I'm sure some pedophiles will get their kicks off from the pictures, but I saw nothing I considered sexual, and many of the pictures have nothing to do with showing skin.
If you've ever seen a childerns "beauty" pagent, it's FAR FAR worse. There you'll actually see parents telling five year olds to flirt and look sexy. Way worse than anything I saw on that site.
To those saying the parents names and addresses should be published. Unless they childern live somewhere else, you are now giving out their address as well, and if you are saying that pedophiles are looking at the girls you just gave the pervs a method of contacting the childern.
Now, I would guess that the paying members are likely pedophiles, but the pictures themselves do not amount to porn.
BTW, it appears most of the pictures were taken with a friends digital camera, only a few I saw actuallly seem to be professionally taken.
You couldn't outlaw that site without outlawing many magazines.
-
Let's talk reality
[Read the article: Attacking Iran: Are they nuts?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look, attacking Iran would be stupid and unwarranted, but when articles like this are written it just makes it appear that the left has no clue.
Iran would not be able to acheive territorial advances against US forces that it was unable to acheive against Iraq during the Iraq/Iranian war. They wouldn't even try, they'd simply rely on Shias in Iraq to disrupt supplies.
-
Not possible
[Read the article: Attacking Iran: Are they nuts?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Iranians can probably make this happen so long as they've prepared for it in advance and can coordinate their forces. They have a large air force, some of it in bad shape but most of it very useful. These planes would have to help the navy and missile units shut down the Persian Gulf, as well as providing cover just long enough for the ground forces to close the distance with Iraq's cities and/or U.S. bases."
Iran has no airforce compared to the US. Most of Iran's planes would destroyed within a manner of hours, within days none would be left.
The concept of Iran's army cutting off Southern Iraq is laughable, not because Iran's soldiers are not brave and willing to fight, but because the level of training, coordination and equipment is totally in the favor of the United States.
Most people who don't deal with the US military discount the amount of training they receive and they contingencies for which they are trained. While it may seem odd there are actually mobile ground to air assets in Iraq, despite the fact there are no planes to fight against.
As I said earlier, it would be lunacy to attack Iran, but it doesn't help when facts are clearly overstated.
The huge problem in attacking Iran isn't that we wouldn't win the ground battles, it's that "victory" would require killing so many Iranians that we'd be the 21st century Nazis.
Iran is years away from producing a nuclear weapon. They currently have 164 centifuges working in a cascade. It takes a cascade of 64,000 to enrich uranium to weapons grade, and it become exponetially harder as you add more.
Plus, it produces a very primative bomb such as the first dropped on Japan. While this bomb is powerful, it is huge. They weigh over 20 tons and would be damn near impossible for Iran to deliver.
Iran may possibly have rockets that could deliver a modern warhead, but they are decades away from that type of warhead.
The Bush administration is again lying about the nuclear capablities of a nation to aroze public anger.