NationStates Jolt Archive

They are dangerous hardline extremists who should be pre emptively destroyed before they start launching nukes.

What a great Idea! I shall ring the Leaders of the World right now and ask them to Invade the USA!

So when U get nuked by rogue nations you'll think its 'good' that we didn't stop them? Might is right and that right is being used to protect the free world. Im not advocating invasion for the sake of it, its to protect the rest of the world.

Dude, we're right back to my first post. Might is not right and every single invader always says what you are saying, "its to protect the world" "it's defense." How the hell does an invasion become defense? If you bend definitions that much, you may as well say RAPE is SELF DEFENSE, since its POSSIBLE that any given woman MAY one day go crazy and MAY one day SHOOT the rapist. You think?

Why eaxactly should i leave?

You shouldnt leave. You clearly have the upper hand in intelligence. Dont let some one pretending to be an elitist intellectual bully you.

I'm assuming you're referring to the First Nations?

What about them? We have consistently and most generously offered continuing services, support and funding for First Nations, they have self-governance, aren't taxed, and we frequently revisit land claims and fishing rights disputes.

Are things perfect here? No, but we actively improve the status quo we inherited from our forefathers.

Why?

Haha..right..pat yourselves on the back because Canada is perfect compared to the U.S. Cant defend yourselves, and in the shadow of the U.S. And yet you complain. Why? Because you're in the shadow. Of course that is obviously the U.S's fault because things would have been better if the U.S. lost the Cold War.

You shouldnt leave. You clearly have the upper hand in intelligence. Dont let some one pretending to be an elitist intellectual bully you.

He hasnt made a good post in this topic. Hes a Facist, he gets satisfaction in seeing other people killing innocent civilians.

So you were lying when you said that most of us are ok with the US? Which times have they saved our arse? I dont know, are you referring to WW2? Maybe if the US had the common sense to join in the war, in time to save millions of deaths.

Nope, sorry. Considering that you speak for the majority of the UK, is unthinkable and just a plain horrible thought.
Let me think. Would you rather the US hadn't turned up at all. Maybe you'd be happy to see all the jews dead and you could licks Goebbels arese. Just piss off with your mradical anti-US crap. Without them we'd be either be in the Third Reich or worse, communist. So how about you apoligise to the thousands of people who lost family to defgend us in our hour of need.

Iran is not a US ally. They are dangerous hardline extremists who should be pre emptively destroyed before they start launching nukes.

You're funny. You're a funny guy. I think you're a dangerous hardline extremist, too. Should I have you pre-emptively destroyed? Sure that might be a hairbrush, but it could be a cunningly disguised launch button. Better that you're dead and the world free, dontcha think?

He hasnt made a good post in this topic. Hes a Facist, he gets satisfaction in seeing other people killing innocent civilians.
Better other civilians die than UK or US civilians.; I don't take satisfaction in their deaths but I hope you'll have sense to support the correct side. Maybe you'd like to piss off the the Iranians and other bastards you love so much?

So you were lying when you said that most of us are ok with the US? Which times have they saved our arse? I dont know, are you referring to WW2? Maybe if the US had the common sense to join in the war, in time to save millions of deaths.

Nope, sorry. Considering that you speak for the majority of the UK, is unthinkable and just a plain horrible thought.

Oh-so if it suits YOU, its ok for the US to go to war. We joined when we were attacked directly. You also forgot about World War One-the war to end all wars-your "arses" were saved then too. And the Falkland Islands were a little bloody nose for you too, huh? Just our presence has kept your country safe. If it werent for us, the French would probably be marching through that tunnel right now to kick your lilly ass. Simpering fop.

Most people here find the US ok. Its the bloody commies stirring up trouble.

I assume that by 'bloody commies' you mean strong left wingers, as actual communism in Britain is virtually non-existant. THe difference between the US and the UK is that there are a hell of a lot more strong left wingers in the UK. The only people who praise the US are those who say that we shouldn't have more to do with the French, the Germans and every other European country because they say they are scarred of Britain losing its identity. I would much rather Britain become a founding member of the 'United States of Europe' or whateve else Europe eventually decides to call itself, than a protectorate of America. Eventually we have to become one of the two.

We're going to hit their nuclear facilities. It's just a matter of time. I, for one, think it's the right thing to do.

It's great that the Americains feel that these countries should have their nuclear capabilities removed, but unfortunately the time will come when another feels the same way towards Americains. I just feel that if the Americains continue their assaults on foreign soils it will just mean that more terrorist cells will try things like the one that happened on 911.

You shouldnt leave. You clearly have the upper hand in intelligence. Dont let some one pretending to be an elitist intellectual bully you.Bullying is for pathetic people like Morgallis and his USA ass kissing. You'll note he repeatedly says how the US should use its might to enfore whatever the Hell it wants, pretty much like a bully would. His argument seems to be that the government of Iran doesn't like the US (and we all know how governments 100% reflect the views of the people), so everyone in Iran should be made to suffer by having their country turned into a barren, inhospitable radioactive wasteland.

Let me think. Would you rather the US hadn't turned up at all. Maybe you'd be happy to see all the jews dead and you could licks Goebbels arese. Just piss off with your mradical anti-US crap. Without them we'd be either be in the Third Reich or worse, communist. So how about you apoligise to the thousands of people who lost family to defgend us in our hour of need.

Yeah? Why not? Might is right, so what was wrong with Hitler killing Jews?

Might is right, so if the Third Reich won whats so wrong with that?

I'm sensing some holes in your superbly-crafted arguments...

Let me think. Would you rather the US hadn't turned up at all. Maybe you'd be happy to see all the jews dead and you could licks Goebbels arese. Just piss off with your mradical anti-US crap. Without them we'd be either be in the Third Reich or worse, communist. So how about you apoligise to the thousands of people who lost family to defgend us in our hour of need.

I wouldn't apologise to them, as you've been repeating, its them that voluntarily joined the forces.

How about you apologise to the Millions of Jews, Homosexuals and Gypsies that 'could' have been saved. The hole war could've been rounded up and lives would've been saved. Although this is pure speculation.

Better other civilians die than UK or US civilians.; I don't take satisfaction in their deaths but I hope you'll have sense to support the correct side. Maybe you'd like to piss off the the Iranians and other bastards you love so much?

So your saying the death of 1/3 the Civilian Population of Japan During WW2 was ok?

You're funny. You're a funny guy. I think you're a dangerous hardline extremist, too. Should I have you pre-emptively destroyed? Sure that might be a hairbrush, but it could be a cunningly disguised launch button. Better that you're dead and the world free, dontcha think?
Difference is , for the moment, retarded shitheads like you dont have their fionger on the button. You think your so clever with your inane pedantryI'd never though i'd say thsi but you're even more retarded than Bush.

So your saying the death of 1/3 the Civilian Population of Japan During WW2 was ok?

You sure you want to use Japan as an example? Having used poison gas, and their various assaults on civilians they conquered I find it hard to shed any tears for them.

Oh-so if it suits YOU, its ok for the US to go to war. We joined when we were attacked directly. You also forgot about World War One-the war to end all wars-your "arses" were saved then too. And the Falkland Islands were a little bloody nose for you too, huh? Just our presence has kept your country safe. If it werent for us, the French would probably be marching through that tunnel right now to kick your lilly ass. Simpering fop.
WW1 wouldn't have threatened the UK directly but your help is appreciated

No, I saw it on the CBC news circa 1982. Remember, the Canadian embassy spirited about a dozen US diplomats out of the country at the time of the taking of the US embassy. The hostage crisis was big news up here, as well as related stories. One of the related stories was the uncovering of the late Shah's assets, at home and abroad.

The solid-gold rococo toilet fixture was in one of the Shah's palaces, discovered after the revolution, and reported on internationally. There was film (not video) footage taken of the ostentacious potty, but I believe it (rightfully so) melted down for it's monetary value.
you act as if the Iranian revolution ended as a revolution for the people. It indeed started out as such, but somewhere in the middle the mullahs seized power and that led to pronouncements like the supposed fact that womens' hair gives off rays that send men into a frenzy and therefore must be covered.

Haha..right..pat yourselves on the back because Canada is perfect compared to the U.S. Cant defend yourselves, and in the shadow of the U.S. And yet you complain. Why? Because you're in the shadow. Of course that is obviously the U.S's fault because things would have been better if the U.S. lost the Cold War.

Again your supposition is that all nations wish to define themselves militarily, or to emulate the follies of the US. We are formerly of the British Empire, yes. We are situated next to a superpower, yes. What of it?

Everybody had to come from somewhere. Seems to me we had similar origins. Everybody has to live somewhere, we're just unfortunate enough to be stuck next to a superpower. That doesn't mean that we want the same things as the US does, or the Brits did. But you don't seem capable of digesting this.

Most likely due to your original mistaken supposition, and an unwillingness to look past it.

[QUOTE=Carnivorous Lickers]Oh-so if it suits YOU, its ok for the US to go to war. We joined when we were attacked directly. QUOTE]

Funny how some policies change over the decades.

You sure you want to use Japan as an example? Having used poison gas, and their various assaults on civilians they conquered I find it hard to shed any tears for them.

You are aware that the people who made assaults on civilians they conquered (i.e, the Japanese Army) are not the same people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (i.e women and children)?

You sure you want to use Japan as an example? Having used poison gas, and their various assaults on civilians they conquered I find it hard to shed any tears for them.

Oh come off it, If the Japanese won the War American Generals would of been Prosecuted for War Crimes, The History of War is Written by the Winners not the Losers, and as such only the Losers Commanders were prosecuted for War crimes, not the Winning Commanders. The Japanese weren’t exactly right on what they did, but neither were the USA, We continue to see American Imperialism today, and with that Civilian deaths of other Countries.

You are aware that the people who made assaults on civilians they conquered (i.e, the Japanese Army) are not the same people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (i.e women and children)?

Hiroshima had a military base, and Nagasaki was an industrial center. If the Japanese didnt want civilian centers attacked they shouldnt have started the war in China and then expanded it far beyond their capabilities.

Oh-so if it suits YOU, its ok for the US to go to war. We joined when we were attacked directly. You also forgot about World War One-the war to end all wars-your "arses" were saved then too. And the Falkland Islands were a little bloody nose for you too, huh? Just our presence has kept your country safe. If it werent for us, the French would probably be marching through that tunnel right now to kick your lilly ass. Simpering fop.

It suits me when there are millions being killed. At the moment your talking about starting a War, not ending it. You talk about you 'defending' the world, although in WW2 you waited for your own men to die, to help 'defend' the world.

So your saying the death of 1/3 the Civilian Population of Japan During WW2 was ok?
Even Considering waht Japan did to the people it conquered I think the casualties were a bit bit severe. However, if it was a choice of 1/10 of Uk+Us population vs 9/10 of Japanese population in a war I would take down the Japs

*well at least this time Bush isnt sponsoring another 911 as a way to panic Americans into supporting another one of his unjust wars


UPI is reporting the U.S. Air Force has begun flying combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in what could be viewed as an act of war. The report comes less than two weeks after investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that secret US forces are already on the ground locating possible sites to target.

According to UPI, the US military is hoping to lure Tehran into turning on its air defense radars which would allow US pilots to pinpoint where the radar systems are located so they could be targeted during an invasion.

UPI also reports that US Special Forces are using Iraqi Kurds near the Iranian border as well as members of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen-e Khalq or MEK to gather intelligence inside Iran. UPI reports the MEK are now launching incursions into Iran from Basra as well as Pakistan.

One longtime CIA operator in the region said "This looks to be turning into a pretty large-scale covert operation." UPI also reports the US has begun creating a network of front companies inside Iran in order to be able to move money, weapons and personnel around inside the country
democracynow.org/ UPI.com

Do you have an actual link? I searched for a story on this and found nothing.

Even Considering waht Japan did to the people it conquered I think the casualties were a bit bit severe. However, if it was a choice of 1/10 of Uk+Us population vs 9/10 of Japanese population in a war I would take down the Japs

You are a sick man. Ever heard of MAD.

Hiroshima had a military base, and Nagasaki was an industrial center. If the Japanese didnt want civilian centers attacked they shouldnt have started the war in China and then expanded it far beyond their capabilities.

... you still dont get it. There is a difference between the makers of policy and the ordinary population. The government and military started that war, not the ordinary population. If it's OK to kill people because you disagree with their government, what was so wrong about 9/11? I could just say "if the US didn't want 9/11 to happen they shouldn't have put Saddam and Osama in power and oh that revolution the CIA instigated in Iran too."

You can't just refer "the Japanese" like its all the same. Like if one Japanese commits a crime its OK to punish some random other Japanese for it? "They're all Japanese, they're all the same!" is what you're seeming to think here.

Oh come off it, If the Japanese won the War American Generals would of been Prosecuted for War Crimes, The History of War is Written by the Winners not the Losers, and as such only the Losers Commanders were prosecuted for War crimes, not the Winning Commanders. The Japanese weren’t exactly right on what they did, but neither were the USA, We continue to see American Imperialism today, and with that Civilian deaths of other Countries.

Wanna know the difference though? When the U.S. does it, it apologizes to holy hell, investigations are conducted and those responsable for it are stripped of rank and discharged from the military with permenant blemishes on their record. The Japanese did it and they showered their people as heros to the emperor.

And if the Japanese won the war, there wouldnt have been any warcrimes simply because Japans interest was never to conquer the U.S. just to force the U.S. to open trade with Japan again of steel and oil.

You are aware that the people who made assaults on civilians they conquered (i.e, the Japanese Army) are not the same people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (i.e women and children)?
It was the quickest way to end the war and had we had to actually invade the Japanese mainland with troops there almost inevitably would have been a much, much greater number of civilian deaths.

Could I just point out to canivorous lickers, that the Franch have never defeated anyone. I think that the french are hardly going to attempt an invasion of anywhere, let alone the world's 4th greatest power

Even Considering waht Japan did to the people it conquered I think the casualties were a bit bit severe. However, if it was a choice of 1/10 of Uk+Us population vs 9/10 of Japanese population in a war I would take down the Japs

You are seriously, one of the most racist people I have ever talked to. Do you even realise your ignorance.

It was the quickest way to end the war and had we had to actually invade the Japanese mainland with troops there almost inevitably would have been a much, much greater number of civilian deaths.

I dont care thats irrelevant to the discussion.

What can I say, bush is a tosser!

You are a sick man. Ever heard of MAD.
Name one nation I have incited attacking that could bring about MAD. My Japan vs Us thing was a hypothetical situation. try to keep up.

Wanna know the difference though? When the U.S. does it, it apologizes to holy hell, investigations are conducted and those responsable for it are stripped of rank and discharged from the military with permenant blemishes on their record. The Japanese did it and they showered their people as heros to the emperor.

And if the Japanese won the war, there wouldnt have been any warcrimes simply because Japans interest was never to conquer the U.S. just to force the U.S. to open trade with Japan again of steel and oil.

Nothing ever happened to those Commanders that Dropped there bombs over Japan and Burned those Cities and those Millions of Civilians, nor were the people who Dropped those Nuked, The government Knew it happened and they DID NOTHING!

Wanna know the difference though? When the U.S. does it, it apologizes to holy hell, investigations are conducted and those responsable for it are stripped of rank and discharged from the military with permenant blemishes on their record.

So why not strip Bush of his presidency for the war in Iraq, they have now concluded that Iraq had no missiles of mass destruction wich is the reason the US invaded in the first place.

... you still dont get it. There is a difference between the makers of policy and the ordinary population. The government and military started that war, not the ordinary population. If it's OK to kill people because you disagree with their government, what was so wrong about 9/11? I could just say "if the US didn't want 9/11 to happen they shouldn't have put Saddam and Osama in power and oh that revolution the CIA instigated in Iran too."

You can't just refer "the Japanese" like its all the same. Like if one Japanese commits a crime its OK to punish some random other Japanese for it? "They're all Japanese, they're all the same!" is what you're seeming to think here.

Different time different war. Back then civilian causalties were regretable but a factor of the entire war in general. Could you imagine how the invasion of Europe would have played out today? Especially with an estimated 10,000 dead civilians in the first week of the Normandy operation alone?

Why is 9/11 different? Because now in the "civilized" world civilian deaths are to be avoided at all costs. In WWII we saw the Japanese werent going to surrender unless an invasion took place. The bomb just gave us a different route.

You are seriously, one of the most racist people I have ever talked to. Do you even realise your ignorance.
I could use that situation for any nation, Japan was just topical. It could be 1/10 Us population vs 9/10 Russian/Chinese/Iranian/North Korean/Martian /whatever. It was not an attack on Japan

you act as if the Iranian revolution ended as a revolution for the people. It indeed started out as such, but somewhere in the middle the mullahs seized power and that led to pronouncements like the supposed fact that womens' hair gives off rays that send men into a frenzy and therefore must be covered.

Most revolutions end that way. The point is, the US-backed Shah's regime was unpopular and repressive, which led to unrest, and finally revolution. In the political vacuum came forth the mullahs - and yes, they were even more repressive than the Shah. But that didn't stop America from doing business with them.

America doesn't give a flying fuck about how nations like Iran and Iraq govern themselves, all they want is to be sure that whoever is in control is one of 'theirs'. A bought man.

Anybody catch the footage of the pre-invasion meetings in Kurdistan between Kurdish leaders and the Americans? For impoverished dirt farmers from northern Iraq, the Kurds certainly pulled out all the stops - it looked like a grand meeting of all the mafia crime families put together. More Armani suits than you'd find at a men's clothing store. These guys were featured on-camera as being the 'future leaders' of a liberated Iraq. i.e., these were Bush's bought men - future capos, lieutenants, and henchthingies for an unsuspecting nation.

Good job spreading the joys of American-style democracy, boys. This ought to set back natural social evolution in the middle east another hundred years or so. Good job.

Nothing ever happened to those Commanders that Dropped there bombs over Japan and Burned those Cities and those Millions of Civilians, nor were the people who Dropped those Nuked, The government Knew it happened and they DID NOTHING!
Beacuse it was the right course of action, dumbass

How about you apologise to the Millions of Jews, Homosexuals and Gypsies that 'could' have been saved. The hole war could've been rounded up and lives would've been saved. Although this is pure speculation.
Ain't the US's fault that Chamberlain and the French couldn't find their spines.

Even Considering waht Japan did to the people it conquered I think the casualties were a bit bit severe. However, if it was a choice of 1/10 of Uk+Us population vs 9/10 of Japanese population in a war I would take down the Japs

You're a monster on the same level as Hitler or Stalin. I hope to God you never get the kind of government you so richly deserve. Not for your sake, of course.

So why not strip Bush of his presidency for the war in Iraq, they have now concluded that Iraq had no missiles of mass destruction wich is the reason the US invaded in the first place.
Not that they have NOW concluded this. At the time it can be shown that Iraq was thought to have WMDs

Different time different war. Back then civilian causalties were regretable but a factor of the entire war in general

Changes nothing. YOU are not from a different time, but you are saying you didnt feel anything for the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, BECAUSE of the Japanese Army's actions.

Morally, that is EXACTLY the same as someone not caring about 9/11 victims, because of the actions of the US Government.[/QUOTE]

I could use that situation for any nation, Japan was just topical. It could be 1/10 Us population vs 9/10 Russian/Chinese/Iranian/North Korean/Martian /whatever. It was not an attack on Japan

It still means your Racist, if you'd prefer 9/10 of another country dead, rather than 1/10 than ours. Then if you think about China and Japan, thats Millions maybe Billions dead.

Most revolutions end that way. The point is, the US-backed Shah's regime was unpopular and repressive, which led to unrest, and finally revolution. In the political vacuum came forth the mullahs - and yes, they were even more repressive than the Shah. But that didn't stop America from doing business with them.

America doesn't give a flying fuck about how nations like Iran and Iraq govern themselves, all they want is to be sure that whoever is in control is one of 'theirs'. A bought man.

Anybody catch the footage of the pre-invasion meetings in Kurdistan between Kurdish leaders and the Americans? For impoverished dirt farmers from northern Iraq, the Kurds certainly pulled out all the stops - it looked like a grand meeting of all the mafia crime families put together. More Armani suits than you'd find at a men's clothing store. These guys were featured on-camera as being the 'future leaders' of a liberated Iraq. i.e., these were Bush's bought men - future capos, lieutenants, and henchthingies for an unsuspecting nation.

Good job spreading the joys of American-style democracy, boys. This ought to set back natural social evolution in the middle east another hundred years or so. Good job.

Its called the Cold War. The U.S. and Soviets installed folks friendly to their cause. The U.S. does it rarely now and only when there is something of interest to the U.S...except for Yugoslavia..Milosavic's removal was something unexpected...then you had the botched operation in Somalia..tried to help there..of course Afganistan was a result of 9/11..and the situation in Afganistan was the result of the Soviet invasion back in the 80s as they attempted to keep their puppet governemt propped up agaisnt the will of the people.

Not that they have NOW concluded this. At the time it can be shown that Iraq was thought to have WMDs

Well if we were to attack any country that we might think has WMD's then every single country should be invaded.

Seriously now, does ANYBODY have a link to a credible news site about this story?

You're a monster on the same level as Hitler or Stalin. I hope to God you never get the kind of government you so richly deserve. Not for your sake, of course.
You may have missed the point. Are you saying that you'd rather have 10% of your country wiped out than 90% of somone else's. You'd sit and watch 1 in 10 people you know die than have kill some enemies in a hypothetical conflict?

Seriously now, does ANYBODY have a link to a credible news site about this story?
Given that Skapy is the one who created it, probably not.

Changes nothing. YOU are not from a different time, but you are saying you didnt feel anything for the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, BECAUSE of the Japanese Army's actions.

Morally, that is EXACTLY the same as someone not caring about 9/11 victims, because of the actions of the US Government.[/QUOTE]

Give me a break, its called looking outside of the box. Civilian casualties arent supposed to happen in this day and age or werent you paying attention. 60 years ago no one cared. If it happened, it happened, and the war kept going on. As for the Japanese Army's actions ,it just wasnt the Army it was the entire people in general. They were preparing for an invasion and frankly Japan was turning into a country of fanatical fight till the last man or bleed America on the shores till they sue for piece nation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were still military takes..I fail to realize how the WTC was one though.

The Pentagon was a perfectly acceptable target. The WTC though? Doesnt fly.

Also the U.S. was trying to end a war before a hundreds of thousands of more people died..what were the terrorists trying to accomplish? Apples and oranges.

Its called the Cold War. The U.S. and Soviets installed folks friendly to their cause. The U.S. does it rarely now and only when there is something of interest to the U.S...except for Yugoslavia..Milosavic's removal was something unexpected...then you had the botched operation in Somalia..tried to help there..of course Afganistan was a result of 9/11..and the situation in Afganistan was the result of the Soviet invasion back in the 80s as they attempted to keep their puppet governemt propped up agaisnt the will of the people.

Interesting you Mention Afghanistan, Did you know before the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan none of the Worlds Heroin came from the Nation? However after the war with the Soviets were over and it was still being backed by the US Government Afghanistan Poppy cultivation exploded and turned into the Largest Heroin producer on the face of the Earth.

Well if we were to attack any country that we might think has WMD's then every single country should be invaded.
But there's also the assessment of whether this would be a danger. If Belgium or Canada got nukes, would anyone care? But Iran or Iraq or North Korea, thats a pressing concern

Ain't the US's fault that Chamberlain and the French couldn't find their spines.

If you are accussing the French and British of cowardice then I hope you intend to apologise. Both counties continued to fight Germany despite France having no army and Britain having hardly any from about the first 3 months of the war onwards.

Wanna know the difference though? When the U.S. does it, it apologizes to holy hell, investigations are conducted and those responsable for it are stripped of rank and discharged from the military with permenant blemishes on their record. The Japanese did it and they showered their people as heros to the emperor.

And if the Japanese won the war, there wouldnt have been any warcrimes simply because Japans interest was never to conquer the U.S. just to force the U.S. to open trade with Japan again of steel and oil.
Um, actually there were no repercussions for firebombing Japan and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However it was an unusual war. None has been fought like it since.

It still means your Racist, if you'd prefer 9/10 of another country dead, rather than 1/10 than ours. Then if you think about China and Japan, thats Millions maybe Billions dead.
So you'd leave all the foreigners alive and have 1/10 of yours dead. so is there any level of enemies dead you'd have to keep your people alive?

Interesting you Mention Afghanistan, Did you know before the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan none of the Worlds Heroin came from the Nation? However after the war with the Soviets were over and it was still being backed by the US Government Afghanistan Poppy cultivation exploded and turned into the Largest Heroin producer on the face of the Earth.


The Soviets level the country, leave the people with no infustructure and yet its still the US's fault that their people turned to poppy cultivation? After the Soviets left, the U.S. didnt care about Afganistan anymore, much like how it was when the U.S. left Vietnam, and the Soviets left Vietnam to be invaded by China. Also, it wasnt the largest heroin producer until AFTER the Taliban fell.

You may have missed the point. Are you saying that you'd rather have 10% of your country wiped out than 90% of somone else's. You'd sit and watch 1 in 10 people you know die than have kill some enemies in a hypothetical conflict?

He's selfless enough to be able to bear that because he knows it is the better moral decision.

Give me a break, its called looking outside of the box. Civilian casualties arent supposed to happen in this day and age or werent you paying attention. 60 years ago no one cared. If it happened, it happened, and the war kept going on. As for the Japanese Army's actions ,it just wasnt the Army it was the entire people in general. They were preparing for an invasion and frankly Japan was turning into a country of fanatical fight till the last man or bleed America on the shores till they sue for piece nation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were still military takes..I fail to realize how the WTC was one though.

The Pentagon was a perfectly acceptable target. The WTC though? Doesnt fly.

Also the U.S. was trying to end a war before a hundreds of thousands of more people died..what were the terrorists trying to accomplish? Apples and oranges.[/QUOTE]

Strange that, There have been more Civilian Deaths in Iraq since the Illegal Invasion of the Nation by the USA then all the Deaths in the WTC, however you don't seem to care about Iraqi's only the People who died in the WTC.

Um, actually there were no repercussions for firebombing Japan and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However it was an unusual war. None has been fought like it since.

Like I mentioned later, different time, different war.

You may have missed the point. Are you saying that you'd rather have 10% of your country wiped out than 90% of somone else's. You'd sit and watch 1 in 10 people you know die than have kill some enemies in a hypothetical conflict?


because a conflict is far away, that does in no way make it hypothetical, try opening your mind at least a tiny amount, eh?

So you'd leave all the foreigners alive and have 1/10 of yours dead. so is there any level of enemies dead you'd have to keep your people alive?

No-one should die, this hypothetical war you're creating is bloody and inhumane. Your going on the presumption that if we dont kill them, then they'll kill us. Its ridiculus.

Give me a break, its called looking outside of the box. Civilian casualties arent supposed to happen in this day and age or werent you paying attention. 60 years ago no one cared. If it happened, it happened, and the war kept going on. As for the Japanese Army's actions ,it just wasnt the Army it was the entire people in general. They were preparing for an invasion and frankly Japan was turning into a country of fanatical fight till the last man or bleed America on the shores till they sue for piece nation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were still military takes..I fail to realize how the WTC was one though.

The Pentagon was a perfectly acceptable target. The WTC though? Doesnt fly.

Also the U.S. was trying to end a war before a hundreds of thousands of more people died..what were the terrorists trying to accomplish? Apples and oranges.

Strange that, There have been more Civilian Deaths in Iraq since the Illegal Invasion of the Nation by the USA then all the Deaths in the WTC, however you don't seem to care about Iraqi's only the People who died in the WTC.[/QUOTE]

Did I ever say that? You cant point out one post in which I said I didnt care about Iraqi civilian casualties..you're pulling that out of the air.

You may have missed the point. Are you saying that you'd rather have 10% of your country wiped out than 90% of somone else's. You'd sit and watch 1 in 10 people you know die than have kill some enemies in a hypothetical conflict?

I don't know 10% of my country, but anyways, yes, I'd prefer it if 3.6 million Canadians were to die rather than say, 54 million Brits.

it wasnt the largest heroin producer until AFTER the Taliban fell.

Strange that....

Considering all the Heroin was Made in the North where the Northern Alliance was During the time the Taliban had control of the Nation.

If you are accussing the French and British of cowardice then I hope you intend to apologise. Both counties continued to fight Germany despite France having no army and Britain having hardly any from about the first 3 months of the war onwards.
Th french had the largest army in Europe when Hitler invaded the Rhineland. They could have stopped him there but they did nothing. then they surrendered to the Germans and then the Vichy government sent Jews to death. Do theses sound like brave actions?
However, Neville Chamberlain's did what he did to allow Britain to build up and re-arm. He has been unfairly judged.

If you are accussing the French and British of cowardice then I hope you intend to apologise. Both counties continued to fight Germany despite France having no army and Britain having hardly any from about the first 3 months of the war onwards.
Had they showed backbone before the war started and confronted Hitler over his troop movements the war would have been stopped, possibly with Hitler being overthrown. Instead Neville Chamberlain came back with "peace in our time". Worked real well.

But there's also the assessment of whether this would be a danger. If Belgium or Canada got nukes, would anyone care? But Iran or Iraq or North Korea, thats a pressing concern

I agree of the assessment issues, but do you remember that there was in fact, a team of analysts and investigators from the UN in Iraq searching for these so called WMD, and they had yet to find any and did not classify Iraq as a serious threat. But the Americains invaded despite being told by the UN that their actions were premature.

I don't know 10% of my country, but anyways, yes, I'd prefer it if 3.6 million Canadians were to die rather than say, 54 million Brits.
Would that be the same for every nation? What level of enemy casualties would you inflict to save your 10%?

Strange that....

Yea..they didnt have to worry about the Taliban killing them if they produced the poppy..what are you saying thats what the US should do?

Had they showed backbone before the war started and confronted Hitler over his troop movements the war would have been stopped, possibly with Hitler being overthrown. Instead Neville Chamberlain came back with "peace in our time". Worked real well.

Im sure someones going to apologise because he 'tried' to maintain peace, rather than having another World War.

Had they showed backbone before the war started and confronted Hitler over his troop movements the war would have been stopped, possibly with Hitler being overthrown. Instead Neville Chamberlain came back with "peace in our time". Worked real well.

and if the US government hadn't willfully disregarded reports from their own people, Pearl Harbour need not have happened.

Shall we dance?

I agree of the assessment issues, but do you remember that there was in fact, a team of analysts and investigators from the UN in Iraq searching for these so called WMD, and they had yet to find any and did not classify Iraq as a serious threat. But the Americains invaded despite being told by the UN that their actions were premature.
The UN is not neccessarily an unbiased organisiation. The French and Russians have oil interesets in Iraq and they could have influnced the inspector's findings. No-one is above being underhand.

Strange that....

Considering all the Heroin was Made in the North where the Northern Alliance was During the time the Taliban had control of the Nation.


Yea..they didnt have to worry about the Taliban killing them if they produced the poppy..what are you saying thats what the US should do?

The Taliban was Actually Strictly Agents the Poppies Production.

and if the US government hadn't willfully disregarded reports from their own people, Pearl Harbour need not have happened.

Shall we dance?

I call bullshit, do you know anything of the events which led up to Pearl Harbor including tons of reports and the thoughts of military intelligence at the time? Not to mention the strict prejudices against Carrier tactics in the USN and the disbelief still incurred by many a Battleship Admiral in the USN that Carrier born aircraft could be a credible threat?

and if the US government hadn't willfully disregarded reports from their own people, Pearl Harbour need not have happened.

Shall we dance?
Pearl Harbour was a bit of a foul up but so was the French letting the Germans through Belgium in WW2. germany has done this in every war with france and yet still sat behind the Maginot line leaving us Brits and the Belgians to try to halt the Blitzkrieg

Would that be the same for every nation? What level of enemy casualties would you inflict to save your 10%?

Actually, I think your argument is entirely moronic and I wouldn't want to encourage it any more than I already have. I'm not happy about anyone dying, and I refuse to think in terms like 'acceptable losses'. You devalue life by merely quantifying it.

The Taliban was Actually Strictly Agents the Poppies Production.

Umm..the Taliban viewed opium being in the same league as alcohol as being afronts to Allah. They were VERY harsh to anyone producing the poppies.

The UN is not neccessarily an unbiased organisiation. The French and Russians have oil interesets in Iraq and they could have influnced the inspector's findings. No-one is above being underhand.

I'm not saying that that no-one had interests in Iraqi oil, If my memory serves me correctly, there were Americains on that team and they also agreed that an invasion was premature.

[QUOTE=Morgallis]Th french had the largest army in Europe when Hitler invaded the Rhineland. They could have stopped him there but they did nothing. then they surrendered to the Germans and then the Vichy government sent Jews to death. Do theses sound like brave actions?QUOTE]

I'm not defending the Vichy government, but the French people. They kept up the resistance in German occupied France throughout the war. Also, the reason the French did not retaliate to the taking of the Rhineland was that they thought that Hitler was only interested in retaking German territory, not world domination. The only thing they can be accused of is short-sightedness.

I call bullshit, do you know anything of the events which led up to Pearl Harbor including tons of reports and the thoughts of military intelligence at the time? Not to mention the strict prejudices against Carrier tactics in the USN and the disbelief still incurred by many a Battleship Admiral in the USN that Carrier born aircraft could be a credible threat?

You just dug yourself into a hole, of Course the US Government knew it was going to happen, It gave the Government a Reason to enter the War as Roosevelt campaigned on staying out of the War and because of that the Peopled Voted for him, now what better chance would such a person have to get the Nation to go to war if they knew the Japs were going to attack.

I call bullshit, do you know anything of the events which led up to Pearl Harbor including tons of reports and the thoughts of military intelligence at the time? Not to mention the strict prejudices against Carrier tactics in the USN and the disbelief still incurred by many a Battleship Admiral in the USN that Carrier born aircraft could be a credible threat?

Call bullshit all you want, I've got a date.

See you (I'm sure you'll all still be here hurling boulders at each other).

Actually, I think your argument is entirely moronic and I wouldn't want to encourage it any more than I already have. I'm not happy about anyone dying, and I refuse to think in terms like 'acceptable losses'. You devalue life by merely quantifying it.
So you're happy to see 10% of the people you know and love disappear. You must value their lives highly.

Umm..the Taliban viewed opium being in the same league as alcohol as being afronts to Allah. They were VERY harsh to anyone producing the poppies.

That’s what I am saying if u read what i have Stated, they never let it Happen in Taliban controlled Area's its Production Happened in Northern Alliance Area's and since the Fall of the Taliban Poppies Production in the Nation has exploded.

Sigh. One of these days I'll stop arguing with idiots.


Give me a break, its called looking outside of the box. Civilian casualties arent supposed to happen in this day and age or werent you paying attention. 60 years ago no one cared.

That explains NOTHING about why YOU dont care TODAY. Why you find it hard to shed tears for innocent victims, because they were Japanese. Really, no one cared about death in war 60 years ago? Gosh, tell my fucking grandfather who fought in the war that. I guess he just forgot how cool with death "everyone" was back then.

And unless you ALSO find it hard to "shed tears" for Pearl Harbor or anyone else who happened to die in WWII, the whole point besides being incorrect is irrelevant.

As for the Japanese Army's actions ,it just wasnt the Army it was the entire people in general. They were preparing for an invasion

Yeah, funny enough if someone was preparing to invade my country, I'd prepare for an invasion too. Does that mean I took part in the Rape of Nanking? No it does not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were still military takes..I fail to realize how the WTC was one though.

Well, also irrelevant.

I was talking morals. Morally, a dead innocent person is a dead innocent person, whether someone considered the area they were in to be "military" or not.

The Pentagon was a perfectly acceptable target. The WTC though? Doesnt fly.

Since I never said the WTC was a military target that doesnt matter. And if you'll read I was talking morally, not militarily. Why do people want to turn this into a "should we have dropped the bomb' argument? Christ.

Also the U.S. was trying to end a war before a hundreds of thousands of more people died..what were the terrorists trying to accomplish? Apples and oranges.

Apples are red. Oranges are orange. Oranges are spheres, apples somewhat irregular. Orange peels not good for eating, apple skin OK for eating.

Wait, you were saying I can't compare an apple with an orange? Heh. Pretend I didn't just do that then.

Similarly, it doesnt matter what the terrorists were going to accomplish. Dead is dead. Innocent is innocent. You're supposed to feel something there, but you don't, because they were Japanese.

So you're happy to see 10% of the people you know and love disappear. You must value their lives highly.

He just said that hes not happy about anyone dying.

*well at least this time Bush isnt sponsoring another 911 as a way to panic Americans into supporting another one of his unjust wars

Still can't stop laughing...

You just dug yourself into a hole, of Course the US Government knew it was going to happen, It gave the Government a Reason to enter the War as Roosevelt campaigned on staying out of the War and because of that the Peopled Voted for him, now what better chance would such a person have to get the Nation to go to war if they knew the Japs were going to attack.

Give some proof to that. I can at least point out historical evidence behind my claim.

[QUOTE=Morgallis]Th french had the largest army in Europe when Hitler invaded the Rhineland. They could have stopped him there but they did nothing. then they surrendered to the Germans and then the Vichy government sent Jews to death. Do theses sound like brave actions?QUOTE]

I'm not defending the Vichy government, but the French people. They kept up the resistance in German occupied France throughout the war. Also, the reason the French did not retaliate to the taking of the Rhineland was that they thought that Hitler was only interested in retaking German territory, not world domination. The only thing they can be accused of is short-sightedness.
Maybe so but you do not deny their colloboration with the germans in the holocaust. Was the reistance that effective anyway. Would you say more or less than the heroic and self sacrificing actions on Omaha, Utah, Gold ,Juno and Sword. Would the same people who caused the war with their insane reparations and occuppied the Ruhr for money try and stop Hitler from another breach of the treaty? No, they sat behind the Maginot line and let the germans in

Sigh. One of these days I'll stop arguing with idiots.



That explains NOTHING about why YOU dont care TODAY. Why you find it hard to shed tears for innocent victims, because they were Japanese. Really, no one cared about death in war 60 years ago? Gosh, tell my fucking grandfather who fought in the war that. I guess he just forgot how cool with death "everyone" was back then.

And unless you ALSO find it hard to "shed tears" for Pearl Harbor or anyone else who happened to die in WWII, the whole point besides being incorrect is irrelevant.



Yeah, funny enough if someone was preparing to invade my country, I'd prepare for an invasion too. Does that mean I took part in the Rape of Nanking? No it does not.



Well, also irrelevant.

I was talking morals. Morally, a dead innocent person is a dead innocent person, whether someone considered the area they were in to be "military" or not.



Since I never said the WTC was a military target that doesnt matter. And if you'll read I was talking morally, not militarily. Why do people want to turn this into a "should we have dropped the bomb' argument? Christ.



Apples are red. Oranges are orange. Oranges are spheres, apples somewhat irregular. Orange peels not good for eating, apple skin OK for eating.

Wait, you were saying I can't compare an apple with an orange? Heh. Pretend I didn't just do that then.

Similarly, it doesnt matter what the terrorists were going to accomplish. Dead is dead. Innocent is innocent. You're supposed to feel something there, but you don't, because they were Japanese.

Yea and my Grandfarther was on the Salt Lake City, whats your point, do you think that gives you some special insight into civilian deaths? I didnt say it was because they were Japanese, I'm saying it was a bad example because of what they did. I dont shed any tears for any Axis country. They supported their leaders tough for them they had to deal with global war which raged for an excess of ten years.

He just said that hes not happy about anyone dying.
But he saidthat he'd rather that his people died than his enemies

Give some proof to that. I can at least point out historical evidence behind my claim.

Google it, Its everywhere, However if u can prove the Government didn't have Prior Knowledge that’s rock Solid ill call the New York Times do they can run a new Front Page with your rock Solid Evidence, till then.

*well at least this time Bush isnt sponsoring another 911 as a way to panic Americans into supporting another one of his unjust wars


UPI is reporting the U.S. Air Force has begun flying combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in what could be viewed as an act of war. The report comes less than two weeks after investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that secret US forces are already on the ground locating possible sites to target.

According to UPI, the US military is hoping to lure Tehran into turning on its air defense radars which would allow US pilots to pinpoint where the radar systems are located so they could be targeted during an invasion.

UPI also reports that US Special Forces are using Iraqi Kurds near the Iranian border as well as members of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen-e Khalq or MEK to gather intelligence inside Iran. UPI reports the MEK are now launching incursions into Iran from Basra as well as Pakistan.

One longtime CIA operator in the region said "This looks to be turning into a pretty large-scale covert operation." UPI also reports the US has begun creating a network of front companies inside Iran in order to be able to move money, weapons and personnel around inside the country
democracynow.org/ UPI.com
Going back to original topic , who is in favour of protecting the innocent by a pre emptive strike on Iran

But he saidthat he'd rather that his people died than his enemies

When? He said as an example, that he'd prefer less than 4 million people to die than over 50 million. It doesnt make a blind bit off difference what country it is. Lives off the many, out weigh the lives of the few.

If the USA is full of people like this I beg you to Invade China and or Russia. Oh please i beg you, China has a Larger Army then the USA, and Russia has more Nukes.... I would say the USA still has a lot of Major Threats out there. The USA or i like to call it, The Imperial States of America, can be stopped, and if the World needed to do it, it easily could do it. It is well Known Europe alone has 3 times the Army size of the USA, Chain again has even Bigger Europe can = the USA on Air force Russia in Nukes, the only major Downfall for theses Nations is Navy, but who needs it after the USA has been nuked into a glowing pile of Dust.Let's recall for a minute. February 23rd, 1991 (dates differ with times zones). One moth ago, Iraq was considered to have the sixth-largest army on the planet. Today, the ground war officialy begins. February 27th, 1991. The cease-fire. "The U.S. Army had contributed the bulk of the ground combat power that defeated and very nearly destroyed the Iraqi ground forces. The Iraqis lost 3,847 of their 4,280 tanks, over half of their 2,880 armored personnel carriers, and nearly all of their 3,100 artillery pieces. Only five to seven of their forty-three combat divisions remained capable of offensive operations. In the days after the cease-fire the busiest soldiers were those engaged in the monumental task of counting and caring for an estimated 60,000 prisoners. And these surprising results came at the cost of 148 Americans killed in action." Link (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/www/www8.htm) Now then, the nukes are a null point. Both sides have enough to blow up the world (MAD-Mutually Assured Destruction). An air force is an extension of the army. It can neither win nor lose a war, simply aid the outcome. And as for the navy, two questions for you. If it matters so little as you say, then why was the British Empire so powerful for so long? They sometimes had a strong army to back it up, but their enemies usually had stronger armies (Nazi Germany, Imperial Germany, Napoleonic France, etc.). Second, let's assume you're right about the nukes. The United States is reduced to glowing ash. Now you have hundreds of nuclear-offensive-capable sea vessels with extremely pissed-off crews, and nothing to return to. Doesn't exactly sound like a victory for anyone else there. Anyhow...

Contrary to what you and Mr Hitler thinks, invading another country is NOT a defensive measure.It's not? The who says that war should be avoided at all costs may not be the person who has committed all the atrocities in history, but they are the person who has enabled all the atrocities. Where would the world be today if Western Europe or the U.S. has shown some spine and defensively invaded Germany when Germany offensively invaded Czechoslovakia? Or when Germany invaded Austria? Or when Germany broke the peace treaties from the first War? Or if Lenin had been stopped after he overthrew the democratic provisional government set up by Kerensky? I'll stop there, because I think I'll probably stop losing people after that one. But it is the person who says war is inexcusable and must be avoided that damns the rest of us. War is never avoided, merely postponed. And it is a hell of a lot better to fight the bad guy on your own terms than it is to wait and have to fight them on theirs.

Google it, Its everywhere, However if u can prove the Government didn't have Prior Knowledge that’s rock Solid ill call the New York Times do they can run a new Front Page with your rock Solid Evidence, till then.

Conspiracy theorists abound...we all know how the internet is a great wealth for that kind of stuff..how about you get an actual .org..or .gov with the evidence? You cant provide a single bit of proof other than some guys rants and raves.

Final Message: Might is Right
It is right for America and its allies to protect thamselves by attacking others who would destroy them.

Conspiracy theorists abound...we all know how the internet is a great wealth for that kind of stuff..how about you get an actual .org..or .gov with the evidence? You cant provide a single bit of proof other than some guys rants and raves.

And you can trust Government Sources? look at there fuckup with Iraq, i wouldn't trust them with a can of beer and a Nail. You can’t say that Governments don't pump out there own Propaganda.

When? He said as an example, that he'd prefer less than 4 million people to die than over 50 million. It doesnt make a blind bit off difference what country it is. Lives off the many, out weigh the lives of the few.
Do they really? So if you had the power you would not have killed 10 million guilty Germans to save 8 million people in the holocaust?

Google it, Its everywhere, However if u can prove the Government didn't have Prior Knowledge that’s rock Solid ill call the New York Times do they can run a new Front Page with your rock Solid Evidence, till then.

That's like saying that if I google UFO consiracy's they're everywhere.

Let's recall for a minute. February 23rd, 1991 (dates differ with times zones). One moth ago, Iraq was considered to have the sixth-largest army on the planet. Today, the ground war officialy begins. February 27th, 1991. The cease-fire. "The U.S. Army had contributed the bulk of the ground combat power that defeated and very nearly destroyed the Iraqi ground forces. The Iraqis lost 3,847 of their 4,280 tanks, over half of their 2,880 armored personnel carriers, and nearly all of their 3,100 artillery pieces. Only five to seven of their forty-three combat divisions remained capable of offensive operations. In the days after the cease-fire the busiest soldiers were those engaged in the monumental task of counting and caring for an estimated 60,000 prisoners. And these surprising results came at the cost of 148 Americans killed in action." Link (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/www/www8.htm) Now then, the nukes are a null point. Both sides have enough to blow up the world (MAD-Mutually Assured Destruction). An air force is an extension of the army. It can neither win nor lose a war, simply aid the outcome. And as for the navy, two questions for you. If it matters so little as you say, then why was the British Empire so powerful for so long? They sometimes had a strong army to back it up, but their enemies usually had stronger armies (Nazi Germany, Imperial Germany, Napoleonic France, etc.). Second, let's assume you're right about the nukes. The United States is reduced to glowing ash. Now you have hundreds of nuclear-offensive-capable sea vessels with extremely pissed-off crews, and nothing to return to. Doesn't exactly sound like a victory for anyone else there. Anyhow...


I never said anything about Naval Ability meaning nothing to me, all I stated was that this was a Major Down fall of theses Nations.

There will never be a Winner in a nuclear war, It will only end up as MAD, The radiation will flow all around the globe and kill off most of the Population.

The USA should remember there are still nations around that have the ability to tango with them and have the ability to take the war to the US homelands. The USA should think before it acts before a major war breaks out.

Do they really? So if you had the power you would not have killed 10 million guilty Germans to save 8 million people in the holocaust?

Well, now your going into more depths. You have to determine whos guilty and whos not. Who says that when we go to war that we are the right ones?

Do they really? So if you had the power you would not have killed 10 million guilty Germans to save 8 million people in the holocaust?
Excellent return. And by the way, if nobody can figure it out from my last post, I'm in favor of pre-emptive strikes.

That's like saying that if I google UFO consiracy's they're everywhere.

I hardly doubt u can compare theses things with each other, we have no idea if UFO's even exist, however what I stated is easily plausible.

Excellent return. And by the way, if nobody can figure it out from my last post, I'm in favor of pre-emptive strikes.

Not everything is black and white as numbers of deaths. Once he puts guilt into it then he cant argue about it.

The USA should remember there are still nations around that have the ability to tango with them and have the ability to take the war to the US homelands. The USA should think before it acts before a major war breaks out.
Fair enough. And hey, if I offended you at all in that post, I do apologize. I was fairly irritated by the second post I was responding to, and may have come off short in my response to you.

Not everything is black and white as numbers of deaths. Once he puts guilt into it then he cant argue about it.
And at exactly what point has guilt ceased to be an issue in this?

See I find it funny that all these people can come and argue and yet there are 3 different conversations going on at once, this has been an entertaining half hour reading all these posts. Iraq was amistake it has relatively zero terrorists. So was nuking japan but that turned out alright because japan is Awesome now. Instead of loosing 1/10 of my own population I would gladly sacrifice 10/10 of another population with the exception of European Nations(France, UK, Germany) russia, Japan, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Isreal, and Brazil. Everyone else tough luck ur Fuked. But since thats not a realistic senario we don't have to worry about it. What am I a heartless monster who doesn't give a rat's ass about some unfriendly pissed off Muslim countries? Yes, yes I am. Nuking Iran would be wonderful and solve many problems but I don't think any other countries would be happy, so Instead why not bomb out the whole country or better yet kill them all. It seems heartless, but You can't do what Bush has done and expect to get anything done, especially with a Muslim country. Im not rippin on Muslims I know a few and they're nice guys no different from me, but Muslim countries are unoccupiable because 99% of the population is normal, but that 1% is insane bastards who throw their lives away to piss off the US and it makes it hard to occupy. There are two ways to conquer a country. A) Go into the country take what you want Install a dictator or let a dictator install himself and leave, or B) flatten the country killing everyone even civilians, then repopulate the area with your own people or that of other countries.
Yes I am a heartless American Bastard. Do something about it.

And at exactly what point has guilt ceased to be an issue in this?

He cant argue his hypothetical war, because who decides who is guilty or not? In WW2 its obvious whos guilty, and they have admitted.

He cant argue with facts when he puts his opinion of whos right or wrong in. Because there will be people disagreeing

Final Message: Might is Right

So if I were to kill you by repeatedly smashing your face into a brick wall, that would be okay? In that scenario I'm obviously "mightier".

Do they really? So if you had the power you would not have killed 10 million guilty Germans to save 8 million people in the holocaust?

Actually it was closer to 11 million innocents dead. And America didn't join the war to save the Jews and others. They joined because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. A large number of Americans were Nazi apologists and general isolationists. As were many Brits, I might add.

Siezed the US embassy and held the diplomatic staff hostage until Regan's administration gave them weapons in return, backed terrorists who blew up a US marine barracks in Lebanon. I can't remember anything more at this time.

Isn't it a little late to start a war over something that happened over twenty years ago? That's like you stealing my ice cream cone when we were both seven years old and me coming to your house after we've graduated high school and beating you with a pipe because of it.

Direct me to Intel that can be backed up by a Government Agency from ether, France Germany Russia or China.


:eek: You dont think Iran has in the past supported terrorists or continues to do so? ARe you on crack? Just do a search dude. :rolleyes:

Isn't it a little late to start a war over something that happened over twenty years ago? That's like you stealing my ice cream cone when we were both seven years old and me coming to your house after we've graduated high school and beating you with a pipe because of it.
And you'd be perfectly justified.

No, really It's just that they've attacked us in the past, and continue to maintain hostile relations. Hell, they've even transformed the old embassy into a museum of anti-American art and propaganda. Why should we trust somebody like that with nuclear weapons?

...the same First Nations people who have been reimbursed for past wrongs, who have had land claims found in their favour, who govern and police themselves, whose culture is rebouding very nicely thank you very much for noticing?


Dobbs ummm, what rez have you been to? Ever checked out sproket here in alberta? Looks like brown skinned Compten straight out of boys in the hood...

-.- only read up to page 15 of this. but, it seems to me both sides have valid arguments...only, many of the information is opinion based.

if you havent noticed, Iranians have been suicide bombing a lot. Also, they have threatened to "take over" britain, and supposedly have missiles and suicide crews aimed at 29 sensitive sites of Western nations. now, they really dont seem to be the caring compassionate SANE kind of people, do they? they really wouldnt give a SHIT if they got killed, because they have the mentality that what they are doing is for the greater good. now, displacing bush might be a good idea, but tell me, who would take over as the president? you want kerry? hes the bitch of everyone, believe it or not.

also, i read something about them killing female babies...well, if you recall during WW2, the japanese invasion of china was a lot more than that. they did gruesome things to people that cannot be imagined by normal human beings unless you are mentally unstable and/or a serial killer. if you want more, ill give you info, but i just dont want to type all it up right now.

however, bombing japan wasnt really that much of a good idea, as far as i know. the citizens werent the perpetrators; rather, wasnt it that military general dictator guy who forced the invasion and bombing of pearl harbor? i dont think the citizens of japan really supported him much...again, i could be wrong, but thats my info on it.

if there is really proof of an invasion of iran, i dont have a specific thought on that. since an official of the iran revolutionary guard was the one who gave the world information about the setup of missile devices, that might warrant an invasion if it were proven true. i didnt read the entire article, but...heres the link to it. just did some quick research, i dont know if it is credible or not.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38709

now, i must get back to my misogynist views in the odyssey essay. happy debating to the lot of you.

Interesting you Mention Afghanistan, Did you know before the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan none of the Worlds Heroin came from the Nation? However after the war with the Soviets were over and it was still being backed by the US Government Afghanistan Poppy cultivation exploded and turned into the Largest Heroin producer on the face of the Earth.


Not to mention that herion suddenly became a "in" drug :rolleyes:

Isn't it a little late to start a war over something that happened over twenty years ago? That's like you stealing my ice cream cone when we were both seven years old and me coming to your house after we've graduated high school and beating you with a pipe because of it.
That is the funniest illustration I have seen since the one about pre-existant monkeys. I don't know, I just pictured the guy knocking on the door, a brief happy meeting, the pipe comes out... :eek: . Anyhow, there are two slight flaws in the logic. If those were the only instances, it would be like starting a war over something that happened twenty years ago. But sadly it is not. Second, wars are fought over things that happened years ago. WW2 is essentially fought over things that happened twenty years earlier, and WW1 is essentially fought over something that happened forty years earlier (if you don't believe me, read copies of the actual correspondence between countries). Other than that, thanks for the mental image.

That is the funniest illustration I have seen since the one about pre-existant monkeys. I don't know, I just pictured the guy knocking on the door, a brief happy meeting, the pipe comes out... :eek: . Anyhow, there are two slight flaws in the logic. If those were the only instances, it would be like starting a war over something that happened twenty years ago. But sadly it is not. Second, wars are fought over things that happened years ago. WW2 is essentially fought over things that happened twenty years earlier, and WW1 is essentially fought over something that happened forty years earlier (if you don't believe me, read copies of the actual correspondence between countries). Other than that, thanks for the mental image.

But the Nazis weren't justified in starting WW2, were they? Just because something has happened a certain way in the past doesn't mean it ought to happen that way now or in the future.

And yeah, that mental image is ace. :D

Whatever happens will happen.

God does not roll dice in this universe. :)

Where did you get the killing female babies at birth thing?
I think he read Hillary Clinton's book.

well in that case, why the fuck do you even goddamn care about this shit
you're gonna die and be forgotten anyway and iran blowing up wont make your life any better anyway
That's just it. He doesn't care. He might as well be arguing about ninja turtles.

I'd just like to say that Bush is a moron. His only good decision was the 'war on terror'. However he hasn't done it properly and so were in a bit of bother. The iodead was right
Who are your heros?

Amazing how most assume any strike on Iran would be another U.S.-led and funded adventure, since the real concern about Iran having nuclear weapons is naturally felt by Israel, to whom we just recently sold penetrating missiles capable of doing the job. It could be a diversion, but then Israel didn't need our permission to destroy Saddam's nuke program, did they?

Amazing how most assume any strike on Iran would be another U.S.-led and funded adventure, since the real concern about Iran having nuclear weapons is naturally felt by Israel, to whom we just recently sold penetrating missiles capable of doing the job. It could be a diversion, but then Israel didn't need our permission to destroy Saddam's nuke program, did they?
I'm amazed that people think it will take an invasion when a few bombs would do the trick just fine.

I find that this thread has helped me greatly. I now support nuclear action against Iran; perhaps other powers will use their own nuclear capabilities in response and our disgusting species can be wiped out before we start screwing up the rest of the universe.

I find that this thread has helped me greatly. I now support nuclear action against Iran; perhaps other powers will use their own nuclear capabilities in response and our disgusting species can be wiped out before we start screwing up the rest of the universe.
No, you've got it all wrong. We've got to perfect the arts of war so that we can conquer the universe.

This war in Iran wouldn't work
That's my only point.
American forces are spread too thin, there is too much animosity towards President Bush for a real alliance to be formed, there is no way in hell Tony Blair is going to sign on to something like this with President Bush again, especially not before the election, and the UN is not going to authorize an invasion of Iran when many European countries are already in the middle of talks to get the Iranians to dismantle their nuclear arsenal.
Basically, unless there is some sort of secret American space marine base on the moon that can be brought into effect at a moment's notice, there is no way that the US can effectively secure and maintain security in the country.

If I am wrong somehow, please show me how, but if you do, go beyond, "but this war is different and countries will want to help" because they won't.

There was only one good post in this whole thread.
I'll send you a boatload of guns for your NS country for the first person that finds it.

COME TO PARADISE CLUB NOW! IT'S THE GREATEST PLACE TO BE WHEN YOU WANNA TALK WITH FRIENDS AND HAVE A DRINK.

this one?

There was only one good post in this whole thread.
I'll send you a boatload of guns for your NS country for the first person that finds it.
We'll all have different opinions so stop keeping us in suspense and tell us already.

If they sign up they take the risk. That's what an army's for. You'd rather we nhad an entire army being mainatianed for world class 'doing jack-all'
Oh bullshit. When you sign up for the military in the US, you're forced sign for 8 years total commitment. They don't bother telling you about that until contract time. And unlike any other employment contract, it's a crime to reneg. Besides that, you have to take an oath to defend the Constitution and obey the President. When the President violates the Constitution, which should take precedence? Also, sending national guard troops overseas to fight a war of agression goes completely against the reason given for the creation of the guard in the first place. On top of all that, many service members have had there service contracts involuntarily extended.

I'm amazed that people think it will take an invasion when a few bombs would do the trick just fine.

Just imagine if we had used nuclear weapons on Afghanistan and Iraq instead of invading.

We could have pounded Afghanistan so hard that no one would ever be able to tell if we really got Osama (even if tapes surfaced later, it would be hard to prove they were really him).

And if we pounded Iraq the same way, no one would ever have been able to tell if there had ever been WMD (instead of the situation we have now, where we definitely couldn't find any).

It would send an interesting message to North Korea. Don't play around with the US, or you'll look like a heavily used broiler pan.

Iran is not a US ally. They are dangerous hardline extremists who should be pre emptively destroyed before they start launching nukes.
Prove that Iran is going to start launching nukes.

Prove that Iran is going to start launching nukes.
prove that I'm not going to eat a sandwich tonight.

prove that I'm not going to eat a sandwich tonight.

I think the point tha Battery Charger is trying to get across is that Morgallis has no definite proof that Iran is going to launch nukes. At this stage, I don't think you could really prove it either way.

If you're going to pre-emptively nuke a nation, you had better make damn sure that they were planning to attack you in the first place.

I think the point tha Battery Charger is trying to get across is that Morgallis has no definite proof that Iran is going to launch nukes. At this stage, I don't think you could really prove it either way.

If you're going to pre-emptively nuke a nation, you had better make damn sure that they were planning to attack you in the first place.
For nukes, I agree. But if we just bomb their nuclear assets with conventional explosives I think we have enough justification.

For nukes, I agree. But if we just bomb their nuclear assets with conventional explosives I think we have enough justification.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that much, unless leakage or something from their destroyed nuclear sites affects the population of Iran too much.

I just object to Morgallis argument about nuking people pre-emptively if they do something we dislike.

I know all about the Shah. Yeah, he was corrupt and his secret police were brutal. Still, Iran is an enemy. It doesn't matter how the feude came about, I don't want my enemy to have nuclear weapons.

The Shah was a great ruler and those targetted by SAVAK disagreed with his modernizing policies and westernization.

Most people do not realize how hard invading Iran is, the opposition groups to the Mullahs would probably unite with them to defend Iran. Expect human wave suicide attacks on a massive scale, and unlike Iraq, they have a real army. Most people also neglect to see the invasion through Iraq would be going through the Zagros, which are quite defensible unlike the empty deserts of Iraq.

It's not? The who says that war should be avoided at all costs may not be the person who has committed all the atrocities in history, but they are the person who has enabled all the atrocities. Where would the world be today if Western Europe or the U.S. has shown some spine and defensively invaded Germany when Germany offensively invaded Czechoslovakia? Or when Germany invaded Austria? Or when Germany broke the peace treaties from the first War? Or if Lenin had been stopped after he overthrew the democratic provisional government set up by Kerensky? I'll stop there, because I think I'll probably stop losing people after that one. But it is the person who says war is inexcusable and must be avoided that damns the rest of us. War is never avoided, merely postponed. And it is a hell of a lot better to fight the bad guy on your own terms than it is to wait and have to fight them on theirs.

I never said "war should be avoided at all costs." Strawman. Nice though. :)

And while those examples may be valid, invading Iraq, Afghanistan AND Iran for a small terrorist act doesn't quite fit in the same category. Everyone KNEW it was Germany that was doing the invading. Does everyone KNOW that the governments of Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq all conspired to perpetuate 9/11? If so, then your analogies fit.

Of course it would be the first time in history a government has invaded another country on the false pretext of retaliation for a terrorist attack, wouldn't it?

We'll all have different opinions so stop keeping us in suspense and tell us already.
Ok, it was on page 10 or so and it said Bush stopped flying warplanes in the 70's ;)

That, friends, was the only post in this thread that was good.

There are two ways to conquer a country. A) Go into the country take what you want Install a dictator or let a dictator install himself and leave, or B) flatten the country killing everyone even civilians, then repopulate the area with your own people or that of other countries.
Yes I am a heartless American Bastard. Do something about it.
Not what we did with Japan or West Germany. Reconstruction works, it just takes a long time and a lot of effort.

The iranian government is a group of hardline, fanatical muslims. They are building nukes and will not hesistae to use them in the future. Turning most of Iran into burning rubble is a fair price to save the world from nuclear demonstration. (Another option is pre-emptive nuclear strikes. I'm in favour of either)
_--------------------------------------------------------------------
Skap, Morgallis rules....I love the idea don't you...here's my twist, we do it under cover of darkness (we still own the night--worldwide) and deny it was us...( like Iraq did with WMD to the world...surely you believe 1 out of 14 million in Iraq has them in his basement...it was probably a pure cash exchange

_--------------------------------------------------------------------
Skap, Morgallis rules....I love the idea don't you...here's my twist, we do it under cover of darkness (we still own the night--worldwide) and deny it was us...( like Iraq did with WMD to the world...surely you believe 1 out of 14 million in Bagdad has them in his basement...it was probably a pure cash exchange)

Not only did you kick this thread up, but you quad-posted.

You win the prize!

Not only did you kick this thread up, but you quad-posted.

You win the prize!

wireless freaked, ha my bad

So why not strip Bush of his presidency for the war in Iraq, they have now concluded that Iraq had no missiles of mass destruction wich is the reason the US invaded in the first place.


Uh, you searched Iraq in what? Tank, by foot, are U Santa? :D

Well if we were to attack any country that we might think has WMD's then every single country should be invaded.

OMG, that's what I was thinking we could do...we must be twins :)

Interesting you Mention Afghanistan, Did you know before the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan none of the Worlds Heroin came from the Nation? However after the war with the Soviets were over and it was still being backed by the US Government Afghanistan Poppy cultivation exploded and turned into the Largest Heroin producer on the face of the Earth.


No doubt ....somebody had to get high after all those years of ass-whooping......good times :p

Well, on second thought people, Iran having WMDs could be a good thing.

WMDs are more often than not, really just used for balancing power. The balance of power in the Middle East would be way more balanced if Iran has nukes, seeing as Israel is standing out and outweighing everyone else with their own nukes.

But this of course assuming they won't be used. It's not like the IR is going to get the nuclear capability and immedietly begin launching them ASAP

America and Isreal more often are really just scapegoats for society's problems. And even the Mullahs know it would be asking for imminent invasion by nuking Tel Aviv.

*Yawn* heard it yesterday - and you've gone over your limit of one piece of cut-and-paste partisan crap per day
Exactly who is surprised to see RedArrow cut & paste leftist drivel?

Anyone?

Didn't think so.

shouldn't the most alarming issue be that the president told the people a lie in order to go to war?

...Reagan gave Iran arms to hold the hostages until he was sworn in as President so that Reagan could get the credit for freeing them
Funny...I'd think in order for someone to get the US Government to provide another nation arms, they have to be President first. So, how could a presidential candidate get arms to Iran BEFORE he was elected president?

Oh, I forgot. RedArrow has never allowed facts to get in the way of his so-called points.

No, Reagen gave weapons to Iraqis (Saddam) to slaughter my kin (Iranians) in a meaningless war.

Get your fucking facts straight.

maybe he did that before he was sworn into his second term...that woul dmake the fact legit...but hey, I' not surprised people voted Bush back into office...Reagan had Alzheimers but they put him back into office too.

The USA should remember there are still nations around that have the ability to tango with them and have the ability to take the war to the US homelands. The USA should think before it acts before a major war breaks out.


Too late Junior...already has broke out or were you in a coma on 9/11...Did you miss the vote to send troops as support from your own homeland as well? :eek:

Do you have an actual link? I searched for a story on this and found nothing.
it exists in the minds of the people debating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgallis
Do they really? So if you had the power you would not have killed 10 million guilty Germans to save 8 million people in the holocaust?

Excellent return. And by the way, if nobody can figure it out from my last post, I'm in favor of pre-emptive strikes.

u 2 are my leaders.......Call sometime, we will take the high ground together :cool:

Funny...I'd think in order for someone to get the US Government to provide another nation arms, they have to be President first. So, how could a presidential candidate get arms to Iran BEFORE he was elected president?

Oh, I forgot. RedArrow has never allowed facts to get in the way of his so-called points.
Poppa Bush did it with his spook connections

maybe he did that before he was sworn into his second term...that woul dmake the fact legit...but hey, I' not surprised people voted Bush back into office...Reagan had Alzheimers but they put him back into office too.
Nice try, no cookie.

If you bothered reading the drivel of Skapedroe, you would have seen that he accused Reagan of providing Iran with weapons so they could hold the US Embassy hostage so he could beat Carter, then they would be released when he was inaugurated. One problem, though...the hostage situation was from Nov 1979 to Jan 1981. Reagan was elected to his FIRST term in Nov 1980. Do the math...if you can.

Nice try, no cookie.

If you bothered reading the drivel of Skapedroe, you would have seen that he accused Reagan of providing Iran with weapons so they could hold the US Embassy hostage so he could beat Carter, then they would be released when he was inaugurated. One problem, though...the hostage situation was from Nov 1979 to Jan 1981. Reagan was elected to his FIRST term in Nov 1980. Do the math...if you can.
you proved my point--Poppa Bush used his spook connections to arm terrorists in Iran to free the hostages when Reagan was sworn in

you proved my point--Poppa Bush used his spook connections to arm terrorists in Iran to free the hostages when Reagan was sworn in
Nice try, still no cookie.

GHW Bush was NOT head of the CIA at the time. Try again.

Bush didnt lose his CIA connections just cause he stopped being director--he used these same connections to have Reagan shot

WTH? what are you smoking?

WTH? what are you smoking?


I swear I didn't sell him anything! I'm innocent!

*Several thousand dollars worth of hash drop out of back-pack*

Uh...>_>

*Runs*

I hardly doubt u can compare theses things with each other, we have no idea if UFO's even exist, however what I stated is easily plausible.Are you sugesting that UFOs are implausible?

I'm amazed that people think it will take an invasion when a few bombs would do the trick just fine.
Just what trick are a few bombs supposed to accomplish? And what kind of bombs are we talking about? Whatever the case, if our overlords want to "own" Iran, it'll take more than a few bombs.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that much, unless leakage or something from their destroyed nuclear sites affects the population of Iran too much.

I just object to Morgallis argument about nuking people pre-emptively if they do something we dislike.You mean, nuking people pre-emptively if they might do something we dislike.

shouldn't the most alarming issue be that the president told the people a lie in order to go to war?It's okay to lie in America, especially if you're the government. You only get in trouble when you lie to the government. That's why Clinton was impeached, and Martha Stewart is in prison. Otherwise, you get in much more trouble being honest.

Bush didnt lose his CIA connections just cause he stopped being director--he used these same connections to have Reagan shot
Any proof on that? Well, I guess there was that lunch meeting...

OK, I guess from he posts already that the UK, france, spain, denmark and pretty much any nation can do pre-emptive strikes.
After all any currently stable nation can be hit by the US if they had a disagrement in thier history, so the nations of europe have had wars with just about everyone, including the US so we can all go nuking each other.

See you all in the next life.

But the Nazis weren't justified in starting WW2, were they? Just because something has happened a certain way in the past doesn't mean it ought to happen that way now or in the future.

And yeah, that mental image is ace. :D
To be fair, although it would have been better had it started earlier, WW2 is one of the only examples of the world pulling the trigger before it was absolutely necessary. WW2 begins ine earnest with the Allies (mainly UK and France at that point) declaring war on Germany after Germany declared war on Poland. Germany declared war on Poland after Poland refused an ultimatum demanding the Danzig Corridor, a strip of land that connected the two parts of Germany (as the Entente powers from the last war had drawn up the map). Although I have no doubt that Hitler would have kept going for as long as he could (I'm not one of those Nazi apologists that say he was only interested in protecting the Germans), at the actual point the war started, he was still trying for German territorial integrity by righting the wrongs of the Treaty of Versailles (which were largely present because of France and Britain, over the protests of Wilson, who never should have been there as the US representative).

Well, on second thought people, Iran having WMDs could be a good thing.

WMDs are more often than not, really just used for balancing power. The balance of power in the Middle East would be way more balanced if Iran has nukes, seeing as Israel is standing out and outweighing everyone else with their own nukes.

But this of course assuming they won't be used. It's not like the IR is going to get the nuclear capability and immedietly begin launching them ASAP

America and Isreal more often are really just scapegoats for society's problems. And even the Mullahs know it would be asking for imminent invasion by nuking Tel Aviv.
Iranian nukes wouldn't balance power. They would destabilize the region. Israel is surrounded by enemies. It's nuclear capability is a deterrant to future arab invasions. If Iran had nukes that would tip the scales against Israel.

Just what trick are a few bombs supposed to accomplish? And what kind of bombs are we talking about? Whatever the case, if our overlords want to "own" Iran, it'll take more than a few bombs.
I'm talking about removing Iran's nuclear capability. Bombing the reactor, the bomb factories, and the missile facilities would accomplish that goal.
Plus I'm talking about conventional explosives.

Iranian nukes wouldn't balance power. They would destabilize the region. Israel is surrounded by enemies. It's nuclear capability is a deterrant to future arab invasions. If Iran had nukes that would tip the scales against Israel.
whos to say arab countires having nukes isnt a defense against invasion? iraq didnt have nukes, and look where they got. yeah israel is surrounded by its enemies: oh no! ho! whats that big shadow looming behind israel? oh yes, its the united states making sure no one touches israel!

whos to say arab countires having nukes isnt a defense against invasion? iraq didnt have nukes, and look where they got. yeah israel is surrounded by its enemies: oh no! ho! whats that big shadow looming behind israel? oh yes, its the united states making sure no one touches israel!
First of all, look at what's about to happen to Iran and tell me that building a nuclear capability is a good way to keep your people safe. It's obviously not. They're about to be bombed.

Secondly, Israel knows better than to rely on others to protect them.

shouldn't the most alarming issue be that the president told the people a lie in order to go to war?Vietnam starts with a lie to Congress, telling the 'people' a lie is not a crime, telling a court a lie is a crime coughClintoncough (is adultery an impeachable offence, no; is telling a lie to a court, yes, and if he had not been the president, he would have done jail time for that["guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly
provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."]), and, striking the heart of the beast, Kennedy lied to the troops he was sending in and to the 'people'. More importantly, have you ever said anything only to later have it not pan out? Do you then consider your statement a lie?

Genocide highlanders: Have you got any Scottish in you?

Secondly, Israel knows better than to rely on others to protect them.
He's right you know. The Israelis love US support, but they don't count on it. When every nearby government considers you a blight on the land, you make sure you can hold your own on your own, and then welcome any help.

Pop quiz!!! Who can tell me what the Samson Option is?

He's right you know. The Israelis love US support, but they don't count on it. When every nearby government considers you a blight on the land, you make sure you can hold your own on your own, and then welcome any help.

Pop quiz!!! Who can tell me what the Samson Option is?
From the story of Samson collapsing the palace he was being held prisoner in I would assume it's a plan to nuke invading forces occupying portions of Israel. Like knocking down the building you occupy to kill your enemies who are also inside.

From the story of Samson collapsing the palace he was being held prisoner in I would assume it's a plan to nuke invading forces occupying portions of Israel. Like knocking down the building you occupy to kill your enemies who are also inside.
Close. Got the right idea. Bur more of a, Arabic peoples invade us, we are losing with no hope of victory, the Middle East becomes the world's largest all year-round skating rink.

Close. Got the right idea. Bur more of a, Arabic peoples invade us, we are losing with no hope of victory, the Middle East becomes the world's largest all year-round skating rink.
Now that's a deterrant

Too late Junior...already has broke out or were you in a coma on 9/11...

I have here a dictionary definition of war: 'a state of conflict; a contest between states, or between parties within a state.' 911 was not a declaration of war, it was a terroist act. Terroists can not declare war, as they are not a state.

I have here a dictionary definition of war: 'a state of conflict; a contest between states, or between parties within a state.' 911 was not a declaration of war, it was a terroist act. Terroists can not declare war, as they are not a state.

Good for you! Then you know that Terrorists Can Not Be Prisoners of War.

They aren't members of an official military of a nation state.

So we can just shoot them and abuse them in any way we see fit, and still be in complete compliance with the Geneva Conventions. As long as it's military personnel taking those actions, and not any police forces.

You've walked right into Bush's justification.

Good for you! Then you know that Terrorists Can Not Be Prisoners of War.

They aren't members of an official military of a nation state.

So we can just shoot them and abuse them in any way we see fit, and still be in complete compliance with the Geneva Conventions. As long as it's military personnel taking those actions, and not any police forces.

You've walked right into Bush's justification.

He still has to prove that they are terroists and that means they need a trial. Anyway, I'm more opposed to his warmongering than his treatment of terroist prisoners.

Siezed the US embassy and held the diplomatic staff hostage until Regan's administration gave them weapons in return, backed terrorists who blew up a US marine barracks in Lebanon. I can't remember anything more at this time.

And how many times did the US arm and back up terrorists?

Hyp
Hyp
Hypocrite

Vietnam starts with a lie to Congress, telling the 'people' a lie is not a crime, telling a court a lie is a crime coughClintoncough

Genocide highlanders: Have you got any Scottish in you?

Why yes I do...I'm a Scottish Redneck...

*well at least this time Bush isnt sponsoring another 911 as a way to panic Americans into supporting another one of his unjust wars

UPI is reporting the U.S. Air Force has begun flying combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in what could be viewed as an act of war. The report comes less than two weeks after investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that secret US forces are already on the ground locating possible sites to target.

According to UPI, the US military is hoping to lure Tehran into turning on its air defense radars which would allow US pilots to pinpoint where the radar systems are located so they could be targeted during an invasion.

UPI also reports that US Special Forces are using Iraqi Kurds near the Iranian border as well as members of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen-e Khalq or MEK to gather intelligence inside Iran. UPI reports the MEK are now launching incursions into Iran from Basra as well as Pakistan.

One longtime CIA operator in the region said "This looks to be turning into a pretty large-scale covert operation." UPI also reports the US has begun creating a network of front companies inside Iran in order to be able to move money, weapons and personnel around inside the country
democracynow.org/ UPI.com

Hmm. I would bet that the air defense radars get turned on as a matter of course, and that these emissions can be detected from a satellite, much less any aircraft. That first part of the story sounds bogus. Besides, for detecting mobile radars, they use Predator now. And you don't have to wait for them to turn the radar on, because you can see them on camera.

No need to send US pilots into Iran, you see.

Of course, we have to be careful not to fly over France...

http://img229.exs.cx/img229/310/soldierofsurrender8vh.jpg