NationStates Jolt Archive

You've probably heard the story, denied by the bush administration, that the US has been watching Iran's nuclear and missile sites in preparation for attacking them. Do you think an attack vs. Iran is really comming?

Sure, why not. Either that, or an attack on Syria...

There are claims that the US has Special Forces on the ground in Iran.

Unlike the testimony of local con men (as was the case in Iraq), you can be sure to bring back hard evidence (i.e., samples) of WMD.

If they do find WMD, I would bet that one of two things would happen:

1. If the WMD is all in one place, the US will provide Israel with logistical support for airstrikes. Iran will be completely unable to stop the strike.

2. The US invades after bombing. The Iranian government is annihilated.

There are claims that the US has Special Forces on the ground in Iran.

Unlike the testimony of local con men (as was the case in Iraq), you can be sure to bring back hard evidence (i.e., samples) of WMD.

If they do find WMD, I would bet that one of two things would happen:

1. If the WMD is all in one place, the US will provide Israel with logistical support for airstrikes. Iran will be completely unable to stop the strike.

2. The US invades after bombing. The Iranian government is annihilated.
i was under the impression iran actually had an airforce

I was one of the very first people to call the president's intelligence into question. He has never demonstrated, though, that he is anywhere near stupid enough to bomb Iran, Syria, or N.Korea. His last 'pre-emptive' strike will likely keep the vast majority of our military busy for the next 5 years. He doesn't have the time, manpower, international support, money, willingness of the people, or anything else to try another one.

If he did it would mean the end of the US as we know it.

i was under the impression iran actually had an airforce
There's a difference between a decent airforce like Iran has and an outstanding airforce, like the USA and Israel have. It's like a great high school football team facing off against an NFL team.

Well an overwhelming majority of the country is under the age of 25 and they want democracy. Iran has been teetering on a revolution for some time now and as a state that is usually intertwined with revolutions, it is likely that we're looking at one in the next few years.

Israel is a major player. They are perhaps the most threatened by a nuclear Iran, next to the US. They will most likely strike Bushehr and the other reactors with logistical support from the US. Hell we'd probably have some CAP missions up on the border anyway and probably use B-2 and F-117 stealth aircraft to hit a few targets ourselves as our JDAMs and GBU-28s are pretty much the best things out there for hitting these types of targets.

Such a strike will probably result in chaos all throughout the country and with that an opportunity for the majority of those under 25 to start a revolution. With the CIA help? Maybe..............

i was under the impression iran actually had an airforce

Not one capable of defending effectively against a surgical strike from America or Israel.

Not that it would happen. (At least, it better not)

i was under the impression iran actually had an airforce
...and I thought the Iranians actually had a real army as well.

i was under the impression iran actually had an airforce

Syria had an air force (I believe they've bought some more planes).

The Israelis shot down 85 aircraft in a single day, and within three days, Syria had no combat aircraft left.

There were two Israeli losses, to accidents.

If the US Air Force showed up over Iran, the Iranian Air Force would be annihilated. Planes that took off would be shot down, and planes that stayed on the ground would be destroyed.

It was 17 degrees Farenheit with a -3 windchill on my way to work today. It really is cold outside. I'm glad I'm not in Minnesota.

i was under the impression iran actually had an airforce
Well, if you mean some Migs, Mirages and a handful of broken F-14s, then I guess it does.

Part of the reason that the USAF does so well is not just because it has great planes.

It has a great system of making them work together (shooter-cueing through internetworking). Thus, there are synergistic effects - such as being able to fire missiles from a fighter that doesn't have its radar turned on using data from a distant plane that is using radar. Thus, the US can shoot at aircraft that are unaware that they are being shot at.

The radar planes of the US detect planes regardless of their ECM - and can even see them on the ground in all weather. Most recent Israeli and US fighter interceptions have been of fighter aircraft who have not even had the chance to retract their landing gear before they are hit in the face with a missile fired from beyond visual range.

It is a revolution in air combat. No other air force practices this. Not even the Europeans or Russians.

And practice makes perfect. The Iranian pilots are probably lucky to fly a few times a year, and have no simulator time. American pilots fly hundreds of hours a year, and spend additional hundreds of hours in simulators.

So you have highly experienced pilots flying optimally internetworked aircraft of highly advanced designs (and some invisible to radar), and the opposition is a few planes of old vintage suffering from two decades of no spare parts and pilots with marginal training and skills.

It's a recipe for a massacre. The last attempt by Iraqis to contest the air was an attempt by six MiG-29 to take off. They taxied out to the runway, and attempted to take off one by one. The first two disintegrated from being hit by missiles as they lifted off, and the remaining made emergency aborts of their takeoffs to avoid instant death. The pilots jumped out of the still running aircraft and ran for their lives.

So, you can feel smug about an insurgency. But it's certain death to contest the US in an arena which they completely dominate.

Never underestimate Bush's stupidity. At first I thought attacking Afghanistan would be too stupid even for Bush, that he just wanted to make the Talebans comply and he did it. Then we all thought he wouldn't be stupid enough to actually attack Iraq, that it was a "trick" to make Saddam comply and he did it.

How is attacking Afghanistan stupid?

We seem to be doing far, far better than the Soviet attempt at the same thing.

The only question is when and how. Also I am not too sure if Iran or Syria is the next target. Syria is in the running because we view it as a gateway for the Iraqi insurgents (Baathist parties in Syria). Whichever nation comes first, the other will follow soon thereafter. The invasion may not necessarily be troops but air attacks, etc.
The problem with Iran is that we all think that the populace will take the opportunity of our bombings and rise up against the government. But there is also a likelihood that nationalism will take over and the populace will unite over our aggression.
http://www.peacegarden.blogspot.com

It's ironic considering Iran used to love the US, until that coup back in '53. They were a happy progressive nation that was moving towards a democracy. All they wanted to do was nationalize their oil industry, and thus giving them an economic foot hold, but that would have taken the oil away from Brittan. Next thing you know the mighty US decides to step in and places the old Shah back in power.

Since then it's never been quite the same.

Yet no one wanted to think of the repercussions of what they were doing. Now look where we stand; a "POSSIBLY" nuclear Iran and a fundamentalist government. While I agree that this is not a good combination has anyone thought about why these countries are so angry at the US and why they are willing to die to kill Americans?What will happen if the US decides that they need to remove any other nation just because they hold 1/100,000th the amount of nuclear weapons that the US has?

Please note that I'm not supporting any terrorists, fundamentalist governments, or nuclear weapons in general. All I'm trying to point out is the causes for our current situation.

-If we fail to learn from the mistakes of the past we will be forced to relive them.-

Never underestimate Bush's stupidity. At first I thought attacking Afghanistan would be too stupid even for Bush, that he just wanted to make the Talebans comply and he did it. Then we all thought he wouldn't be stupid enough to actually attack Iraq, that it was a "trick" to make Saddam comply and he did it.
Attacking Afghainstan was by no means stupid. It was neccessary. Unfortunately, our prez got distracted by Iraq and didn't finish the job of hunting Al Quaeda and rebuilding the infrastructure of Afghanistan so they could run factories instead of heroin labs.

Wage war on your own soil, USA. Dixi.

I've noticed that some people take a real delight in seeing the US actually lose (insurgents killing a few US soldiers or destroying a truck or two). But they get silently steamed when the US just rolls into a country and annihilates its armed forces inside of two weeks.

The only hope for victory that one has against the US is maintaining an insurgency (which can only hope for tactical, not strategic victory on the ground) until the people back in the US get bored or pissed off enough to leave.

If the US public opinion holds the insurgency as noble freedon fighters, you end up winning. If it holds the insurgency as demonic little fellows, you end up with the US up your ass.

Attacking Afghainstan was by no means stupid. It was neccessary. Unfortunately, our prez got distracted by Iraq and didn't finish the job of hunting Al Quaeda and rebuilding the infrastructure of Afghanistan so they could run factories instead of heroin labs.That's your point of view. From my point of view, hunting down Al-Qaeda doesn't justify bombing a country. Imagine a police operation in your neightborhood where the police have rocket launchers and fire them around killing some citizens passing by.

I voted 'Yes', we will see an attack on Iran. I deliberately ignored the 'this year' part though, because I'm not sure if it will come in very early 2006 or not so as to avoid soldiers being shipped out prior to Christmas.

John Browning and Layarteb both summed up their respective topics perfectly with their posts.

I've noticed that some people take a real delight in seeing the US actually lose (insurgents killing a few US soldiers or destroying a truck or two). But they get silently steamed when the US just rolls into a country and annihilates its armed forces inside of two weeks.

The only hope for victory that one has against the US is maintaining an insurgency (which can only hope for tactical, not strategic victory on the ground) until the people back in the US get bored or pissed off enough to leave.

If the US public opinion holds the insurgency as noble freedon fighters, you end up winning. If it holds the insurgency as demonic little fellows, you end up with the US up your ass.
You should be careful US people. The nazis thought they were invincible as well. You should watch more carefully what you're doing.

That's your point of view. From my point of view, hunting down Al-Qaeda doesn't justify bombing a country. Imagine a police operation in your neightborhood where the police have rocket launchers and fire them around killing some citizens passing by.
Bombing a country that willfully allowed our enemies to train on their soil, provided them with passports, weapons, and opportunities to recruit, and that refused to turn them over to us when they attacked our civilians is most certainly justified.

i would bet that one of the two is in our sights within the next two years. either way they stand no chance of repeling an attack from the US.

I think if the Americans get pissed off enough, we don't run, we get even. :)

You should be careful US people. The nazis thought they were invincible as well. You should watch more carefully what you're doing.
Isn't there a rule that says the first person to compare his adversaries in a debate on the internet to the Nazis automatically loses?

i was under the impression iran actually had an airforce

He did not say Iran did not have an Air Force. He said they would be unable to stop an air strike from Israel.

Isn't there a rule that says the first person to compare his adversaries in a debate on the internet to the Nazis automatically loses?
Replace the nazis with Rome if you want.

You should be careful US people. The nazis thought they were invincible as well. You should watch more carefully what you're doing.

While an insurgency has a chance, especially if there are apologists for their cause in the US who have the ear of the media, there is no armed force on the planet in any country the US may be interested in invading that would survive an attack.

North Korea would be the most difficult, because it would involve the use of nuclear weapons. But, the current US plan publicly acknowledges that the US would use nuclear weapons in such a campaign. North Korea would cease to exist.

Insurgents only have one chance - to convince the US population that somehow the war is wrongly waged against people who are really likeable. Vietnam is a case in point. Put pictures of little girls wounded by napalm from US forces on the evening news, accompanied by US news reporters who claim "the war is lost", and the insurgents win.

Put news on that shows wounded US soldiers, followed by a few al-Jazeera throat slittings, and some commentary by Fox News reporters, and the insurgency is in a LOT of trouble.

Replace the nazis with Rome if you want.
That's better. Rome lasted a while.

It was 17 degrees Farenheit with a -3 windchill on my way to work today. It really is cold outside. I'm glad I'm not in Minnesota.

How about Fairbanks? A low of -16 F and a high of -11 F. Now that's cold although my son told me last week it was -45 F up there.

How about Fairbanks? A low of -16 F and a high of -11 F. Now that's cold although my son told me last week it was -45 F up there.
That is quite chilly.

i like the idea of showing the american people the soliders side of the war. the arab stations give us a bad name. id bet that a lot of the damage that they show is caused by insurgents not US weapons

I always have trouble understanding the postion of countries that are critical of other countries developing nukes when they themselves have them (I include my country - Britain - in this).

I have no desire to see Iran or any other countries develop nukes. However it's rank hypocrisy to demonise them for doing so if you yourself own enough weapons to kill all human life.

Who can blame Iran for trying to develop a deterrent when they've seen the US largely ignore North Korea, who have nukes, and what happened to their neighbour Iraq who the US government knew had no WMDs.

Yes, a fair portion of the Iranian Youth want western style democracy, however, they just as vehement in their dislike of the US.

Most likely scenario is that the Iranian youth who do support the US will go quiet if or maybe when, the US invades.

Now, put this with the Shias in Iraq who have been quiet in Iraq of late, taking part in the US election.

That will stop if Iran is attacked, as Iran is Shia.

So invasion of Iran, together with a New Shia Iraqi uprising, a Sunni Iraqi Uprising, and a Al-qaeda linked insurgency....means a whole lot of shooting.

The same will be repeated in Iran.

I feel that Iran if invaded, will not be a walkover no matter how much Americans may gleefully boast about how many different technological ways they can kill people.


Did not anyone see this coming? Afghanistan and Iraq are either side of Iran. Both good attacking points to which to attack Iran.

its not reasonable to allow a government who openly hates us to even try to obtain nukes let alone develop them.

I always have trouble understanding the postion of countries that are critical of other countries developing nukes when they themselves have them (I include my country - Britain - in this).

I have no desire to see Iran or any other countries develop nukes. However it's rank hypocrisy to demonise them for doing so if you yourself own enough weapons to kill all human life.

Who can blame Iran for trying to develop a deterrent when they've seen the US largely ignore North Korea, who have nukes, and what happened to their neighbour Iraq who the US government knew had no WMDs.
We're less likely to use them. Some governments can't be trusted with food aid, much less nuclear weapons.

Bombing a country that willfully allowed our enemies to train on their soil, provided them with passports, weapons, and opportunities to recruit, and that refused to turn them over to us when they attacked our civilians is most certainly justified.
I don't see it like that.
The taleban were fighting against the Northern alliance. They used Al Qaeda as a fighting force against the northern alliance. They didn't give a shit about the US. When asked to hand over Ossama Ben laden, They asked for evidence of his involvement and Pakistan was helping in putting pressure on them but they also asked for evidence as a mean to facilitate talks.
They didn't provided any passport or weapons (they used knifes) to attack the US.

We're less likely to use them. Some governments can't be trusted with food aid, much less nuclear weapons.

too true

I don't see it like that.
The taleban were fighting against the Northern alliance. They used Al Qaeda as a fighting force against the northern alliance. They didn't give a shit about the US. When asked to hand over Ossama Ben laden, They asked for evidence of his involvement and Pakistan was helping in putting pressure on them but they also asked for evidence as a mean to facilitate talks.
They didn't provided any passport or weapons (they used knifes) to attack the US.
They provided Al Quaeda terrorists with government issued passports to travel, they gave Al Quaeda access to their military's weapons to fight in Afghanistan and to train with.

I don't see it like that.
The taleban were fighting against the Northern alliance. They used Al Qaeda as a fighting force against the northern alliance. They didn't give a shit about the US. When asked to hand over Ossama Ben laden, They asked for evidence of his involvement and Pakistan was helping in putting pressure on them but they also asked for evidence as a mean to facilitate talks.
They didn't provided any passport or weapons (they used knifes) to attack the US.

if they had asked for weapons the taliban would have provided them

I always have trouble understanding the postion of countries that are critical of other countries developing nukes when they themselves have them (I include my country - Britain - in this).

I have no desire to see Iran or any other countries develop nukes. However it's rank hypocrisy to demonise them for doing so if you yourself own enough weapons to kill all human life.

Who can blame Iran for trying to develop a deterrent when they've seen the US largely ignore North Korea, who have nukes, and what happened to their neighbour Iraq who the US government knew had no WMDs.

Well said. It's sad to say, but WMD's are now widely seen as the only way to stop being stepped on meddled in and interfered with, and if anything, it gains international respect.

It's such a shame a nation has to resort to doing this before being taken as an equal partner in a international community.

And when they do, the nations with the most WMDS get uncomftable.

I don't want Iran to develop nukes. Give the diplomatic process a go as we, the EU are doing better this time than last time.

I even agree that the US would be less likely to use them, even though you've scarily come up with justifications for first use instead of retaliatory only in the last few years.

I even wouldn't mind too much if a repeat of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuke programme happened. As many problems as that would cause, it'd be much better than a full blown invasion in every way possible.

It's still hypocritical to complain about states developing WMD if you own them yourself though!

Well said. It's sad to say, but WMD's are now widely seen as the only way to stop being stepped on meddled in and interfered with, and if anything, it gains international respect.

It's such a shame a nation has to resort to doing this before being taken as an equal partner in a international community.

And when they do, the nations with the most WMDS get uncomftable.

they should recive no international respect for developing a weapon that they cant control

its not reasonable to allow a government who openly hates us to even try to obtain nukes let alone develop them.Attacking this country is even less reasonable.

its not reasonable to allow a government who openly hates us to even try to obtain nukes let alone develop them.

Imposing of The Shah of Iran, calling their country "evil" from time to time, does not really give Iran's government and people a favourable view of the US.

Reasonable is being diplomatic. Something the US Government has lacked.

I don't want Iran to develop nukes. Give the diplomatic process a go as we, the EU are doing better this time than last time.

I even agree that the US would be less likely to use them, even though you've scarily come up with justifications for first use instead of retaliatory only in the last few years.

I even wouldn't mind too much if a repeat of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuke programme happened. As many problems as that would cause, it'd be much better than a full blown invasion in every way possible.

It's still hypocritical to complain about states developing WMD if you own them yourself though!
Not really. Some people own guns legally. They don't want a lunatic who was just released from a state mental hospital to have guns. It's not hypocritical, just basic safety.

Attacking this country is even less reasonable.
What's your solution? Despite the best diplomatic efforts Iran is still seeking to build nuclear weapons. At some point force must be brought to bear.

they should recive no international respect for developing a weapon that they cant control


Who says they can't?

I don't want Iran to develop nukes. Give the diplomatic process a go as we, the EU are doing better this time than last time.

I even agree that the US would be less likely to use them, even though you've scarily come up with justifications for first use instead of retaliatory only in the last few years.

I even wouldn't mind too much if a repeat of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuke programme happened. As many problems as that would cause, it'd be much better than a full blown invasion in every way possible.

It's still hypocritical to complain about states developing WMD if you own them yourself though!

it is not hypocritical to comlain because they dont have the security to keep them safe, the tech to clean up if something goes bad, or the will power to keep the info to themselves

Not really. Some people own guns legally. They don't want a lunatic who was just released from a state mental hospital to have guns. It's not hypocritical, just basic safety.

Not a perfect analogy. However deranged they are, no lunatic could kill 10,000s of people in one go. Also, I wasn't saying I want Iran to have nukes at all. A closer analogy to what I said is that no-one should have guns. (I'm talking about civilians here, not the military before anyone thinks I'm saying we should do away with the army).

Just a thourght on the American pysche, it is prehaps a bit premature to compare Iraq to Vietnam. You (the Americans) were in Vietnam for ten years, during the earlier part of which the VC were recruiting child soldiers, murdering collaborators (as the insurgency is doing in Iraq) and organising prostitution and drug running. As the body count spiraled into the thousands, then tens of thousands, the image of the Vietnamese (communists) became more sympathetic. Exactly the same thing may happen in Iraq, it is premature to predict wether it will.

As to Iran, it would be an enourmous mistake to invade. Iraq destabalised (yes I know I can't spell) the middle east, Iran would destabalise the entire arabic world. Along with the continuing resistance in Iraq, it risks making the resistance a true pan-arabic resistance to western involvement in the area, which gives meat to the Islamists, and thereby makes the American cause even more distant.

What's your solution? Despite the best diplomatic efforts Iran is still seeking to build nuclear weapons. At some point force must be brought to bear.
We must put more diplomatic pressure on the US to act with the UN and give the iranian a guarantee that their nation's sovereignty will be respected.

What's your solution? Despite the best diplomatic efforts Iran is still seeking to build nuclear weapons. At some point force must be brought to bear.

i agree the diplomatic route has ben tried and they went behind the backs of the US & EU to continue nuclear development

it is not hypocritical to comlain because they dont have the security to keep them safe,

I'm pretty sure that China got a jump start on their nuke programme due to spies in American defence institutions. So America couldn't keep the tech safe either.

Not a perfect analogy. However deranged they are, no lunatic could kill 10,000s of people in one go. Also, I wasn't saying I want Iran to have nukes at all. A closer analogy to what I said is that no-one should have guns. (I'm talking about civilians here, not the military before anyone thinks I'm saying we should do away with the army).
Nobody who has nuclear weapons is ever going to get rid of them unless something more destructive is developed. That's a simple fact. Some regimes can't be trusted with such weapons.

We must put more diplomatic pressure on the US to act with the UN and give the iranian a guarantee that their nation's sovereignty will be respected.
Yeah, that'll work. :rolleyes:

We must put more diplomatic pressure on the US to act with the UN and give the iranian a guarantee that their nation's sovereignty will be respected.

how can we trust the UN when the countries that commit cirmes against humanity sit on the board that is suposed to moniter those situations

US General: Your mission is to destroy a village twenty miles south from here.
US Sergeant: Sir yes sir!

***

US Sergeant: The village has been destroyed, sir! We also destroyed a village thirty miles south from here!
US General: You... What! But there was no enemies in that village!
US Sergeant: There is now, sir!

Some regimes can't be trusted with such weapons.

Bush's being one of them. He's the one waging war all the time, you will notice.

Just a thourght on the American pysche, it is prehaps a bit premature to compare Iraq to Vietnam. You (the Americans) were in Vietnam for ten years, during the earlier part of which the VC were recruiting child soldiers, murdering collaborators (as the insurgency is doing in Iraq) and organising prostitution and drug running. As the body count spiraled into the thousands, then tens of thousands, the image of the Vietnamese (communists) became more sympathetic. Exactly the same thing may happen in Iraq, it is premature to predict wether it will.

As to Iran, it would be an enourmous mistake to invade. Iraq destabalised (yes I know I can't spell) the middle east, Iran would destabalise the entire arabic world. Along with the continuing resistance in Iraq, it risks making the resistance a true pan-arabic resistance to western involvement in the area, which gives meat to the Islamists, and thereby makes the American cause even more distant.
Iranians aren't arabs. Why would airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and missile sites destabilize the arab world?

We seem to be doing far, far better than the Soviet attempt at the same thing.
How do you work that out? So far the Afghans don't realize they're a US protectorate the same way they were a Soviet protectorate simply because they were "liberated" as opposed to "invaded". When 10 years has passed and there's still an abundance of US troops there and the government is still essentially run from the Whitehouse then things will be different, you mark my words.

Bush's being one of them. He's the one waging war all the time, you will notice.
Granted, bush is an idiot who shouldn't be in charge of wiping his own ass, much less running a country (my opinion only) but even he's not stupid enough to use nuclear weapons without a damn good reason. If he was Afghanistan would be a smoking pile of radioactive rubble by now.

We must put more diplomatic pressure on the US to act with the UN and give the iranian a guarantee that their nation's sovereignty will be respected.

The UN is a weak and worthless institution. Surely you must be joking.

Nobody who has nuclear weapons is ever going to get rid of them unless something more destructive is developed. That's a simple fact. Some regimes can't be trusted with such weapons.

I agree that none of us nuke states will get rid of them, as much as I wish we would, especially here in Britain as we only have 56 left which we need US permission to fire anyway!

What I object to with the idea of invading Iran is that it would be so destructive and lead to huge numbers of deaths, when as unpleasent as the effects would be in the vicinity, especially if the intelligence was wrong, you could as a last resort if all diplomacy failed take out their facilities by airstrikes. I don't like that option, but it seems far superior to an all out invasion, or another country gaining nukes.

It should also be remembered that while Iran is in quite an internal mess, it is gradually improving and does have a very young poulation who currently want to improve things there. If you invaded they'd become a HUGE reservoir of insurgents fighting just to protect their homes and families.

Granted, bush is an idiot who shouldn't be in charge of wiping his own ass, much less running a country (my opinion only) but even he's not stupid enough to use nuclear weapons without a damn good reason. If he was Afghanistan would be a smoking pile of radioactive rubble by now.
Well that's because the US has no need to use them. They've proven they would use them if they needed.

i do agree that bush is at times a little off but he would never tell teens to strap a bomb to themselves and go commit suicide/murder in the name of God

Iranians aren't arabs. Why would airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and missile sites destabilize the arab world?

Because the Arabs, like the Iranians who are Persians, are muslim.

Iran would be the 3rd muslim nation invaded.

The Arab League warned that if another muslim nation was invaded after Iraq, it would be seen as "war against the muslim world."

The UN is a weak and worthless institution. Surely you must be joking.
Without the UN and the WTO the US would be a third world country.

Well that's because the US has no need to use them. They've proven they would use them if they needed.
Exactly. If we need to. At this point in time we would only feel the need if we were attacked by a nuclear power or invaded.

Well that's because the US has no need to use them. They've proven they would use them if they needed.

I believe that the world treated the US with some care in the aftermath of Hiroshima not only because the US had nukes, but showed a willingness to use them under certain circumstances.

Having a big gun is pointless if people don't believe you'll use them when necessary.

Hence the new programs for earth penetrating nukes. We're probably going to use something like that in Iran.

Without the UN the US would be a third world country.
How so? The UN was started after the US was well on it's way to being the world's premier superpower.

Iran would be the 3rd muslim nation invaded.
Liberated, you mean. Liberated! ;)

America doesn't invade places, only the bad guys do that.

i do agree that bush is at times a little off but he would never tell teens to strap a bomb to themselves and go commit suicide/murder in the name of God

No he tells them to hop into planes and Tanks, and tells them to kill people in the name of God, against a member of "evil".

The method of killing is different, the results are the same.

Exactly. If we need to. At this point in time we would only feel the need if we were attacked by a nuclear power or invaded.
Who would attack the US? Iran? For what? Only the US does attack for economic reasons.

Without the UN and the WTO the US would be a third world country.

not true the US is what made the UN

i do agree that bush is at times a little off but he would never tell teens to strap a bomb to themselves and go commit suicide/murder in the name of God I hope Bush isn't reading these forums. You just might give him an idea...

Exactly. If we need to. At this point in time we would only feel the need if we were attacked by a nuclear power or invaded.

If that were the case you wouldn't have changed your guidelines from retaliatory only, to potential first use.

Because the Arabs, like the Iranians who are Persians, are muslim.

Iran would be the 3rd muslim nation invaded.

The Arab League warned that if another muslim nation was invaded after Iraq, it would be seen as "war against the muslim world."
I think we'll see if airstrikes against a Shia nation will trigger such action soon enough.

Liberated, you mean. Liberated! ;)

America doesn't invade places, only the bad guys do that.


You can't liberate people, by killing them. Burn the village to save the people?

Without the UN and the WTO the US would be a third world country.

The UN was a Cold War fabrication and a tool of the permanent members of the Security Council.

Now that the Cold War has been over for a while, it serves no purpose.

It has solved no world problems - certainly no conflicts, without US help.

If the US wished, the UN would still exist, but it would be even more completely impotent than it is now.

Why can't everyone just get along!?

No he tells them to hop into planes and Tanks, and tells them to kill people in the name of God, against a member of "evil".

The method of killing is different, the results are the same.


i never heard him tell our soldiers to kill in the name of God

The UN was a Cold War fabrication and a tool of the permanent members of the Security Council.

Now that the Cold War has been over for a while, it serves no purpose.

It has solved no world problems - certainly no conflicts, without US help.

If the US wished, the UN would still exist, but it would be even more completely impotent than it is now.
They're ok for doing charity work and managing global epidemics. They should stick to what they do best.

I think we'll see if airstrikes against a Shia nation will trigger such action soon enough.

A Shia Muslim nation.

Why can't everyone just get along!?
Because peace is less desirable than victory.

i never heard him tell our soldiers to kill in the name of God

"God Bless America" is a endorsement that anything done by America, is by God's blessing, and thus, in God's name.

Quote
Because peace is less desirable than victory

To whom the ballot box?

"God Bless America" is a endorsement that anything done by America, is by God's blessing, and thus, in God's name.
nice play on words

I think we'll see if airstrikes against a Shia nation will trigger such action soon enough. You can be sure that Europeans won't cry if another scyscraper comes down. Which reminds me, do you know was there more dead Americans or Europeans after 9.11?

You can't liberate people, by killing them. Burn the village to save the people?
If it's an unAmerican building, yes. You're just not thinking "21st century" enough...

...or possibly you're not waiting for the "Wink" smiley to load and thus missing my sarcasm...

"God Bless America" is a endorsement that anything done by America, is by God's blessing, and thus, in God's name.
Actually it's a request for god's aid for America.

Quote

"God Bless America" is a endorsement that anything done by America, is by God's blessing, and thus, in God's name

Heres to machievielli!

Actually it's a request for god's aid for America.*grumble* If God exists, he/she would not aid America... *grumble*

Actually it's a request for god's aid for America.

Gee, I didn't know that WW II was a religious war against Germany and Japan.

Quote
Because peace is less desirable than victory

To whom the ballot box?
To many people around the world. People who are true beleivers in something, like their religion, their political ideology, etc.

You can be sure that Europeans won't cry if another scyscraper comes down. Which reminds me, do you know was there more dead Americans or Europeans after 9.11?

You can bet that we would. I got to Amsterdam for a week's holiday as the attacks were happening, and I can assure you that it made the week quite strange as we were having fun on holiday, but also finding it hard to understand what had happened. Me and my friends spoke to people from all over Europe that week and the conversation always came round to how terrible it was.

Don't confuse disagreement over America's actions since with indifference to those who died that day.

*grumble* If God exists, he/she would not aid America... *grumble*

For those who believe in God (and we may take violent religious insurgents against the US as such), you may well wonder:

Is God allowing the US to kick their ass?

This becomes severely problematic when you have a strong belief in God. Apparently, a similar event in the past (the fall of the Caliphate when Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols in 1254) was interpreted as God kicking the Islamic people in the ass.

They thought that in order for such a disaster to occur (having their country handed over to an enemy, having their leader deposed and killed, and having their country sacked and looted by the enemy) they must have really, really done something to offend Allah.

Wonder what they're thinking now.

You can be sure that Europeans won't cry if another scyscraper comes down. Which reminds me, do you know was there more dead Americans or Europeans after 9.11?
Let's hope it's a European skyscraper. Even if a French building is taken down by terrorists the US will probably offer help. BTW, what does the question at the end of your post mean? I didn't understand it. Are you asking if there were Europeans in the twin towers?

*grumble* If God exists, he/she would not aid America... *grumble*
The OT god of vengance and war might.

Let's hope it's a European skyscraper.

You're a friendly person aren't you!

Gee, I didn't know that WW II was a religious war against Germany and Japan.
When did I say that?

You can bet that we would. I got to Amsterdam for a week's holiday as the attacks were happening, and I can assure you that it made the week quite strange as we were having fun on holiday, but also finding it hard to understand what had happened. Me and my friends spoke to people from all over Europe that week and the conversation always came round to how terrible it was.

Don't confuse disagreement over America's actions since with indifference to those who died that day.
If a couple thousand muslims would have died in a bombing, the magazines or people would not have taken it so heavy.

i put maybe but it is cold outside it snowed this morning

Actually it's a request for god's aid for America.


The same as Muslims say "God is Great" and "God willing" to get Allah's aid.


Both sides (US and Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents) declare that God is on their side to embolden and justify further their actions.

You're a friendly person aren't you!
I didn't mean it, I was just offended by the post I was responding to. It seemed as if the person wished another 9/11 on us.

If a couple thousand muslims would have died in a bombing, the magazines or people would not have taken it so heavy.
So what does that have to do with anything?

When did I say that?
I think you were quoting someone else.

"God Bless America" was a hit song during WW II. So I guess I was wrong that it was a war against fascism and such. It must have been a religious war.

Heck, with all that praying going on in American churches for victory... and the Democratic President asking Americans all the time to "pray to God for victory".

Well, FDR probably would never make it in the Democratic Party today. He believes in God, and would mention God too much in speeches (and especially his prayers). Can't have a religious extremist in the White House, you know.

I didn't mean it, I was just offended by the post I was responding to. It seemed as if the person wished another 9/11 on us.
It seems as if you want a war in Iran.

If a couple thousand muslims would have died in a bombing, the magazines or people would not have taken it so heavy.

Sadly true.

In a similar vein, there wasn't exactly much international outrage at foreign countries (such as the U.S.), who did nothing for a long long time to prevent donations by citizens to political parties (such as Sinn Fein) who were known to be fundraisers for terrorist organisations (such as the I.R.A.) who were responsible for thousands of deaths over the years in their supposed closest ally.

It seems that 3000 people die spread over 30 years from terrorist attacks, their lives are worth less than 3000 people who happen to die at the same time. Although obviously all at once has a bigger visual impact.

It seems as if you want a war in Iran.
No, I want them to dismantle their nuclear program. If they don't, I want airstrikes to do it for them.

No, I want them to dismantle their nuclear program. If they don't, I want airstrikes to do it for them.

How about you dismantle your new nuke programme - bunker busters first?

I think you were quoting someone else.

"God Bless America" was a hit song during WW II. So I guess I was wrong that it was a war against fascism and such. It must have been a religious war.


In a way it was, for both sides belived the other was not acting in how their God would see fit.


God Bless America and Gott Mitt Uns, for example.

So what does that have to do with anything? Americans and Europeans died = Bad, very bad thing. Some country must be bombed
MUslims died = So what, there is plenty of them. I mean, too much!

Quote:

To many people around the world. People who are true beleivers in something, like their religion, their political ideology, etc.

An observation: it seems to me as if American foreign policy is riddled with contradictions. America is playing with a double edged and very sharp sword if it belives that quite frankly shocking sanctions put inplace during the late 1980s and early 1990s in many middle eastern countries resulting in the poverty of 1000s of ordinary citizens like you and I can be 'forgotton' by imposing the western ideal of democracy upon them under the facade of liberators. It seems that arms races by middle eastern goverments are not so much as a direct threat to the west but as an attempt to swing some more weight on the international stage and be taken more seriously instead of been trodden in to the mud whenever America decides to alter its foregin policy.

How about you dismantle your new nuke programme - bunker busters first?
We're responsible enough to have one. Nations like Iran aren't.

No, I want them to dismantle their nuclear program. If they don't, I want airstrikes to do it for them. USA has nuclear weapons, France has nuclear weapons, England has nuclear weapons...

No, I want them to dismantle their nuclear program. If they don't, I want airstrikes to do it for them.
And why just Iran, why don't you want air strikes on the US?

We're responsible enough to have one. Nations like Iran aren't.Responsible?! Remember Nagasaki & Hiroshima!

It seems as if you want a war in Iran.

Sure, if they pose a threat to the US. Why should we wait for them to finish making atomic weapons (they already have an ICBM)?

John's Three Laws of the Behavior of Opposing Civilizations

1. Their survival will be more important than our survival.
If a society has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case. Societies don't survive by being self-sacrificing.

2. Wimps don't become top dogs.
No government or society has made it to the top by being passive. The people in charge of any given society will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

3. They will assume that the first two laws apply to us.

We're responsible enough to have one. Nations like Iran aren't.

NO country is responsible enough to have nukes. It's as simple as that.

I can't understand how there is going to be another war... so far, the U.S. has lost some hundred billion dollars in Iraq, and I bet that a lot of the poor soldiers down there long for the time they get out of there. Can they really risk to have another situation like that? As the UN weapon inspectors actually were right about Iraq, maybe they should try to find anything? Better that than attacking and maybe loose milllions of innocent americans in a possible nuclear attack. One thing the cold war taught us was that it is very stupid to attack a nation with possible nuclear weapons.

Americans and Europeans died = Bad, very bad thing. Some country must be bombed
MUslims died = So what, there is plenty of them. I mean, too much!
Bullshit. Nobody would react that way except for a few who are extremely bigoted. I'm bigoted, but would still feel sorry for them.

NO country is responsible enough to have nukes. It's as simple as that.
That's not true. Many countries have nuclear weapons and can be trusted not to use them except in extreme cases.

I bet that a lot of the poor soldiers down there long for the time they get out of there.

If that were true, then why did the vast majority of troops deployed in Iraq vote for Bush?

Bullshit. Nobody would react that way except for a few who are extremely bigoted. I'm bigoted, but would still feel sorry for them.It is good that you feel sorry. That is one thing makes us human.

USA has nuclear weapons, France has nuclear weapons, England has nuclear weapons...
And none of those countries is likely to use them without being invaded or threatened with nuclear annihalation first.

Responsible?! Remember Nagasaki & Hiroshima!
Yes, and since then we have used them how many times? After 9/11 many US citizens were calling for the use of nuclear weapons. Yet even bush showed restraint. That's saying a lot for our country's responsible use of nuclear weapons.

Anyone remember the floods in 1991? Some 80,000 people died in Bangladesh and Burma. I didn't remeber it. I bet most of you didn't. A swedish show once stated it very nicely:
"15 dead isn't enough to get to the news! An earthquake in Kenya has no chance against a senator jaywalking in Washington!"

My

Sure, if they pose a threat to the US. Why should we wait for them to finish making atomic weapons (they already have an ICBM)?

John's Three Laws of the Behavior of Opposing Civilizations

1. Their survival will be more important than our survival.
If a society has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case. Societies don't survive by being self-sacrificing.

2. Wimps don't become top dogs.
No government or society has made it to the top by being passive. The people in charge of any given society will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

3. They will assume that the first two laws apply to us.We're just one people. The americans are not a people different than the rest.

That's not true. Many countries have nuclear weapons and can be trusted not to use them except in extreme cases.

Maybe at the moment. But eventually a nuclear state's going to end up with an extremist government who'll view using a couple of nukes to vaporise the capital of a state they disagree with to be a more agreeable/macho/godly/quicker solution than diplomacy or sanctions.

Yes, and since then we have used them how many times? After 9/11 many US citizens were calling for the use of nuclear weapons. Yet even bush showed restraint. That's saying a lot for our country's responsible use of nuclear weapons.Two times is too many times!

And what comes to Bush, even he isn't that stupid. Thank God.

And none of those countries is likely to use them without being invaded or threatened with nuclear annihalation first.

And Iran more or less says the same when it speaks of "Deterrents" from invasion.

That's not true. Many countries have nuclear weapons and can be trusted not to use them except in extreme cases.
Iran is one of them.

Two times is too many times!

And what comes to Bush, even he isn't that stupid. Thank God.
So if even bush is responsible enough to refrain from using nuclear weapons, why do you think America can't be trusted with them? Who do you think we'll elect next? Charlie Manson?

Iran is one of them.

Given the Western experience with Islamic and Arab extremism, we can't afford the risk, even if it is small.

The political ramifications of an Islamic nuclear attack would be catastrophic to the party in power in a Western target nation.

It's a wonder that Pakistan still exists.

It's a wonder that Pakistan still exists.

Don't be silly. If they were attacked it'd be bye-bye India. Also they're handily close to Afghanistan.

Given the Western experience with Islamic and Arab extremism, we can't afford the risk, even if it is small.

The political ramifications of an Islamic nuclear attack would be catastrophic to the party in power in a Western target nation.

It's a wonder that Pakistan still exists.
I trust Iran more than the US. The US is a paranoid country.

And Iran more or less says the same when it speaks of "Deterrents" from invasion.
What it speaks of and what it will do are two different things. It has already used proxy armies of terrorists to hit Israel and US forces. It did so outside of it's borders. Not exactly a friendly regime. If it has nuclear weapons it can increase it's attacks on Israel and the US and use nuclear leverage to avoid any consequences. Of course we or Israel will retaliate if we are hit us. Then the world may be faced with a small nuclear war.

It's a wonder that Pakistan still exists.
Don't say that... I get flashbacks of the "Lake Afghanistan" joke...

So if even bush is responsible enough to refrain from using nuclear weapons, why do you think America can't be trusted with them? Who do you think we'll elect next? Charlie Manson?My point was that any nation should not have nukes. Not USA, nor Iran. USA has no rights to attack Iran just because Iran has nuclear weapons.

What it speaks of and what it will do are two different things. It has already used proxy armies of terrorists to hit Israel and US forces. It did so outside of it's borders. Not exactly a friendly regime. If it has nuclear weapons it can increase it's attacks on Israel and the US and use nuclear leverage to avoid any consequences. Of course we or Israel will retaliate if we are hit us. Then the world may be faced with a small nuclear war.
Coz the US is not doing the same?

It has already used proxy armies of terrorists to hit Israel and US forces. It did so outside of it's borders. Not exactly a friendly regime.


I think Iran could make a case for retaliatory actions against U.S. forces. Remember which country sold arms and chemical weapons to Iraq to use against Iran?

I trust Iran more than the US. The US is a paranoid country.
Iranian leaders still think they can solve their nation's problems with a rally and a few rounds of "death to America". I dont' trust them. I think we should level their reactor and missile sites if they don't voluntarilly disarm.

I trust Iran more than the US. The US is a paranoid country.

I think you aren't reading my posts.

The US isn't afraid of itself. Its primary interest is its own preservation, and its political leaders primary interest is to remain in power.

This is true of every nation on Earth.

Any nation that poses a threat to it is candidate for attack. If the potential weapon is a nuclear weapon, that threat becomes politically intolerable if the opposing nation in question has an avowed hatred of the United States.

Especially if by historical fact, they do not behave as a Western nation does (the Cold War was survivable because Russians thought as a Western nation does).

Minor chance of a politically intolerable event is a major risk.

Pre-emption is a long standing military strategy.

Coz the US is not doing the same?
Our hands aren't spotless, but we're a hell of a lot better than a regime that seeks to impose theocracy, and uses child soldiers to clear minefields by marching accross them.

Why wait? It's like those infomercials. "Why wait when you can call today?" Why wait when we can kick their butt now?

And yes, it is rather cold out. I'm stuck in Detroit (That's in the north folks), and it's freezing outside.

Maybe they should nuke us, at least the radiation would warm us. :cool:

What it speaks of and what it will do are two different things. It has already used proxy armies of terrorists to hit Israel and US forces. It did so outside of it's borders.

There are proxy US armies, if the reports are correct, in Iran to hit Iranian forces or defences.

And of course US Armies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Way outside US borders.

Iranian leaders still think they can solve their nation's problems with a rally and a few rounds of "death to America". I dont' trust them. I think we should level their reactor and missile sites if they don't voluntarilly disarm.Ooooh...
"Look, we are big and strong. We have the rights to say who can have nukes and doesn't. We attack you because you got nukes and oil."

I think we should level their reactor and missile sites if they don't voluntarilly disarm.

I can kind of agree with that.

So long as we sink our subs up at Faslane, take out India and Pakistan's facilities, destroy the french aircraft capable of launching nukes, airstrike Israel's nuclear depositories, take out Russia and China's and not forgetting to carpet bomb huge chunks of the American mid-west plus sinking any aircraft carriers capable of launching nuclear equipped planes or Tomahawks.

Then the nuclear problem will be solved!

Iranian leaders still think they can solve their nation's problems with a rally and a few rounds of "death to America". I dont' trust them.

Bush does the same with his "Axis of Evil" speech. I don't trust him.

Dismantiling Iran's reactor should go with dismantling America's.

Ooooh...
"Look, we are big and strong. We have the rights to say who can have nukes and doesn't. We attack you because you got nukes and oil."

Exactly. If they could do it to us now, they would too.

Our hands aren't spotless, but we're a hell of a lot better than a regime that seeks to impose theocracy,

How about the American law that prohibits US aid to any family planning organisation that even mentions abortion as a possible option due to lobbying by the religious right. Theocratic non?

Our hands aren't spotless, but we're a hell of a lot better than a regime that seeks to impose theocracy, and uses child soldiers to clear minefields by marching accross them.
The northern alliance was a proxy army. The iraqi army is a proxy army.
Iran doesn't use childs to clear minefields.

Exactly. If they could do it to us now, they would too.What? I don't think you got my point, but whatever...

Exactly. If they could do it to us now, they would too.
The iranian government is a lot wiser than that.

your thoughts dont matter, my thoughts dont matter its the thoughts of the guys in the pentagon that matter

You just gotta love the way U.S: creates their own enemies. Osama bin Laden: funded by CIA, recieved CIA training to kill soviets. Saddam Hussein: Given chemical and conventional weapons to fight the soviets. Sha: Inserted by the U.S. government. That's the result of meddling with the world, you end up with more bad results than good.

Bombing a country that willfully allowed our enemies to train on their soil, provided them with passports, weapons, and opportunities to recruit, and that refused to turn them over to us when they attacked our civilians is most certainly justified.

Ever hear of the School of the Americas?
It's where the USA trains foreign fighters, provides them with transport, weapons, opportunities to recruit poor villagers, and uses them to cripple foreign governments our government or industry doesn't like. Sounds remarkably like you are saying that Aphganistan did, huh. So from your view does that mean that 9/11 was justified?

Remember, Al-Qaida was trained by the USA to fight the soviets in Afhganistan. In fact, we used to call those fighters "the base" as the were the foundation of our operations there in the 80's. Guess what Al-Qaida translates to in the local language? THE BASE

We named our little pets and know we see what it is like to be on the recieving end of things. I do not condone terrorism. Whether it is against us OR perpetrated by us.

I don't think they will, there too busy sorting out Iraq.

That's your point of view. From my point of view, hunting down Al-Qaeda doesn't justify bombing a country.

No, but 911 was an act of war and Afghanistan was harboring the terrorists that carried out that act.

We named our little pets and know we see what it is like to be on the recieving end of things. I do not condone terrorism. Whether it is against us OR perpetrated by us.
the US does not use terrior to impose its will.

I think Iran could make a case for retaliatory actions against U.S. forces. Remember which country sold arms and chemical weapons to Iraq to use against Iran?
Didn't the Regan administration also sell arms to Iran?

the US does not use terrior to impose its will.Oh? And what is terror?

No, but 911 was an act of war and Afghanistan was harboring the terrorists that carried out that act.

It was a criminal attack, not a war. If it was an act of war you'd have gone after Saudi as that was the nationality of most of the attackers.

Also, if it was an act of war then the people you've captured would be POWs and not 'illegal combatants'

we really need to stop selling arms to other countries.

There are proxy US armies, if the reports are correct, in Iran to hit Iranian forces or defences.

And of course US Armies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Way outside US borders.
I won't argue about Iraq. We never should have gone in there. Afghanistan is a different matter entirely. It was self defense and retaliation. Totally justified.

Terrorism=War with smaller budget

Didn't the Regan administration also sell arms to Iran?

Yep. Which means Iraq could also have easily felt entitled to retaliate against America. Except they didn't. Ever. Guess they're more forgiving than the Christians!

I won't argue about Iraq. We never should have gone in there. Afghanistan is a different matter entirely. It was self defense and retaliation. Totally justified.
It was not. It was pipeline building.

I won't argue about Iraq. We never should have gone in there. Afghanistan is a different matter entirely. It was self defense and retaliation. Totally justified.What?! Is it justified to attack a country when a couple of terrorists attack New York!?! Defence in my A S S !!

I won't argue about Iraq. We never should have gone in there. Afghanistan is a different matter entirely. It was self defense and retaliation. Totally justified.

Whether it was justified or not is not the point, the point is, is that Iran may feel it is justified if it does have proxy armies, because of past intervention on behalf of US interest.

The northern alliance was a proxy army. The iraqi army is a proxy army.
Iran doesn't use childs to clear minefields.
They most certainly did. They recruited children as soldiers. The soldiers were given a small key as a symbol of their dedication to the islamic revolution. It symbolized the key to paradise. Those children were expendable. They were marched accross minefields, charged at Iraqi forces, and when some were captured instead of being killed Iran didn't want them back. They said that only the ones who died bravely were Iranina children.

the use of non uniformed persons to kill civilians and any one else who doesnt agree with them,
Quite right I suppose. Although, sometimes terrorists use uniforms, and sometimes, the military kill civilians.

What?! Is it justified to attack a country when a couple of terrorists attack New York!?! Defence in my A S S !!
it is justified when that was the country harboring them, feeding them, and letting them train on their soil!

They most certainly did. They recruited children as soldiers. The soldiers were given a small key as a symbol of their dedication to the islamic revolution. It symbolized the key to paradise. Those children were expendable. They were marched accross minefields, charged at Iraqi forces, and when some were captured instead of being killed Iran didn't want them back. They said that only the ones who died bravely were Iranina children.
Oh but you're talking about 1988 when Iran was attacked. The US did use nuclear weapons in times of war.

Yep. Which means Iraq could also have easily felt entitled to retaliate against America. Except they didn't. Ever. Guess they're more forgiving than the Christians!
Saddam just knew that he couldn't win against the USA. Gangsters don't shoot up the police station. The retaliation is bad for business.

Quite right I suppose. Although, sometimes terrorists use uniforms, and sometimes, the military kill civilians.

And there are US Special forces who kill while wearing civillian clothes.

In that sense then, would it be fair that if captured, they were not not held under the Geneva Convention rules either?

It was not. It was pipeline building.
Ok, whatever you say. Bin Laden was never in Afghanistan. If he was the taliban would have handed him over. We faked 9/11 to build a gas pipeline. :rolleyes:

it is justified when that was the country harboring them, feeding them, and letting them train on their soil!Oh, I thought the main reason you attacked that country was the chemical weapons. But wait: There was no chemical weapons!

Even thought Afqhanistan was harboring those terrorists, it doesn't give USA the right to attack.

And there are US Special forces who kill while wearing civillian clothes.

In that sense then, would it be fair that if captured, they were not not held under the Geneva Convention rules either?
they are members of a ligitamate army

it is justified when that was the country harboring them, feeding them, and letting them train on their soil!
They were training for fighting the northern alliance. The Talebans had no knowledge about the US attack.

Saddam just knew that he couldn't win against the USA. Gangsters don't shoot up the police station. The retaliation is bad for business.

And the US and our (Britain's) government knew that, yet still pretended he was a direct and immediate threat to us. Hence at least some of the scepticism about how dangerous Syria and Iran really are!

Even thought Afqhanistan was harboring those terrorists, it doesn't give USA the right to attack.
why not?

why not?Why should?

They were training for fighting the northern alliance. The Talebans had no knowledge about the US attack.
BS

why wouldnt they?
they bomb everything else

What?! Is it justified to attack a country when a couple of terrorists attack New York!?! Defence in my A S S !!
They attacked NY twice, they attacked washington DC, they attacked a couple of embasies in Africa, they attacked the USS Cole, what are we supposed to do? Sit there and take it? If that's your philosophy then I'd like to meet you and steal your wallet. You won't do anything about it.

Ok, whatever you say. Bin Laden was never in Afghanistan. If he was the taliban would have handed him over. We faked 9/11 to build a gas pipeline. :rolleyes:
They asked for evidence. I would have too.

Why should?
those people want US citizens DEAD

And there are US Special forces who kill while wearing civillian clothes.

In that sense then, would it be fair that if captured, they were not not held under the Geneva Convention rules either?

You misunderstood me. I think Guantanamo is the worst thing the U.S. has come up with. I just wanted to show that a terrorist could be so many things.

BS
And what do you think? That the TAlebans wanted to destroy the US? For what?

they are members of a ligitamate army

An army soldier wears a uniform, is that not what the US says when denying Guantanamo Bay detainees the same status as PoWs?

Al-Qaeda would say they are a legitimate army, akin to France's Foreign Legion.

Other militants would say the same.

They attacked NY twice, they attacked washington DC, they attacked a couple of embasies in Africa, they attacked the USS Cole, what are we supposed to do? Sit there and take it? If that's your philosophy then I'd like to meet you and steal your wallet. You won't do anything about it.
nice

the US does not use terrior to impose its will.

I recall the Pentagon refering to our Iraq strategy as "Shock and Awe".

Where do you think the SHOCK came from? Britain spent more on their carpet bombing of Iraq prior to the invasion than they gave for tsunami relief, twenty times more.

So, does anyone think that the civilians were TERRIFIED by the death, carnage, and destruction?

How about the near leveling of Fallujah? We destroyed the homes of over 100,000 people in an attempt to "save" the city. We punished them to show people what would happen if they helped the insurgency. We used the fear and terror of a horrible death to "negotiate" and convince them that doing what we say was in their best interest.

They attacked NY twice, they attacked washington DC, they attacked a couple of embasies in Africa, they attacked the USS Cole, what are we supposed to do? Sit there and take it? If that's your philosophy then I'd like to meet you and steal your wallet. You won't do anything about it.Sure, American, come and take my wallet. I wouldn't be suprised at all. One more mission of conquest...

You misunderstood me. I think Guantanamo is the worst thing the U.S. has come up with. I just wanted to show that a terrorist could be so many things.

My apologies for misunderstanding.

An army soldier wears a uniform, is that not what the US says when denying Guantanamo Bay detainees the same status as PoWs?

Al-Qaeda would say they are a legitimate army, akin to France's Foreign Legion.

Other militants would say the same.
they are by no means legitimate the are terriorist plain and simple

Oh but you're talking about 1988 when Iran was attacked. The US did use nuclear weapons in times of war.
Yes, we did. One war. Never again. Even when our civilian population was attacked and many of our people were calling on the government to use nuclear weapons. If that doesn't prove we're responsible, then you are bigoted against the US and nothing will change your mind.

Sure, American, come and take my wallet. I wouldn't be suprised at all. One more mission of conquest...

No, instead of just your wallet, we'll take your sorry excuse of a country, and make Finland the 52nd state after France.

Yes, we did. One war. Never again. Even when our civilian population was attacked and many of our people were calling on the government to use nuclear weapons. If that doesn't prove we're responsible, then you are bigoted against the US and nothing will change your mind.So, if you are not going to use your nukes, why do you still have them?

They were training for fighting the northern alliance. The Talebans had no knowledge about the US attack.
Bullshit. The taliban worked closely with Al Quaeda. They knew it was an anti-american terrorist organization.

they are by no means legitimate the are terriorist plain and simple


And equally, many would say that about US Special forces.

And in that sense, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

Yes, we did. One war. Never again. Even when our civilian population was attacked and many of our people were calling on the government to use nuclear weapons. If that doesn't prove we're responsible, then you are bigoted against the US and nothing will change your mind.
Come on your nation has a terrorist act. Terrorism is happening in every other single country on earth. Do you seriously think that Iran would use nuclear weapons after one fucking terrorist attack?

Why should?
To establish consequenses for harboring groups that are conducting war against the USA. That's why.

No, instead of just your wallet, we'll take your sorry excuse of a country, and make Finland the 52nd state after France.Ahem.. You are talking to a native of a country which kicked USSR's arse during WWII. Twice.

Sure, American, come and take my wallet. I wouldn't be suprised at all. One more mission of conquest...
you are part of the reason that the terriorist exist they have endured for so long. before america steped in no one would do anything to try and stop them.

Yes, we did. One war. Never again. Even when our civilian population was attacked and many of our people were calling on the government to use nuclear weapons. If that doesn't prove we're responsible, then you are bigoted against the US and nothing will change your mind.

It's fair to say you've resisted the urge since. But one day the hawks will win and they'll be used again. You came close to using them to destroy the USSR before they could develop their own. If nukes are still around they will be used again eventually, hence disarmament is the only safe solution. Even if it takes decades or centuries on a gradual basis.

they are by no means legitimate the are terriorist plain and simple
Very nice way of putting it. Why not bomb the UN building? They kind of help the terrorists. And then we can bomb the French too! They aren't human, just like the terrorists. You know, one of the "reasons" for attacking Iraq was to free people and to stop the breaches against human rights, rights that U.S. now violates at Guantanamo!

No, instead of just your wallet, we'll take your sorry excuse of a country, and make Finland the 52nd state after France.

By that statement, you have just proved Supreme Rabbit right.

To establish consequenses for harboring groups that are conducting war against the USA. That's why.
"They looked us in a nasty way, so we are going to teack them a lesson"

The US isn't a terrorist nation because it wins. And because no nation on earth can or is willing to hold it accountable. Not even the entire UN can hold the US accountable.

And, the US is writing the history. Will Saddam's regime write a history book? Don't think so.

Winners make the rules. Winners enforce the laws. Winners write the history.

Life sucks losers dry.

Bullshit. The taliban worked closely with Al Quaeda. They knew it was an anti-american terrorist organization.They didn't plan and they didn't know about 9/11. They just used Al Qaeda against the Northern Alliance. The Taleban didn't give a fucking shit about the US. They were happy using US made weapons and that's all.

They asked for evidence. I would have too.
Evidence was provided and bin laden was still sheltered. When Pakistan told them they ought to hand him over because the US was serious the Taliban representative said "the problem with you people is that you have never won a war. We have never lost one." They held on to bin laden because they thought they could fight off the USA. Not because they thought he didn't do it.

you are part of the reason that the terriorist exist they have endured for so long. before america steped in no one would do anything to try and stop them.Before America stepped in, there wasn't so much terrorism.

So, if you are not going to use your nukes, why do you still have them?
just in case some idiot tries to use one on us, Russia goesbad again, u dont shut up

Yeah, with help.
Heck, almost the ENTIRE war was won because of USSR, UK, and USA.

Who attacked The Axis in Egypt? US, UK, and a tiny group of French dipsticks.

Who launched the Normandy invasion, freeing countries as it went, and making the Nazi's fight two fronts? USA and UK.

Who established the free west half of Germany when the USSR wanted an entirely Socialist German state? USA and UK.

We've saved all of you people more than could ever be repaid. True, the French gave us our freedom, but we gave it back TWICE.

Before America stepped in, there wasn't so much terrorism.
and all of those bombs in isreal before america came in dont count?

you are part of the reason that the terriorist exist they have endured for so long. before america steped in no one would do anything to try and stop them.

Violence breeds violence, and an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

just in case some idiot tries to use one on us, Russia goesbad again, u dont shut upLike I said before: No country should have nukes! Be kind, will you?

And what do you think? That the TAlebans wanted to destroy the US? For what?
To spread their islamofascist ideology. To weaken US's ability to project force into many parts of the world. To eliminate US support for governments in the middle east so islamofascism could spread throughout the muslim world and then into the western world. These people want an islamic caliphate to rule the entire earth.

I don't see it like that.
The taleban were fighting against the Northern alliance. They used Al Qaeda as a fighting force against the northern alliance. They didn't give a shit about the US. When asked to hand over Ossama Ben laden, They asked for evidence of his involvement and Pakistan was helping in putting pressure on them but they also asked for evidence as a mean to facilitate talks.
They didn't provided any passport or weapons (they used knifes) to attack the US.
Inaccurate. The Taliban told the US in no uncertain terms that Osama bin Laden was a "guest" in their Country and that they had no intention of truning him over. End of story.

Yeah, with help.
Heck, almost the ENTIRE war was won because of USSR, UK, and USA.

Who attacked The Axis in Egypt? US, UK, and a tiny group of French dipsticks.

Who launched the Normandy invasion, freeing countries as it went, and making the Nazi's fight two fronts? USA and UK.

Who established the free west half of Germany when the USSR wanted an entirely Socialist German state? USA and UK.

We've saved all of you people more than could ever be repaid. True, the French gave us our freedom, but we gave it back TWICE.
sounds about right

and all of those bombs in isreal before america came in dont count?What a question.. Of course they count.

Responsible?! Remember Nagasaki & Hiroshima!

Those weapons were used during a war. If they had not been used the war would have gone on much longer. The allies would have invaded mainland Japan, and many more people on both sides would have died than died in the bombings. I'm sure the decision President Truman had to make was the toughest one he ever had to make.

Sure, American, come and take my wallet. I wouldn't be suprised at all. One more mission of conquest...
Run, rabbit, run.

Yeah, with help.
Heck, almost the ENTIRE war was won because of USSR, UK, and USA.

Who attacked The Axis in Egypt? US, UK, and a tiny group of French dipsticks.

Who launched the Normandy invasion, freeing countries as it went, and making the Nazi's fight two fronts? USA and UK.

Who established the free west half of Germany when the USSR wanted an entirely Socialist German state? USA and UK.

We've saved all of you people more than could ever be repaid. True, the French gave us our freedom, but we gave it back TWICE.


Took your time tho! :P

To spread their islamofascist ideology. To weaken US's ability to project force into many parts of the world. To eliminate US support for governments in the middle east so islamofascism could spread throughout the muslim world and then into the western world. These people want an islamic caliphate to rule the entire earth.Funny. I can't see are you kidding or not.

just in case some idiot tries to use one on us, Russia goesbad again, u dont shut up
So what if the U.S. goes bad? I agree with many of the previous posters. Sooner or later a nation will decay and become a rouge state. I don't wan't to think what the romans would have done if they'd had nukes...
I don't kreally now why I'm replying to that post...

Run, rabbit, run.Wise guy...

Inaccurate. The Taliban told the US in no uncertain terms that Osama bin Laden was a "guest" in their Country and that they had no intention of truning him over. End of story.
No they asked for evidence.

Took your time tho! :P

We weren't sure you wanted help the second time around.

You didn't have a resistance until the British SOE organized one for you.

You had to be talked into not shooting the US and UK forces that were landing in North Africa.

You gave up so quickly in 1940 it wasn't funny. We thought that perhaps you liked the goose-step.

You handed the Jews over wholesale - compared to the Danes for example, the French were rabidly anti-Semitic and in full support of the Holocaust.

Took your time tho! :P

Doesn't matter, if it weren't for us, Europe would be speaking German and Russian, and Asia would be speaking Japanese, all of it.

you are part of the reason that the terriorist exist they have endured for so long. before america steped in no one would do anything to try and stop them.

Terrorism is not a group to be defeated. It is a tactic.

The USA is parading around telling the rest of the globe what to do. They don't like to follow orders any more than your average red-blooded american. SO, they resist.

But as you say, how do you resist the most powerful and most overly funded army in the history of the world? Well, you have to use what you have. In their mind their only hope is to make the cost to the american people so high that we back down and let them govern themselves in what manner they choose, even if that manner seems wrong to us.

Don't believe the hype, no one, NO ONE, travels halfway around the globe to blow themselves up without a damn good reason. And the reason is that we have our little monkey hands in everyone's pants.

Imagine, people from other countries not wanting to sacrifice their own countries future and the future of their children so america can have cheap gas and fat asses!! Why Not! It's such a noble cause for freedom!!!

So, if you are not going to use your nukes, why do you still have them?
In the event that a nuclear nation attacks us.

To spread their islamofascist ideology. To weaken US's ability to project force into many parts of the world. To eliminate US support for governments in the middle east so islamofascism could spread throughout the muslim world and then into the western world. These people want an islamic caliphate to rule the entire earth.
Why are they fighting other muslisms then instead on concentrating on the infidels?

It's still hypocritical to complain about states developing WMD if you own them yourself though!
So you would rather see a multitude of countries, most with little or no comittment to democracy, freedom, rationality, peace, or virtually anything except their own demented ideas about religion, with nuclear weapons? That truly verges on insanity! The potential for catastrophe increases geometrically with the increase in the number of nations possessing nuclear capabilities.

Those weapons were used during a war. If they had not been used the war would have gone on much longer. The allies would have invaded mainland Japan, and many more people on both sides would have died than died in the bombings. I'm sure the decision President Truman had to make was the toughest one he ever had to make.True, but those bombs were an attack against humanity. No one should deny it.

So what if the U.S. goes bad? I agree with many of the previous posters. Sooner or later a nation will decay and become a rouge state. I don't wan't to think what the romans would have done if they'd had nukes...
I don't kreally now why I'm replying to that post...
that is the nice part about our country WE WONT our gov is set up so that it wont happen division of power and free elections if we dont like the guy in power we can kick him out

Doesn't matter, if it weren't for us, Europe would be speaking German and Russian, and Asia would be speaking Japanese, all of it.
I speack english.

We weren't sure you wanted help the second time around.

You didn't have a resistance until the British SOE organized one for you.

You had to be talked into not shooting the US and UK forces that were landing in North Africa.

You gave up so quickly in 1940 it wasn't funny. We thought that perhaps you liked the goose-step.

You handed the Jews over wholesale - compared to the Danes for example, the French were rabidly anti-Semitic and in full support of the Holocaust.

Er. I'm not French. I'm English. Next time try and notice the ':p'

In the event that a nuclear nation attacks us.And your nukes will help?

Come on your nation has a terrorist act. Terrorism is happening in every other single country on earth. Do you seriously think that Iran would use nuclear weapons after one fucking terrorist attack?
I don't trust them not to. I've been around long enough to know that some people shouldn't be trusted.

So you would rather see a multitude of countries, most with little or no comittment to democracy, freedom, rationality, peace, or virtually anything except their own demented ideas about religion, with nuclear weapons? That truly verges on insanity! The potential for catastrophe increases geometrically with the increase in the number of nations possessing nuclear capabilities.
The USA only looks for its own interest and they don't hide it.

Doesn't matter, if it weren't for us, Europe would be speaking German and Russian, and Asia would be speaking Japanese, all of it.

And if we hadn't beaten the French in the 1750s they might have made a better job of running their colonies and you could be speaking French!

We've saved all of you people more than could ever be repaid. True, the French gave us our freedom, but we gave it back TWICE.

Twice? You sure about that? (obviously you're not)

True, but those bombs were an attack against humanity. No one should deny it.

No, it was an attack against an enemy we were fighting in a war. Unfortunatly, was is about breaking things and killing people.

The reason history shows that people failed in empires is because of this;

1) WAY TOO BIG
Look at rome, stretched over 3 continents, became so spread out, they couldn't call up enough forces into time to hold off some german farmers with pitchforks

2) TAKING ON TOO BIG A FOE

Nazi's would have held their land, if they would've stayed small, and not hit US civilian vessels, regardless if they had equipment to help the UK

Japan took on too big a foe, got annihilated, Rome was too big, couldn't manage itself, USSR too big, too mean, revolution imminent.

While all the others powers of the world shrunk (UK etc) the US has slowly gained land around the world.

US General: Your mission is to destroy a village twenty miles south from here.
US Sergeant: Sir yes sir!

***

US Sergeant: The village has been destroyed, sir! We also destroyed a village thirty miles south from here!
US General: You... What! But there was no enemies in that village!
US Sergeant: There is now, sir!
Very funny. Ha. Ha. Ha. :rolleyes: