NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1579.shtml

War with Iran is increasingly likely. What do you think? Will there be a war with Iran?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1579.shtml

War with Iran is increasingly likely. What do you think? Will there be a war with Iran? If there is, the Americans will be going in on their own.

I don't think so and if there is a war, we'll blame Europe since we trusted them to solve this issue and they didn't.

Its Europe's mess so let them clean it up.

I don't think so and if there is a war, we'll blame Europe since we trusted them to solve this issue and they didn't.

Its Europe's mess so let them clean it up.

I'm sorry? Why is it our fault? You're the stupid bastards who ignored the UN and went into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place!

If there is, the Americans will be going in on their own.

Nothing new... we're becoming used to doing the heavy lifting...

That said, I hope we don't go there. If we have to, we should hit them very, very hard with airstrikes targeted at their military capacity before a single troop sets foot on the ground. My two cents figures we've got special ops teams there right now, lacing targets for the smart bombs.

Something tells me that we'll leave Iran alone as long as possible. It's Syria who might be next. They need to stop the insurgent traffic into Iraq.

I'm sorry? Why is it our fault? You're the stupid bastards who ignored the UN and went into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place!

I had no problem with Afghanistan, that was fully justified. Iraq was a totally different story; we should have listened to the UN, which would have given us the world support we needed to take on real threats like Iran and NK.

So they can go to war with someone for possibly being able to make nuclear weapons? Does that work vice-versa for Iran? Can they attack, say India, and have the US's support?

I'm sorry? Why is it our fault? You're the stupid bastards who ignored the UN and went into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place!
:lol: Good point! :)


In all seriousness though, I think Syria's next on the US "hit" list...:shrug:

:lol: Good point! :)


In all seriousness though, I think Syria's next on the US "hit" list...:shrug:

I heard the same thing.

I'm sorry? Why is it our fault? You're the stupid bastards who ignored the UN and went into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place!

The EU has explicitly told the US that IT will negotiate a peaceful settlement with Iran. And guarantee that Iran will not produce nuclear weapons.

So, we're waiting. The EU has volunteered for this impossible task.

And when you fail, and they get a nuke, and they use it on Israel, we'll destroy Iran, and blame you for it.

I don't think war with Iran is going to be necessary. Sure, Iran is trying to gain influence in Iraq's new government, and sure, they are a rather dictatorial theocracy, but the people are starting to speak up. I think that it should just be a matter of time before Iran starts to loosen up a bit, and some reforms will be implemented. It won't go quickly, but it will hopefully occur peacefully.

The EU has explicitly told the US that IT will negotiate a peaceful settlement with Iran. And guarantee that Iran will not produce nuclear weapons.

So, we're waiting. The EU has volunteered for this impossible task.

And when you fail, and they get a nuke, and they use it on Israel, we'll destroy Iran, and blame you for it.

Israel would turn Iran into a giant glass bowl if that happened...we (the US) wouldn't have to do a thing.


When did we (the US and the US population) decide that negotiation between countries was a bad thing? Is it only when we don't like the outcome?

The US will find it difficult to invade Iran, because most of its military resources are tied up in Iraq. A division of forces would lead to a defeat in detail, in both countries.

Needless to say, there is not one country in Europe, New and Old, which would commit forces to such an operation. Invading Iran is not in Europe's interest.

But I suppose the Americans are free to try if they are willing to pay the full cost and take all the casulaties.

The EU has explicitly told the US that IT will negotiate a peaceful settlement with Iran. And guarantee that Iran will not produce nuclear weapons.

So, we're waiting. The EU has volunteered for this impossible task.

And when you fail, and they get a nuke, and they use it on Israel, we'll destroy Iran, and blame you for it.
This sounds like a solid plan. Everybody gets to do something they really want: Iran gets to develop a nuke; EU gets to negotiate and USA gets to nuke somebody. You are brilliant!

I doubt that, if the US bombs Iran's nuclear research facilities, that it will escalate into full war.

By the way, there was a terrorist attack on Iran during the weekend, trying to disrupt the coming presidential elections. You wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

This sounds like a solid plan. Everybody gets to do something they really want: Iran gets to develop a nuke; EU gets to negotiate and USA gets to nuke somebody. You are brilliant!

It's brilliant because it's a European plan.

Hm. Invading Iran or Syria (or both!) would stretch forces dangerously thin. Also actions such as those would probably bring tens of thousands of new recruits to the terrorist legions, just like happened in Iraq. And another thing to keep in mind: currently the terrorists in Iraq are mainly sunnite extremists. If you would invade Iran, which is mainly shiite, the shiite majority of Iraq will not be too happy. Which would make things even worse for the US soldiers in Iraq.

And don't forget: wars are really expensive. Just look at the daily costs of the occupation of Iraq.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1579.shtml

War with Iran is increasingly likely. What do you think? Will there be a war with Iran?
Don't see where the money and resources should come from for such an huge war?
Neither do I think there will be an UN Resolution for it. So it'll be yet another not legitimated war...
Just can't imagine it to happen! It would be just to obviously stupid, but perhaps that's just me. And development in Iraq proofed to the US you can solve any problem by violence, I don't see it so :eek:

well since the website quoted as the original source looks at first glance like yet another redneck, xenophobic, right wing nutjob site I'd take anything on it with several kilo's of salt :)

It's brilliant because it's a European plan.
Don't be so modest.

well since the website quoted as the original source looks at first glance like yet another redneck, xenophobic, right wing nutjob site I'd take anything on it with several kilo's of salt :)
No, no, no. Nowadays those people are called neoconservatives. It's true that once they were one of many fringe groups in the USA, but nowadays they're respected mainstream politicians. Remember kids, Reagonomics will save us all!

No, no, no. Nowadays those people are called neoconservatives. It's true that once they were one of many fringe groups in the USA, but nowadays they're respected mainstream politicians. Remember kids, Reagonomics will save us all!

Hrrrm, ok, so how about :

Neoconservative, xenophobic, rightwing nutjob.

Better?

;)

I'm English and I'm glad we went to war with Iraq, we should show them no mercy why do you think their was no terror attacks on Saddam. Because the family of the attacker would end up on meat hooks. The UN are weak what can they do but sanction and sanction some more, we should go into Iran and crush them.

Don't be so modest.
At least it's not a French plan... Remember Dien Bien Phu?

Honestly, there are times when I think that Western Civilization has bought too far into its sense of self-superiorirty - whether it's the US or some European nation talking.

"Oh, we know what to do to make things right..."

Famous last words...

I don't think so and if there is a war, we'll blame Europe since we trusted them to solve this issue and they didn't.

Its Europe's mess so let them clean it up.


Sorry?...what the fuck are you talking about?...

I'm English and I'm glad we went to war with Iraq, we should show them no mercy why do you think their was no terror attacks on Saddam. Because the family of the attacker would end up on meat hooks. The UN are weak what can they do but sanction and sanction some more, we should go into Iran and crush them.


I hope to God your not old enough to vote......

The EU has explicitly told the US that IT will negotiate a peaceful settlement with Iran. And guarantee that Iran will not produce nuclear weapons.

So, we're waiting. The EU has volunteered for this impossible task.

And when you fail, and they get a nuke, and they use it on Israel, we'll destroy Iran, and blame you for it.



....I see...your shifting the blame on to the EU ....for Negotiating*....so when the US Destroys Israel....you blame...Europe?....For pressing the button?...for "forcing" america in to a hostile situation?....how does your logic work?


* an art Foreign to our US freinds

I hope to God your not old enough to vote......

I'm 23 and you a weak ass lib, with no concept of what is happening in the world today. you go and hide in your larg house and claim we can make the world better by doing nothing.

I'm 23 and you a weak ass lib, with no concept of what is happening in the world today. you go and hide in your larg house and claim we can make the world better by doing nothing.

In the case of Iran, doing nothing may be better. Attacking them would kill the growing moderate, pro-democracy and secularization movement and insted radicalize them even further, cranking out terrorists and collapsing once the troops leave.

At least it's not a French plan... Remember Dien Bien Phu?

Honestly, there are times when I think that Western Civilization has bought too far into its sense of self-superiorirty - whether it's the US or some European nation talking.

"Oh, we know what to do to make things right..."

Famous last words...
I guess Dien Bien Phu has something to do with this too. I was just stating that your plan - or scenario, if you like - sounded good. In no way was my post sarcastic. I wouldn't know about that self-superiority part. I have never seen one in these woods.

I'm sorry? Why is it our fault? You're the stupid bastards who ignored the UN and went into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place!

And it was the UN that ignored Afghanistan AND Iraq.

And its Europe's problem because you were the bastards that last had Iran, not the United States.

....I see...your shifting the blame on to the EU ....for Negotiating*....so when the US Destroys Israel....you blame...Europe?....For pressing the button?...for "forcing" america in to a hostile situation?....how does your logic work?

* an art Foreign to our US freinds

No, Iran destroys Israel.

Since the EU says we have to rely on negotiations, fine. We'll rely on them up until the point where they nuke Israel. Or are you unfamiliar with the reason that they've developed ICBMs that can reach Israel, and why their hardliners want hydrogen bombs?

If the negotiations fail, we'll blame the EU, because it was their idea.

If the US had relied on combat power, and it failed, the EU would blame the US for the bad situation.

Fair is fair. If it's your idea, and you're working it, and it fails, it's your fault.

In the case of Iran, doing nothing may be better. Attacking them would kill the growing moderate, pro-democracy and secularization movement and insted radicalize them even further, cranking out terrorists and collapsing once the troops leave.

We will have make sure theirs not enough of them left to ever be a threat to us, they claim America and Britain is evil so lets show them they are right and bomb them into the next life.

Hrrrm, ok, so how about :

Neoconservative, xenophobic, rightwing nutjob.

Better?

;)
Ann Coulter couldn't have said it better! Of course, from Ann Coulter you expects statements such as written by our new and happy friend Jabba Huts. Since he's from the United Kingdom, I blame Thatcher.

The EU has explicitly told the US that IT will negotiate a peaceful settlement with Iran. And guarantee that Iran will not produce nuclear weapons.

So, we're waiting. The EU has volunteered for this impossible task.

And when you fail, and they get a nuke, and they use it on Israel, we'll destroy Iran, and blame you for it.

Hell we should just blow Iran up now and blame the EU for it but let the EU deal with it. They say they can so lets see them do it.

BTW: they already stated that they'll support a UN Resolution if and when they fail.

No, Iran destroys Israel.

Since the EU says we have to rely on negotiations, fine. We'll rely on them up until the point where they nuke Israel. Or are you unfamiliar with the reason that they've developed ICBMs that can reach Israel, and why their hardliners want hydrogen bombs?

If the negotiations fail, we'll blame the EU, because it was their idea.

If the US had relied on combat power, and it failed, the EU would blame the US for the bad situation.

Fair is fair. If it's your idea, and you're working it, and it fails, it's your fault.


....Considering it would be a problem of national importance i really dont see the point in blaming anyone...Any one can point the finger but ....surely both parties need to work together to solve the problem....then there is no blame to shift

We will have make sure theirs not enough of them left to ever be a threat to us, they claim America and Britain is evil so lets show them they are right and bomb them into the next life.

Not all of them are evil; if they were, then there would be no calls for liberalization or freedom from oppressive theocracy. Killing everyone even though a few are guilty is just as wrong as the terrorists' goal of killing all who oppose them.

Not all of them are evil; if they were, then there would be no calls for liberalization or freedom from oppressive theocracy. Killing everyone even though a few are guilty is just as wrong as the terrorists' goal of killing all who oppose them.


He who sinks to the levels of his enemy has already lost the war

....Considering it would be a problem of national importance i really dont see the point in blaming anyone...Any one can point the finger but ....surely both parties need to work together to solve the problem....then there is no blame to shift

I haven't seen anything but criticism from most EU nations. A lot of blame, and no help. More than willing to blame as much as possible.

Of course, that's mostly the French...

I haven't seen anything but criticism from most EU nations. A lot of blame, and no help. More than willing to blame as much as possible.

Of course, that's mostly the French...


:p oh dont worry about them..they are just getting inpatient becuase we havent had our usual with them....well..i am not blaming U.S for anything to do with Iran..

Not all of them are evil; if they were, then there would be no calls for liberalization or freedom from oppressive theocracy. Killing everyone even though a few are guilty is just as wrong as the terrorists' goal of killing all who oppose them.

The rest of the world should act responsibly and help in curtailing the Islamic fascists, who are now boldly killing school children in Russia, beheading construction workers in Iraq, bombing civilions to bits. enough of them are evil to warrent wiping out the rest. Why should we let these backwards people attack us, the only reason their around now is because of their oil. Well I say we take their oil and leave them to rot.

Ann Coulter couldn't have said it better! Of course, from Ann Coulter you expects statements such as written by our new and happy friend Jabba Huts. Since he's from the United Kingdom, I blame Thatcher.


I'd post replies to him but he probably doesnt care about civilian casualties, cost, morality or the consequences of your actions. ( or grammer and spelling ;) )

At 23 he's unfortunately too young to blame Thatcher for, Michael Howard is a better bet.

The rest of the world should act responsibly and help in curtailing the Islamic fascists, who are now boldly killing school children in Russia, beheading construction workers in Iraq, bombing civilions to bits. enough of them are evil to warrent wiping out the rest. Why should we let these backwards people attack us, the only reason their around now is because of their oil. Well I say we take their oil and leave them to rot.


...When the Eastern Empires aries in thousands of years time ...will they look upon our lost crumbiling countries as backwards?

The rest of the world should act responsibly and help in curtailing the Islamic fascists, who are now boldly killing school children in Russia, beheading construction workers in Iraq, bombing civilions to bits. enough of them are evil to warrent wiping out the rest. Why should we let these backwards people attack us, the only reason their around now is because of their oil. Well I say we take their oil and leave them to rot.

What about the Muslims in other countries that are civilized? Do you want to get rid of them too? Comeon....

I'm almost 23 yo and a supporter of the Iraq War but even I have problems with what you are saying.

The rest of the world should act responsibly and help in curtailing the Islamic fascists, who are now boldly killing school children in Russia, beheading construction workers in Iraq, bombing civilions to bits. enough of them are evil to warrent wiping out the rest. Why should we let these backwards people attack us, the only reason their around now is because of their oil. Well I say we take their oil and leave them to rot.

That is why we need to encourage democracy internally rather than attack them and give the terrorists even more recruitment propaganda. A free nation created by the people without outside intervention would be the best, and would eliminate the major terrorist stronghold. Oil blinded us to the danger, and by simply following that course in Iran will lead to greater dangers, some we cannot even possibly imagine.

The rest of the world should act responsibly and help in curtailing the Islamic fascists, who are now boldly killing school children in Russia, beheading construction workers in Iraq, bombing civilions to bits. enough of them are evil to warrent wiping out the rest. Why should we let these backwards people attack us, the only reason their around now is because of their oil. Well I say we take their oil and leave them to rot.
I say there are enough British fascist like you to justify the destruction of Britain. The only reason the world needs you is to see what happens with the Royal family. I say we pick another family of inbreds and blow your island. It's got lousy weather anyway.

We will have make sure theirs not enough of them left to ever be a threat to us, they claim America and Britain is evil so lets show them they are right and bomb them into the next life.

This is the type of statement that gets my blood boiling.

Jabba, your making the other conservatives jobs harder with statements like these. Come up with something more productive than the course your currently on.

Damn what would i give to see the US fighting alone not supported by their tame dog (UK GOVERMENT not the people, english are cool) then we could talk about US power, because, well can you tell me a recent war in which the US fought alone? would be so good to see a second Vietnam, plz go on invade Iran ( i don't like arabs anyway ) wait invade Turkey you'll have the whole world's support Turkey is the real enemy nor Iran or Iraq jeez what would i give to see Turkey destroyed down to its last citizen

Damn what would i give to see the US fighting alone not supported by their tame dog (UK GOVERMENT not the people, english are cool) then we could talk about US power, because, well can you tell me a recent war in which the US fought alone? would be so good to see a second Vietnam, plz go on invade Iran ( i don't like arabs anyway ) wait invade Turkey you'll have the whole world's support Turkey is the real enemy nor Iran or Iraq jeez what would i give to see Turkey destroyed down to its last citizen

And its posts like this that make the reputation of the left that much more believable.

I say there are enough British fascist like you to justify the destruction of Britain. The only reason the world needs you is to see what happens with the Royal family. I say we pick another family of inbreds and blow your island. It's got lousy weather anyway.


steady! this man does not represent the rest of us

BTW: they already stated that they'll support a UN Resolution if and when they fail.

No, they won't. They're just saying that.

I feel that Condi Rice has changed US foreign policy.

We're going to do things the UN way. The multilateral way. So, in North Korea, we won't negotiate bilaterally or act unilaterally. No matter what the North does. We want six-party talks with North Korea.

And in Iran, we want the EU to negotate. And negotiate. And negotiate.

The US is aware of the instability of the hardliners in Iran who want to nuke Israel as soon as it is technically feasible.

The US is aware of the instability of the North Korean leadership.

We're just waiting for the big kaboom. As soon as that happens, millions will die by a North Korean attack or an Iranian attack, and the blood of millions will be on the hands of the negotiators - just as the blood of millions was on Chamberlain's hands.

At that point, we'll be asked to step in. Not until then should we move an inch, or say a word.

steady! this man does not represent the rest of us
What!? Next thing you're going to be telling me is that people are different everywhere, and yet, so alike in their humanity.

The civilized world is appalled at the brutality with which they execute their plans and then hide behind the religion calling it the holy war, as if the term jihad will exonerate them in front of God. But there is very little protest from the moderate mainstream Muslims, who are silently watching their religion maligned and hijacked by fanatics. The United Nations is as guilty as the Muslim population in not reacting properly to this new menace that is triggering death and mayhem of innocent people all around the world. Now the new target of terrorism is the innocent children (Beslam and Baghdad) and most of the world is content in watching the horror.

Only after the September 11 tragedy has the United States looked at this problem with any seriousness. What had been dismissed as small groups of disenfranchised oppressed groups of people, now turned out be well funded machinations of widespread Islamic radicalism. However, most of the world still is reticent. They have not lifted even a finger to come to the aid of some thirty countries that are bearing the burden of this global war on terrorism. George W. Bush did not speak of machismo or blood and iron in the United Nations. Instead his was more of Wilosnian idealism with promises of help and admission that the United States had erred in the past by siding with the wrong heads of states.


PS. The only reason your all picking on me is because in your heart of hearts you know I'm right. And maggy is a Queen, a part from when she took my milk from me when I was at school, but I liked her even then.

No, they won't. They're just saying that.

I feel that Condi Rice has changed US foreign policy.

We're going to do things the UN way. The multilateral way. So, in North Korea, we won't negotiate bilaterally or act unilaterally. No matter what the North does. We want six-party talks with North Korea.

And in Iran, we want the EU to negotate. And negotiate. And negotiate.

The US is aware of the instability of the hardliners in Iran who want to nuke Israel as soon as it is technically feasible.

The US is aware of the instability of the North Korean leadership.

We're just waiting for the big kaboom. As soon as that happens, millions will die by a North Korean attack or an Iranian attack, and the blood of millions will be on the hands of the negotiators - just as the blood of millions was on Chamberlain's hands.

At that point, we'll be asked to step in. Not until then should we move an inch, or say a word.


i see..prepared to have millions die ...just so you can maintain your stubberness and prove your point?....

I say there are enough British fascist like you to justify the destruction of Britain. The only reason the world needs you is to see what happens with the Royal family. I say we pick another family of inbreds and blow your island. It's got lousy weather anyway.

We have nuclear weapons aswell you know so try it.

The rest of the world should act responsibly and help in curtailing the Islamic fascists,

- The rest of the world is. Opposing illegitimate invasion of Iraq is one good way to curtail Islamofascist terrorists, now that Iraq is occupied it is a breeding ground for such extremists.

who are now boldly killing school children in Russia, beheading construction workers in Iraq, bombing civilions to bits. enough of them are evil to warrent wiping out the rest.

- Well, of course not. All people have the right to live without fear of being murdered indiscriminately, as well as a load of other rights. You don't hear me calling for the extermination of brits because you're an ignorant tosser, do you?

Why should we let these backwards people attack us, the only reason their around now is because of their oil. Well I say we take their oil and leave them to rot.

- I say we have you flogged. Good thing I'm not in charge, hmm? ;)

What!? Next thing you're going to be telling me is that people are different everywhere, and yet, so alike in their humanity.


If you knew what i was going to say why did you make your racist comment?

No, they won't. They're just saying that.

I'm an optimist. Hopefully they'll follow through but if the French have anything to say about it......

I feel that Condi Rice has changed US foreign policy.

Its been changed since 9/11.

We're going to do things the UN way. The multilateral way. So, in North Korea, we won't negotiate bilaterally or act unilaterally. No matter what the North does. We want six-party talks with North Korea.

We've been trying this even before Condi became SecState. At least, NK is coming back to it though I'm skeptical on any agreement reached.

And in Iran, we want the EU to negotate. And negotiate. And negotiate.

Since that is the only word in the EU Dictionary is negotiate, I agree with you.

The US is aware of the instability of the hardliners in Iran who want to nuke Israel as soon as it is technically feasible.

I say fund an uprising and let the people take back their country. Its feasible to do since they do want change and away from the hardliners.

The US is aware of the instability of the North Korean leadership.

Even a UN report said that. They say that his reign could collapse due to the fact of starvation. That leads to crazy things happening to the leadership when the people revolt.

We're just waiting for the big kaboom. As soon as that happens, millions will die by a North Korean attack or an Iranian attack, and the blood of millions will be on the hands of the negotiators - just as the blood of millions was on Chamberlain's hands.

Agreed. "peace in our time" Yea right. Damn Chamberlain to hell.

At that point, we'll be asked to step in. Not until then should we move an inch, or say a word.

I agree 100% Let Europe handle it.

The rest of the world should act responsibly and help in curtailing the Islamic fascists,

- The rest of the world is. Opposing illegitimate invasion of Iraq is one good way to curtail Islamofascist terrorists, now that Iraq is occupied it is a breeding ground for such extremists.

who are now boldly killing school children in Russia, beheading construction workers in Iraq, bombing civilions to bits. enough of them are evil to warrent wiping out the rest.

- Well, of course not. All people have the right to live without fear of being murdered indiscriminately, as well as a load of other rights. You don't hear me calling for the extermination of brits because you're an ignorant tosser, do you?

Why should we let these backwards people attack us, the only reason their around now is because of their oil. Well I say we take their oil and leave them to rot.

- I say we have you flogged. Good thing I'm not in charge, hmm? ;)

Its surprising how many weak ass libs resort to violence when push comes to shove

Don't see where the money and resources should come from for such an huge war?
Neither do I think there will be an UN Resolution for it. So it'll be yet another not legitimated war...
Just can't imagine it to happen! It would be just to obviously stupid, but perhaps that's just me. And development in Iraq proofed to the US you can solve any problem by violence, I don't see it so :eek:

The UN couldn't pass a resolution for the standardization of finger-nail clippers, let alone something as ghastly (EGADS!) as regime change.

i see..prepared to have millions die ...just so you can maintain your stubberness and prove your point?....

Unlike the Europeans, we've learned that there are some people you can't negotiate with in good faith.

It would appear that most Europeans have forgotten about Hitler's completely disingenuous negotations.

So, we're going to let history teach the Europeans a lesson they'll never forget. And after the weapons that Iran and North Korea fire detonate over their targets, the European negotiators will have no one to blame but themselves.

After all, the Americans were at the table, sitting quietly, and not threatening anyone. Hear Condi Rice's recent remarks? Oh no, we're not going to attack Iran. We're not going to attack North Korea.

In fact, we've moved our troops away from the North Korean border, and reduced our troop presence in South Korea and Japan.

We've also made sure we don't patrol the Iran/Iraq border - we leave that to UK forces. Wouldn't want anyone to think we wanted to invade, you know.

Whoever the lead EU negotiators are, they'll go down in history as bigger idiots than Chamberlain.

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]

We've also made sure we don't patrol the Iran/Iraq border - we leave that to UK forces. Wouldn't want anyone to think we wanted to invade, you know.
QUOTE]



does this mean my coisen doesnt have to put up with madonna booming across to the british encampments?

Whoever the lead EU negotiators are, they'll go down in history as bigger idiots than Chamberlain.

Those are some mighty big shoes to fill W.L. Chamberlain was one major idiot. It'll take an even bigger blunder for him to be replaced as the worlds biggist idiot.

This terrorism is the 21st century threat. It is a war that strikes at the heart of all that we hold dear, and there is only one response that is possible or rational: to meet their will to inflict terror with a greater will to defeat it; to confront their philosophy of hate with our own of weapons of war and smash them into the sands.

I'm sorry? Why is it our fault? You're the stupid bastards who ignored the UN and went into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place!


WE are not stupid bastards, Bush is the stupid bastard. We had NO choice whatsoever.

This terrorism is the 21st century threat. It is a war that strikes at the heart of all that we hold dear, and there is only one response that is possible or rational: to meet their will to inflict terror with a greater will to defeat it; to confront their philosophy of hate with our own of weapons of war and smash them into the sands.

I agree. One can not fanny about when faced with Terrorism. Quik decisive action should be taken....after we lul them in to a falss sense of security through negotiations...if they dont work...send in the troops

WE are not stupid bastards, Bush is the stupid bastard. We had NO choice whatsoever.

Actually you did have a choice and the people spoke that they wanted Bush. Yes you did have a choice and Kerry is dumber than Bush so.....

Its surprising how many weak ass libs resort to violence when push comes to shove

It's Surprising how many rightwing nutjobs have no sense of humour :)

I agree. One can not fanny about when faced with Terrorism. Quik decisive action should be taken....after we lul them in to a falss sense of security through negotiations...if they dont work...send in the troops

Since Negotiations won't work with Iran, I'll wait and see if Europe has the balls to send in the troops.

i see..prepared to have millions die ...just so you can maintain your stubberness and prove your point?....

well can you blame us? Everything we do is (at least partially) misinterpreted/misreported and/or criticized by much of Europe.

So I like WL's plan: stay on the sidelines. Let's see Europe handle this one.

So, we're waiting. The EU has volunteered for this impossible task.

And when you fail, and they get a nuke, and they use it on Israel, we'll destroy Iran, and blame you for it.

Hey! Everybody wins!

Since Negotiations won't work with Iran, I'll wait and see if Europe has the balls to send in the troops.


If i was running europe i wouldnt piss around at that game

Jabba>> Are you really so fucking thick you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it? I'm a pacifist, FYI.

It's Surprising how many rightwing nutjobs have no sense of humour :)

Since the atrocities of September 11, 2001, Muslims have been under the watchful eye of the United States media as well as the United States’ citizens. The citizens of the United States have questions and with good reason. Unfortunately in the West, television is the only source of information linking many to the outside world and the many other cultures that exist. So in other words, many trust this media here to provide them with answers. They put the trust in them that many would put into their parents or their spouses. So of course they’ll believe what the reporter on the screen has to say. He’s, in a sense, like an extended family member in most households.

There is already much confusion these days as to what Islam is and what it represents. Many turn towards the medium of television to enlighten them on such issues and what does it do? It irresponsibly shows Arabs overseas shouting out anti American slogans and burning the American flag. It shows footage of wreckage left after alleged suicide bombings and last but not least it shows the footage over and over again of these jets hurling themselves into the sides of the World Trade Center buildings.

You would be happy to sit in your large house and pretend the world is safe. You are so weak you would let all the terrorists out of prison.

well can you blame us? Everything we do is (at least partially) misinterpreted/misreported and/or criticized by much of Europe.



and?.....through this stubborness you continue?...very well

either way...i can not convince you..and you most certainly can not convnce me...making this argument pointless...

well can you blame us? Everything we do is (at least partially) misinterpreted/misreported and/or criticized by much of Europe.

So I like WL's plan: stay on the sidelines. Let's see Europe handle this one.

I just want to see the looks on their faces. They'll negotiate right up to the point where the bombs go off over their targets.

Then, the reporters will ask them questions - questions for which they will have no answers.

And that will be the end of credibility for anyone who favors prolonged and useless negotiations.

Jabba>> Are you really so fucking thick you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it? I'm a pacifist, FYI.

Is it because you can't stomach war it leaves bitter taste in your mouth or are you just a coward Lib, who is happy to go on with your life wearing rose tinted glases.

and?.....through this stubborness you continue?...very well

like i said, someone has to do the heavy lifting. Saddam wasn't going to abdicate his throne and let his people have a free vote after tough negotiations with Europe.

but maybe WL is right and we'll sit back in our proverbial chairs (hehe) and see how Europe handles things with Iran and maybe North Korea.

I just want to see the looks on their faces. They'll negotiate right up to the point where the bombs go off over their targets.

Then, the reporters will ask them questions - questions for which they will have no answers.

And that will be the end of credibility for anyone who favors prolonged and useless negotiations.


I never said i like prolonged and useless negotiations. i like short effective ones. if they fail then millitary action i agree with

like i said, someone has to do the heavy lifting. Saddam wasn't going to abdicate his throne and let his people have a free vote after tough negotiations with Europe.

but maybe WL is right and we'll sit back in our proverbial chairs (hehe) and see how Europe handles things with Iran and maybe North Korea.


North Lorea really isnt our area...its more a US thing...considering you claim ownership of the entirety of the the far east and pacific

Today is the 25th anniversary of the day the jihadis declared war on America. On Nov. 4, 1979 Islamist students in Tehran overan the U.S. embassy and took 66 Americans hostage. The hostages were held for 444 days. They were released on Jan. 20, 1981--the day Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

But the hostages were not released simply because the Iranians feared Reagan's wrath. Jimmy Carter may be responsible for our present woes. You see, Carter negotiated a deal with the terrorists. The deal was that the US would unfreeze $8 billion dollars in Iranian assets in return for the hostages. The jihadis learned a vluable lesson: America will give in to their demands when American lives are on the line.

The Iranian revolution was an Islamist revolution. It took secular and forward looking Persia down the path to the Middle Ages of barbaric Islamic law. While the Shia Islam of Iran may seem more moderate than Wahhabism to many in the West, the Islamic law of the Islamic Republic is that which routinely sentences people to death for blasphemy, adultery, or other religious crimes.

The worst part of the Iranian revolution was that it exported the notion of the Islamic revolutionary state. From Marxism it imported the notion that society could be completely revamped--that a sort of utopia could be found in Islamic law. And like Marxism, it took on a missionary zeal to export the Islamist ideal to the rest of the Muslim world.

I never aid i like prolonged and useless negotiations. i like short effective ones. if they fail then millitary action i agree with

Well, you're in a minority in Europe. They are quite adamant about doing the Iranian negotiations, and quite adamant about negotiating to the very end.

With current European sentiment, even if they saw Israel or South Korea get nuked, they would still want to negotiate some more.

Well, you're in a minority in Europe. They are quite adamant about doing the Iranian negotiations, and quite adamant about negotiating to the very end.

With current European sentiment, even if they saw Israel or South Korea get nuked, they would still want to negotiate some more.


funny you should say that. my dad and i were talking last night about how the EU behave like a village counsil and dont get anything done

I just want to see the looks on their faces. They'll negotiate right up to the point where the bombs go off over their targets.

Then, the reporters will ask them questions - questions for which they will have no answers.

And that will be the end of credibility for anyone who favors prolonged and useless negotiations.

Yes, yes your absolutely postively correct! Let the bombs fall! Nuke those bastards! [/sarc]

Perhaps it is us, the West [Europe & America] who have pushed Iran into the position where it feels building nuclear weapons is the only deterrent to subjugation under the juggernaut of 'Democracy.' Operation Ajax anyone?

outside of a dog, a book is a mans best freind
inside of a dog it is too dark to read ;) ....?..no i had no idea why i posted it either

funny you should say that. my dad and i were talking last night about how the EU behave like a village counsil and dont get anything done

It's a common problem with any committee. They spend more time talking and passing resolutions than actually doing anything important. We have that problem here with our Congress.

The fault for the current violence in the Middle East lies entirely with the Palestinians. Israel’s actions are wholly justified as an appropriate response to suicide bombings.

The same goes for America, I'm English and suport the war fully. I'm fed up of everyone having a go at the rich countries, so what if we are rich get of your asses and make money.

It's a common problem with any committee. They spend more time talking and passing resolutions than actually doing anything important. We have that problem here with our Congress.


I wish i was in politics..i would like to give the system a kick up the arse to get it in motion

Those are some mighty big shoes to fill W.L. Chamberlain was one major idiot. It'll take an even bigger blunder for him to be replaced as the worlds biggist idiot.

Someone needs to read their history again. Hitler would have won if he hadn't continued negotiations. Misled he was, but unknowingly he gave us a chance.

With current European sentiment, even if they saw Israel or South Korea get nuked, they would still want to negotiate some more.

No, we'd just be girding ourselves for the fallout as Israel or the US start laying nuclear smackdown.

The idea that the Iranians feel threatened by us (the US, Israel, NATO...) is of course laughable. They must be the evil aggressors, not us.

The fault for the current violence in the Middle East lies entirely with the Palestinians. Israel’s actions are wholly justified as an appropriate response to suicide bombings.

The same goes for America, I'm English and suport the war fully. I'm fed up of everyone having a go at the rich countries, so what if we are rich get of your asses and make money.

If you support the war so fucking much why dont you go and fight it?

<<The fault for the current violence in the Middle East lies entirely with the Palestinians. Israel’s actions are wholly justified as an appropriate response to suicide bombings.>>

So if someone from your home town blew up part of mine I would be justified in buldozing your town to the floor, destroying every source of income you have and occasionally shooting at you for my amusement?

If you support the war so fucking much why dont you go and fight it?

I went the last time.

...

So, we're going to let history teach the Europeans a lesson they'll never forget. And after the weapons that Iran and North Korea fire detonate over their targets, the European negotiators will have no one to blame but themselves.

...
What makes you think that Iran and North Korea are going to use their nukes in combat? Why won't they stick to good old nuclear deterrence?

"War" with Iran, I certainly hope not. I heard a report,which I have not been able to verify that the Selective Service Administration was supposed to to report to congress on the 12th of June that the machinery of the draft was ready to be activated. A unilateral military action in Iran would likely require this. There is a general election in Iran on Friday where former president Rafsanjani is "expected" to win reports the Guardian, a left wing, some would say rubbish mag from the Uk known for its annual let's abolish the monarchy cook out and parliamentary action drive. Rafsanjani first arrived on the world stage in the 1980's, he is supposedly against Iranian isolationism, but in light of violence in recent days against the government and agitation for independence of the Iranian Arabs, his opinion may change. He will likely have the same difficulty that current president Khatami has had with the council of Mullahs being rearward looking, rather than forward leaning. Any military action in Iran would be linked to the Arab minority in Iran, and it just so happens that the Arabs live on Iran's oil reserves. My suggestion, keep watching, if violence accelerates, and the government is forced to crack down on the Arabs, yes there will be a unilateral military action by the US to "free the arabs" from oil, i mean oppression.

If you support the war so fucking much why dont you go and fight it?


I would but i am too young and i doubt i will pass the physical examinations ....and there isnt mush combat in the adjutant corps

Or the enriched uranium really is for peaceful purposes. Enriching it can create energy, then you use the enriched stuff to create more. It's genius! But Nooooooo. It must be for nuclear agression.

<<Guardian, a left wing, some would say rubbish mag>>

And some would say that the sky is green if it is more pleasing to their worldview. Have you heard the concept of centrism in the European sense? Or the concept of 'broadsheets' AKA decent newspapers.

What makes you think that Iran and North Korea are going to use their nukes in combat? Why won't they stick to good old nuclear deterrence?
In the case of Iran, speeches by some of their more prominent hardliners.

They have not obtained nuclear weapons and ICBMs to "deter" Israel.

They intend to blow it off the face of the earth.

I went the last time.

Good. Maybe they miss you back there, since your so adamant on tearing up the Middle East why dont you take a trip down memory lane and head back?

Good. Maybe they miss you back there, since your so adamant on tearing up the Middle East why dont you take a trip down memory lane and head back?

Well, I have plenty of relatives over there now. I could sign up for some PSC work.

Probably make a lot more money than I'm making now.

If you support the war so fucking much why dont you go and fight it?

Your weak take off your rose tinted glases and wake up. Do you really think doing nothing is the anwer, because thats what the UN was doing!

The only good Lib is a dead Lib.

I have no sympathy for the dictator Saddam. I think a dictator like Saddam should be severely punished for his crimes.

was it a mistake to go into iraq? no i dont think so.
it was a message for all muslims in the globe, and other messages will be folowed.
will the muslims undrstand it? i dont know, and even if they understand it they will forget the lesson.

In the case of Iran, speeches by some of their more prominent hardliners.

They have not obtained nuclear weapons and ICBMs to "deter" Israel.

They intend to blow it off the face of the earth.

Right, they would be annihilated, they know it, we know it. They are not stupid, no matter how you would like to think it. Surprisingly, the biggest hardliners don't run the show, the place is, in it's own way, democratic. Same as you say for America.

In the case of Iran, speeches by some of their more prominent hardliners.

They have not obtained nuclear weapons and ICBMs to "deter" Israel.

They intend to blow it off the face of the earth.
IIRC, Admiral Radford advised Eisenhower to attack China with nuclear weapons in 1954 or 1955, and Goldwater wanted to use the nukes in Vietnam... Our own supreme leader Khrushchev cried 'We will bury you.'

The hardliners are prone to talk a lot...

And... well, Iran may be striving to get a nuke as soon as possible in order to deter not Israel, but someone else.

Your weak take off your rose tinted glases and wake up. Do you really think doing nothing is the anwer, because thats what the UN was doing!

The only good Lib is a dead Lib.

I have no sympathy for the dictator Saddam. I think a dictator like Saddam should be severely punished for his crimes.

was it a mistake to go into iraq? no i dont think so.
it was a message for all muslims in the globe, and other messages will be folowed.
will the muslims undrstand it? i dont know, and even if they understand it they will forget the lesson.

*Hysterical laughter.* that's all the response this deserves. Even Corneliu criticizes this guy!

Well, I have plenty of relatives over there now. I could sign up for some PSC work.

Probably make a lot more money than I'm making now.


What Rank were you?

What Rank were you?
E-5 (Sergeant). But I have relevant experience (I know my way around the roads of southern Iraq, and I know how to shoot very well).

That said, when I submitted my resume to DynCorp about six months back, I got several nice offers for PSC work, but even more money for administrative work in Iraq.

Or the enriched uranium really is for peaceful purposes. Enriching it can create energy, then you use the enriched stuff to create more. It's genius! But Nooooooo. It must be for nuclear agression.

...
The difference between civil and military nuclear fuel cycles is that of intent...

E-5 (Sergeant). But I have relevant experience (I know my way around the roads of southern Iraq, and I know how to shoot very well).

That said, when I submitted my resume to DynCorp about six months back, I got several nice offers for PSC work, but even more money for administrative work in Iraq.


cool..my coisen is an corporal...he is in transport though
I really want to be an Officer..but i doubt i could get in to sandhurst

I can't imagine there would be in all honesty I think that people may be able to deal with Iraq, but Iran people would become a lot more cynical and 'here we go again' in terms of their thinking. Looking at what Bush appears to be doing right now, he seems to be more a fan of making speeches about freedom and democracy and so on, mainly in and around the former Soviet Union.

*Hysterical laughter.* that's all the response this deserves. Even Corneliu criticizes this guy!

If you hold all life in high sanctity, that includes our soldiers and our citizens who live in a country that was attacked by terrorism. We are constantly told Bush didn't do enough to prevent 9-11 beforehand, yet people like you whine about preemptive action on Iraq. There is no pleasing you liberals, other than appeasing terrorists, getting rid of nukes, and embracing a big government nirvana. We could sit around a campfire started on an American flag, and sing John Lenin songs. World socialism and getting rid of America's sovereignity would please you liberals, but these are the great lengths we would have to go to. I would rather stick with what is working, and have liberals leave the country they loathe. Then, we would all be happy.

If you knew what i was going to say why did you make your racist comment?
Just to see if our friend Jabba realizes how moronic his statements are. But he doesn't.

cool..my coisen is an corporal...he is in transport though
I really want to be an Officer..but i doubt i could get in to sandhurst

If you can choose your specialty (as your cousin is in transport), it would be good to choose one that could let you go SAS.

Officers rarely have the fun, or the interesting training, that enlisted men get.

For instance, in the US, officers don't get to go to sniper school (rarely), but enlisted men do.

Same for a lot of other fun things.

If you can choose your specialty (as your cousin is in transport), it would be good to choose one that could let you go SAS.

Officers rarely have the fun, or the interesting training, that enlisted men get.

For instance, in the US, officers don't get to go to sniper school (rarely), but enlisted men do.

Same for a lot of other fun things.


true...but the pay for an officer is better (in the BA).
And although i am a good shot with a rifle i doubt i could be a snipper
....also i hear that the army can give me a university grant if i ask politley


PS: AT Iztatepopotla.

Jabba is not my freind. i do not know him..

We have KILLED a number of these animals, and will KILL more of them, and keep KILLING these bastards until they decide to leave the dark ages. In the words of Samuel L. Jackson: "Yes, they deserved to die, and I hope they burn in Hell!"


I want results, not just 20,000 dead Iraqis, Afghanis, Chechnians, Palestinians, and so forth. I want results, not just whistle-blowing, siren-running "terror alerts" every time MI-5 finds somebody with bomb cookbooks and maps of downtown Manhattan and the FBI finds nobody at all. I want results, not this constant squeezing of my adrenal glands with empty rhetoric with no concrete policies behind it.

And if anyone else is willing to sit down and think hard about this horrible Russian tragedy, instead of just foaming about it, you might suddenly find that you want results too.

I imagine most people here remember Patton, the movie that is?

We are not going to hold on to anything exept the enemy! We are going to hold them by the nose and we are going to kick them in the ass! We are going to use their intestines to grease the treads of our tanks! We are going to murder those lousy bastards, by the bushel!

Excellent words of his!

They and us are in complete agreement. They want to die as martyrs to get those 72 virgins, and we have no problem killing them to send them to their 'paradise', as well. I see a perfect solution, does not everyone? I am afraid those terrorists are going to find paradise a bit on the warm side, and no virgins, either!

:rolleyes:

Actually. you ceased to be amusing a while back. You are now an affront to all decent debate, either shut up or enter into discussion.

We have KILLED a number of these animals, and will KILL more of them, and keep KILLING these bastards until they decide to leave the dark ages. In the words of Samuel L. Jackson: "Yes, they deserved to die, and I hope they burn in Hell!"


I want results, not just 20,000 dead Iraqis, Afghanis, Chechnians, Palestinians, and so forth. I want results, not just whistle-blowing, siren-running "terror alerts" every time MI-5 finds somebody with bomb cookbooks and maps of downtown Manhattan and the FBI finds nobody at all. I want results, not this constant squeezing of my adrenal glands with empty rhetoric with no concrete policies behind it.

And if anyone else is willing to sit down and think hard about this horrible Russian tragedy, instead of just foaming about it, you might suddenly find that you want results too.

I imagine most people here remember Patton, the movie that is?

We are not going to hold on to anything exept the enemy! We are going to hold them by the nose and we are going to kick them in the ass! We are going to use their intestines to grease the treads of our tanks! We are going to murder those lousy bastards, by the bushel!

Excellent words of his!

They and us are in complete agreement. They want to die as martyrs to get those 72 virgins, and we have no problem killing them to send them to their 'paradise', as well. I see a perfect solution, does not everyone? I am afraid those terrorists are going to find paradise a bit on the warm side, and no virgins, either!

You strike me as an extremely angry and bitter lunatic. Please tone down your call for bloodshed, its not even 9 PM.

What makes you think that Iran and North Korea are going to use their nukes in combat? Why won't they stick to good old nuclear deterrence?

The reason why deterrence works is that both sides have something to lose.
The US/USSR, India/Pakistan...

That's why the only nuclear combat was US/Japan. Simply, the US did not fear retaliation, and the invasion of Japan would have cost 1-1.5 million Americans and probably three times as many Japanese lives.

That said, North Korea would be very likely to use nukes when push comes to shove, as the government would have nothing to lose... they have an economy that's so bad that they took mad cows from Europe during that little fiasco!

Iran is a bit different, I think they'd only use nukes if the Clerics were going to lose power in a medium-term manner. Slow, and they'd slink off. Fast, and they'd be captured. But... if they can see the end coming (in like a week), I could see them launching one to make a point.

Jabba is not my freind. i do not know him..
Yes, he is. We are all friends here. Like in the sitches in Dune.

Just to see if our friend Jabba realizes how moronic his statements are. But he doesn't.

Sorry Iztatepopotla, I thought you wanted results, no some psychobable bullshit. Maybe we should invite Osama over for tea, and discuss what the root causes are. Maybe we can offer him a blood sacrifice of a few thousand school children to make his poor little ego feel better.

On second thought, I like the policy I refered to earlier. Root them out, crush them, and continue to do so until they decide to give up their noble strugle against those dangerous school children and office workers in towers. And that is the only policy I want to see done. Why don't you enlighten us to your policy idea? What do you think will stop it, since you don't want to destroy them?

Yes, he is. We are all friends here. Like in the sitches in Dune.


....if we are all freinds...you are my freind?...>.>..<.<

Please dont feed the Trolls.

Please dont feed the Trolls.


who are you refering to?

There will probably be war with Iran eventually, but not very soon. Of more importance is stabilizing Iraq and smacking Syria around a bit until they stop funnelling insurgents across the border. Once we've proven to the Muslim world that the US is capable of stepping in, overthrowing a dictatorship, establishing democracy and stability, and then leaving to let the nation's people decide their own futures, all while being ridiculed and opposed by pretty much everyone else, THEN we'll be able to settle Iran.

And Jabba Huts - shut up. You're making us other Conservatives look bad. Not all Muslims are evil, dumbass. And the Koran/Quran/however you spell it does not mention killing infidels anywhere.

Those are some mighty big shoes to fill W.L. Chamberlain was one major idiot. It'll take an even bigger blunder for him to be replaced as the worlds biggist idiot.

Would a nuclear war suffice?

Hey! Everybody wins!

Except the Israelis D:

It's a common problem with any committee. They spend more time talking and passing resolutions than actually doing anything important. We have that problem here with our Congress.

"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (ca. 1907)

Got that off these forums too.

There will probably be war with Iran eventually, but not very soon. Of more importance is stabilizing Iraq and smacking Syria around a bit until they stop funnelling insurgents across the border. Once we've proven to the Muslim world that the US is capable of stepping in, overthrowing a dictatorship, establishing democracy and stability, and then leaving to let the nation's people decide their own futures, all while being ridiculed and opposed by pretty much everyone else, THEN we'll be able to settle Iran.

And Jabba Huts - shut up. You're making us other Conservatives look bad. Not all Muslims are evil, dumbass. And the Koran/Quran/however you spell it does not mention killing infidels anywhere.

Sure. The first order of business is to recognize that we can't possibly kill everybody who potentially hates us or might harm us. We are speaking literally of hundreds of millions of people spread across half the globe. Even if we tried it would take more time than we have.

Having recognized that, we need to understand that the best shot we have at protecting ourselves in the short term is control of access here at home.

Nuclear facilities, chemical plants, seaborne containers, truckbound shipping, supplies of fertilizer and the various gunpowders (the bomb makers dream), and our very borders are access seives at the moment. How do we fix this? Money and manpower.

In the intermediate term, we have to put our full effort into coralling the surplus nuclear weapons problem, particularly in Russia. As matters now stand, the planning is to clean it all up in TEN YEARS. I don't think we have ten years. More money and much more effort is needed here.

The good guys are Russian and the bad guys are Chechen?
Is only one side murdering civilians?
Who is for democracy ,who is for freedom ,
who?
How long has this carnage been going on?
Is the blood ankle , knee , waist deep?

Yes!! Free Draft Cards!!!

Outside of a dog a book is a mans best freind
inside of a dog its to dark to read...Groucho marx...at sometime or other

Sorry Iztatepopotla, I thought you wanted results, no some psychobable bullshit. Maybe we should invite Osama over for tea, and discuss what the root causes are. Maybe we can offer him a blood sacrifice of a few thousand school children to make his poor little ego feel better.

And what results would that be? More dead children? Are dead children ok as long as they're not in your backyard? Should we sacrifice brown children to Bush instead?

I say contain terrorists, invest in local infrastructure and fuel local economies, give them something to lose, stop hitting the population to get back at the leadership and they will come around.

What do you think will stop it, since you don't want to destroy them?
You are the perfect terrorist. So convinced in your point of view, so sure of the righteousness of your actions, safe in the knowledge that you're defending your country and culture against the oppressive enemy. Why don't you go and blow yourself up? And maybe take a few of your enemies with you. Or are you too coward to do it?

read this! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4084908.stm)

and keep in mind, this is the BBC!!!! :headbang: DONT YA GET IT?!

Except the Israelis D:

Yes, but atleast you wont get these lousy comebacks in international soccer matches...lucky sons of .....

I'm sorry? Why is it our fault? You're the stupid bastards who ignored the UN and went into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place!

I just have to admire this kind of bluntness.

....if we are all freinds...you are my freind?...>.>..<.<
Sure I am. We are all one big happy family here in NS. Just ask any mod.

:fluffle: Sure I am. We are all one big happy family here in NS. Just ask any mod.
:fluffle:

Sure. The first order of business is to recognize that we can't possibly kill everybody who potentially hates us or might harm us. We are speaking literally of hundreds of millions of people spread across half the globe. Even if we tried it would take more time than we have.

Having recognized that, we need to understand that the best shot we have at protecting ourselves in the short term is control of access here at home.

Nuclear facilities, chemical plants, seaborne containers, truckbound shipping, supplies of fertilizer and the various gunpowders (the bomb makers dream), and our very borders are access seives at the moment. How do we fix this? Money and manpower.

In the intermediate term, we have to put our full effort into coralling the surplus nuclear weapons problem, particularly in Russia. As matters now stand, the planning is to clean it all up in TEN YEARS. I don't think we have ten years. More money and much more effort is needed here.

The good guys are Russian and the bad guys are Chechen?
Is only one side murdering civilians?
Who is for democracy ,who is for freedom ,
who?
How long has this carnage been going on?
Is the blood ankle , knee , waist deep?

In war, no side is absolutely right/good, and no side is absolutely wrong/evil.

That said, yes, the surplus nuclear weapons problem is out of hand. It's been that way for years. Since the fall of the Soviet Union (thanks, Gorbachev, you sonuvabitch!), nuclear proliferation has been insane. Reversing this process is nearly impossible now, our only real choice now is to keep nukes from falling into the hands of tinpot dictators and oligarchs crazy enough to use them.

But this doesn't mean we should blow the entire Middle East to smithereins - far from it. The Muslim world can correct itself, given a little push in the right direction. By dethroning dictators like Saddam Hussein, weathering the storm of insurgent violence and anti-American/Western sentiment from abroad, and helping to build a stable, democratic nation capable of forging it's own future, choosing it's own destiny, we can prove to the common men and women of the Muslim world that the US and it's allies aren't evil nations controlled by worshippers of Satan, but rather brothers and comrades capable of aiding them in their time of need.

...Dispite all this, don't get your hopes up too high. Even if we can bring peace to the Middle East, war is still an integral part of human nature. After awhile, future generations will forget the actions and mistakes of the past, conflict will flare up once again, and history will repeat itself. That's just the way it is.

War with Iran? I don't understand how the American forces, as no British troops will be deployed due to the political impossibility and logistical overstretch, can hope to deal with a country the size of Iran. If Coalition cannot even fully control Afghanistan or Iraq I do not see how America would be able to engage itself in Iran. If the American political elite want to reintroduce the draft then maybe they may have enough troops but this would be political suicide for whichever administration enacts it and the troops you'll be getting to partake in post-conflict policing roles will be of a very poor quality.

The members of the EU are negotiating because of the reality that Iran is far more dangerous than Afghanistan or Iraq was. A nuclear Iran would be a disaster for the status quo in the Middle East but to deal with it in a military manner, I believe, would probably be far more risky. If you want to blame Neville Chamberlain for his "peace in our time" stupidity the contemporary American administration didn't do anything to curb Hitler and only after Pearl Harbour was the isolationist camp swept away by the realisation that Militant Japan had to be engaged and even then it was the Germans who declared war against the US, (an interesting "what if" debate over whether the US would have declared war on its own violation). You could look at the "green light" that the US ambassador April Glaspie gave Saddam Hussein in his invasion for Kuwait as a more contemporary example of negotiation stupidity that led to an unnecessary war.

And the reason that Iran is pursuing the bomb is due to the fact that it’s the only currency that the US conventional forces will take notice of. If you're in the "Axis of Evil" and there's only two of you left if I was an Iranian I'd look for anything that would deter any incursions by hostile forces. I don't want to see Iran with a nuclear capability but it makes more sense than gambling over whether the US would invade.

And what results would that be? More dead children? Are dead children ok as long as they're not in your backyard? Should we sacrifice brown children to Bush instead?

I say contain terrorists, invest in local infrastructure and fuel local economies, give them something to lose, stop hitting the population to get back at the leadership and they will come around.


You are the perfect terrorist. So convinced in your point of view, so sure of the righteousness of your actions, safe in the knowledge that you're defending your country and culture against the oppressive enemy. Why don't you go and blow yourself up? And maybe take a few of your enemies with you. Or are you too coward to do it?

Your (intellectual and moral )integrity has taken a serious hit today unfortunately because of your own bias and commentary that comes seemingly from a tape of bias that plays in your head and shows up in your comments. That it very tragic. Unfortunately not nearly as tragic as the events in Beslan-- the people of whom can now unfortunately proclaim their own 911. Only this time its their 903.

Kindly give us your specific suggestions on how YOU would have formulated the specific policies
that the russians would have used to have prevented this 903.

If you want to blame Neville Chamberlain for his "peace in our time" stupidity the contemporary American administration didn't do anything to curb Hitler and only after Pearl Harbour was the isolationist camp swept away by the realisation that Militant Japan had to be engaged and even then it was the Germans who declared war against the US, (an interesting "what if" debate over whether the US would have declared war on its own violation).

Hitler literally was not our problem. At all. Europe supposedly had treaties in place, and was "negotiating" in good faith with a madman. All the while telling the public at large that such negotiation was effective, worthwhile, and in full earnest.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. And for all those who believe that the US had nothing to do with victory in WW II, they might as well say that the US is off the hook of responsibility for what happened in the lead-up to the war.

Hitler literally was not our problem. At all. Europe supposedly had treaties in place, and was "negotiating" in good faith with a madman. All the while telling the public at large that such negotiation was effective, worthwhile, and in full earnest.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. And for all those who believe that the US had nothing to do with victory in WW II, they might as well say that the US is off the hook of responsibility for what happened in the lead-up to the war.

To say that America would want Europe to be dominated by one power, one that was an anathema to most of Western Europe is to ignore simple "balance of power" theory. America, like Britain in her time, did not want Europe to be dominated by one power. So it was in your interests, as indicated by the speeches of Roosevelt trying to garner support for greater intervention in the European conflict and American material support before her full engagement post-1941. And then you are ignoring the devastation that the WWI had on European and American outlooks to war, i.e. the isolationist camp in the US and the failed attempts of the League of Nations and the pursuit to ban aggressive war and cut back on weapon production.

I wouldn't be a simpleton and say the US had nothing to do with the victory of WWII; I'll leave that to others. But you also would agree that Chamberlain's attempts were also in tandem with the mobilisation of the UK for the war that many, like Churchill, saw as inevitable.

But again, back to the thread, I don't see the Iran invasion as a viable possibility....

In all seriousness though, I think Syria's next on the US "hit" list...:shrug:
I agree. I doubt the US has the ability to attack Iran, which is three times the size of Iraq. Syria would be easier.

And when you fail, and they get a nuke, and they use it on Israel, we'll destroy Iran, and blame you for it.
1. Why doesn't Israel just destroy their nuclear facilities like they did in Iraq in 1981?

2. If Iran manages to make a nuclear bomb, do you think that they will use it against Israel? I know that they are extremely against Israel's very existence. But I'm sure that they also know that if they do that, they will be destroyed themselves.

Your (intellectual and moral )integrity has taken a serious hit today unfortunately because of your own bias and commentary that comes seemingly from a tape of bias that plays in your head and shows up in your comments.
Sure it has, kid, sure it has. And I'm sure that I'm the only one with biases here; I mean, you present such amazingly independent, equilibrated, and well thought out arguments. I'm in awe.

That it very tragic. Unfortunately not nearly as tragic as the events in Beslan-- the people of whom can now unfortunately proclaim their own 911. Only this time its their 903.

Kindly give us your specific suggestions on how YOU would have formulated the specific policies
that the russians would have used to have prevented this 903.
Not having forced Chechnya into submission and killed almost everyone of their men would have been a good policy. A constitutional reform creating a union autonomous or semiautonomous states á la USA would have prevented much bloodshed and needless violence. Of course, all this would have had to take place 10 years ago, before the Chechen rebellion. Russia is, after all, a collection of nations brought together by force, first by the czar and then by the soviets. If the people that form her don't want to remain a single state, provisions should be taken to concede their independence or, at the very least, autonomy, and, at the same time, ensuring the individual freedoms and rights of the people who live there.

You see, Russia tried to implement the genocidal policy you propose, and that's the kind of results they got.

Hitler literally was not our problem. At all. Europe supposedly had treaties in place, and was "negotiating" in good faith with a madman. All the while telling the public at large that such negotiation was effective, worthwhile, and in full earnest.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. And for all those who believe that the US had nothing to do with victory in WW II, they might as well say that the US is off the hook of responsibility for what happened in the lead-up to the war.


Do you actually believe that? I dont know your current level of education or
knowledge of history, but I must say this is blatantly wrong.

More moral relativism. The situations are different even if the reasoning is somewhat similar. The difference is, using the Hitler example, is that he used that reasoning to bring about nationalism and gain fascist control over Germany. The intent of the US is different. We dont want to wipe out a race of people. We want to be free from terrorist attacks.

The good fight is what i believe we are fighting. A war to end terrorism. To protect innocent American life. If it takes the short-term suffering of a monster to protect many innocents than certain techniques are necessary.

The fundamental difference between our arguments is this. You see the terrorist as a human being just like you and me. I see that same terrorist who hopes to set off a bomb as less than human and one who has forfeited their rights.

Hitler literally was not our problem. At all. Europe supposedly had treaties in place, and was "negotiating" in good faith with a madman. All the while telling the public at large that such negotiation was effective, worthwhile, and in full earnest.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. And for all those who believe that the US had nothing to do with victory in WW II, they might as well say that the US is off the hook of responsibility for what happened in the lead-up to the war.

Do you actually believe that? I dont know your current level of education or
knowledge of history, but I must say this is blatantly wrong.

More moral relativism. The situations are different even if the reasoning is somewhat similar. The difference is, using the Hitler example, is that he used that reasoning to bring about nationalism and gain fascist control over Germany. The intent of the US is different. We dont want to wipe out a race of people. We want to be free from terrorist attacks.

The good fight is what i believe we are fighting. A war to end terrorism. To protect innocent American life. If it takes the short-term suffering of a monster to protect many innocents than certain techniques are necessary.

The fundamental difference between our arguments is this. You see the terrorist as a human being just like you and me. I see that same terrorist who hopes to set off a bomb as less than human and one who has forfeited their rights.
Did you quote the right post?

Hitler literally was not our problem. At all. Europe supposedly had treaties in place, and was "negotiating" in good faith with a madman. All the while telling the public at large that such negotiation was effective, worthwhile, and in full earnest.

...
Actually, the US also had a treaty with Germany, the Treaty of Berlin. It was signed in 1921, and it was very similar to the Treaty of Versailles (excluding the League of Nations provisos of Versailles, that is).

But I do agree, Hitler was a European problem first and foremost. The 'delicate' approach of Chamberlain and Daladier failed utterly.

Still I think that we have to thank Chamberlain for one thing - he did not sell out Poland in September 1939, although he could.

Sure it has, kid, sure it has. And I'm sure that I'm the only one with biases here; I mean, you present such amazingly independent, equilibrated, and well thought out arguments. I'm in awe.


Not having forced Chechnya into submission and killed almost everyone of their men would have been a good policy. A constitutional reform creating a union autonomous or semiautonomous states á la USA would have prevented much bloodshed and needless violence. Of course, all this would have had to take place 10 years ago, before the Chechen rebellion. Russia is, after all, a collection of nations brought together by force, first by the czar and then by the soviets. If the people that form her don't want to remain a single state, provisions should be taken to concede their independence or, at the very least, autonomy, and, at the same time, ensuring the individual freedoms and rights of the people who live there.

You see, Russia tried to implement the genocidal policy you propose, and that's the kind of results they got.

I cant help but wonder how this debate would be focuing if it were Iranians who has used sleep deprivation, humiliation, psychological torture and casual brutality on US citizens. I wonder if the US Right wing would be so quick to claim 'Oh, thats not REALLY torture...'.


Oh and the russians should have finished what they started, by taking them all out then they would never have to live in fear.

Hitler literally was not our problem. At all. Europe supposedly had treaties in place, and was "negotiating" in good faith with a madman. All the while telling the public at large that such negotiation was effective, worthwhile, and in full earnest.
Although, to be honest, his madness had not been fully realized. Many in Europe and the USA admired him for putting Germany back on its feet, and were happy to make concesions to him as long as he kept harrasing only those backwards countries in Eastern Europe. As for the Jews, racism was still prevalent in Europe and his measures were not seen as "terrible," or not just yet.

Think about how the US helped and supported Saddam while he was making life difficult for Iran; or Trujillo when he was a staunch anticommunist. Sure, we can say now that it was a mistake, but back then it kind of make sense, didn't it?

Nothing could have been further from the truth. And for all those who believe that the US had nothing to do with victory in WW II, they might as well say that the US is off the hook of responsibility for what happened in the lead-up to the war.
Of course. The USA didn't have the inclination, nor the obligation, to interfere in what was, up to that point, entirely a European matter. Roosevelt realized that Hitler would not have stopped at Europe, though, but didn't have enough support at home to do something about it.

But, you're right. The US couldn't have prevented, and it was not their duty to prevent, the rise of Nazism.

I've heard alot on the net about War with Iran, specifically starting sometime between mid and late June 2005. I was very worried about this possibility, since I think Iran is a force for balance in the region, an Iranian bomb would equalize the threat from "isra-hell's" bomb. I was worried until I talked to my roomate, whose uncle is on the Military Committee of NATO, and he re-assured me that its not in the works, that first the US military is against it, the US public wouldnt support it, and our European allies would be horrorified. When I pointed out that the so-called israel might attack unilaterally he said it would be a diplomatic disaster for Israel. I still think israel might strike unilaterally, but it won't work because Iran has sites all over the country, to preven one israeli air strike from destroying the whole complex.

Personally, if israel is dumb enough to attack Iran, Iran should return the favor 50 times over, and eliminate the long standing threat to world peace, the so-called Israel, once and for all.

I am praying for the People of Iran, that nothing as catastrophic visits them as visited the people of Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan.

Why isn't the US threatening invasion on North Korea, a country which has nuclear weapons and which threatens not one but two leading trade partners: South Korea and Japan. The US doesnt care about the NK threat, because Israel isn't in danger. Nevermind that Japan and South Korea sent troops to the US, or that they have almost always been good allies of the US, whereas Israel costs billions of dollars every year, unfairly influences our political process, and even spies against its only real ally, us. The Iranian regime, despite its many problems at home, is one of the only ones that is willing to stand up to israel in the region.

The fault for the current violence in the Middle East lies entirely with the Palestinians. Israel’s actions are wholly justified as an appropriate response to suicide bombings.
Isreal is a country that has faced death and humiliation of suicide bombs and unpredictable future. No country in the world has suffered like the citizens of Isreal.

You obviously would never take the time to research the Palestinian-Israeli conflict aside from what you hear in the news. If you would, you would soon realize that Israel is a tyrranical regime that is based on ethnic cleansing and state terrorism. I used to think like you do, and was very pro-Israel til I discovered the truth of the situation. The Jews could have had a two-state solution, with 51% Jewish and 49% Palestinian, but they took 78% before the Arabs invaded, when the Arabs invaded they only occupied land which was allocated for Palestinians but was stolen by Jews. Aside from one major Army, the Egyptians, the Arab armies only aimed to protect Palestinian land. The Jews took 78% when they were given only 51%, and then they took even tat 22% in 1967 and will not do anything to compensate the almost 6 million Palestinians kicked out of their own homes. This is the reason for suicide bombings and terror in the reigon, Israel's original sin. There could be peace tomorrow if Israel made concessions it will never want to make. Palestinians are a peopel fighting for their survival, not the oppressors. In this context Israel is the Third Reich, Palestinians are victims.

You obviously would never take the time to research the Palestinian-Israeli conflict aside from what you hear in the news. If you would, you would soon realize that Israel is a tyrranical regime that is based on ethnic cleansing and state terrorism. I used to think like you do, and was very pro-Israel til I discovered the truth of the situation. The Jews could have had a two-state solution, with 51% Jewish and 49% Palestinian, but they took 78% before the Arabs invaded, when the Arabs invaded they only occupied land which was allocated for Palestinians but was stolen by Jews. Aside from one major Army, the Egyptians, the Arab armies only aimed to protect Palestinian land. The Jews took 78% when they were given only 51%, and then they took even tat 22% in 1967 and will not do anything to compensate the almost 6 million Palestinians kicked out of their own homes. This is the reason for suicide bombings and terror in the reigon, Israel's original sin. There could be peace tomorrow if Israel made concessions it will never want to make. Palestinians are a peopel fighting for their survival, not the oppressors. In this context Israel is the Third Reich, Palestinians are victims.

And if you believe that, then all of the Palestinians would already be dead.

Let's not forget the disingenuous bad faith negotiation by Arafat over the years - with his final rejection of a deal that would have given the Palestinians far more than they will now ever get.

Face it. The Arabs are the losers in this millenium. They cannot fight or win against the US or Israel, and have bankrupted their governments trying to do so.

They should face facts. If they truly believe that nothing happens that is not the will of God, they should have the good manners to realize that God is on the side of the Americans and Israelis (what other Islamic explanation can you arrive at), and that they should have the good manners to just give up.

You obviously would never take the time to research the Palestinian-Israeli conflict aside from what you hear in the news. If you would, you would soon realize that Israel is a tyrranical regime that is based on ethnic cleansing and state terrorism. I used to think like you do, and was very pro-Israel til I discovered the truth of the situation. The Jews could have had a two-state solution, with 51% Jewish and 49% Palestinian, but they took 78% before the Arabs invaded, when the Arabs invaded they only occupied land which was allocated for Palestinians but was stolen by Jews. Aside from one major Army, the Egyptians, the Arab armies only aimed to protect Palestinian land. The Jews took 78% when they were given only 51%, and then they took even tat 22% in 1967 and will not do anything to compensate the almost 6 million Palestinians kicked out of their own homes. This is the reason for suicide bombings and terror in the reigon, Israel's original sin. There could be peace tomorrow if Israel made concessions it will never want to make. Palestinians are a peopel fighting for their survival, not the oppressors. In this context Israel is the Third Reich, Palestinians are victims.

You are a Ant-jew nazi, Your argument consists exclusively of vile & deceitful comments. The quantity of utterly retarded shite that eminates from that piece of dough that sits between your wax-filled ears is unbelievable, quite frankly. Im absolutely positive that your ears are linked by some sort of titanium pipe so that any sound wave passing in one will be reflected through one and out of the other - freeing your deeply ignorant mind of the obligation to consider a person with a different point of view or different ideology rationally, instead you are able get on with the sordid business of writing your viciously hateful comments. YOU do not seem capable of producing any relevant or reasonable comment and the sad thing is - you're typical of the political Libs I've come across - self aggrandising maggots who, YES, can come up with 12 letter words, irrelevant decontextualised quotes and clever rhetorical statements that "prove" how somebody who doesn't agree with you is untrustworthy or misguided but completely fail to grasp the actual issues of the day (while at the same time selectively applying your middle-class quasi-morality and accusing anybody who views things differently as being apologists for and kinderfolk of everybody from Pol Pot to Al Qaeda). Your comments are amongst the most ill-founded & deeply ignorant I've had the misfortune to read on the internet. They simply serve to highlight the intense stupidity of people like you who rationalise the idealogy of devious liberal democrat anti-war pacifists happy to sit doing nothing wearing your rose tinted glases like charles kennedy and jack shirak just enough to suit their petty, nasty, self-righteous personalities which are characterised by even nastier relavistic middle-class sensibilities.

In fact, your own "idealogy" and political position is so vacuous that you can only defend it by masquerading your moronic, frivolous ramblings as some sort of pseudo-intellectual commentary and pedanticaly & captiously hypercriticising those who dare question the logic of the Lib-Christian-right.

There could be peace tomorrow if Israel made concessions it will never want to make. Palestinians are a peopel fighting for their survival, not the oppressors. In this context Israel is the Third Reich, Palestinians are victims.
Now, this is silly. Although the treatment of Palestinians by Israel is harsh and somewhat unjustified (I wouldn't say totally unjustified) comparing it to the Third Reich is just over the top.

Arafat did very little to contain terrorists. This government is doing much better, still it will be very hard to eliminate that culture from their people.

Now, this is silly. Although the treatment of Palestinians by Israel is harsh and somewhat unjustified (I wouldn't say totally unjustified) comparing it to the Third Reich is just over the top.

Arafat did very little to contain terrorists. This government is doing much better, still it will be very hard to eliminate that culture from their people.

I don't like having to agree with you!

I have been in Iraq for the last year, and will be here for a good deal longer. I am a US soldier, a husband, and a father of two. This thread is amusing in that there is an awful lot of talk about "My country is a better country than yours." And while that is amusing, more so is the statements about how we are punishing the people if Iraq as a result of this little operation we have going here. I don't know what kind of drivel you see on the news, and you're free to believe anything you want, but I can tell you that I have yet to find very many Iraqis that are upset at us for coming in, ridding them of Saddam (because his actions were so popular with the people) or rebuilding their infrastructure. Furthermore, I haven't been killing or beating on the civillians lately, again believe what you wish. I am a team leader on the ground. I don't live on a big base, but in the city with the people. I see the citizens everyday, and everyday I get the chance to talk to them, play with their children, and support them anyway I can. This on top of rounding up bad people, (judged so by the Iraqis or Coalition) and regular patrols.
I believe the UN is impotent, and if the EU wants to negotiate. Please do, but have some conviction and make sure that you are prepared to back up all promises and/or threats. THis current war has cost me very dearly, but I am thanked for it on a daily basis by the populace here.
This doesn't mean that war is the right thing. But please get the best information you can before making judgement calls about what is going on over here, I assure you it is not all the media will tell you, because success isn't as good a story as violence and death is it?

I'm an American and proud of it, but I really think going to war with Iran would be a bad idea. I'm pretty sure we aren't going to get any help from other countries, and I heard somewhere that Russia and China plan on helping Iran if we do decide to go after Iran. This may be completely wrong, but...it's what I heard. I just can't wait until we can kick Bush out of the White House and get a president who actually knows what he's doing. The problem is, he can do a lot of damage in the next few years...

I have been in Iraq for the last year, and will be here for a good deal longer. I am a US soldier, a husband, and a father of two. This thread is amusing in that there is an awful lot of talk about "My country is a better country than yours." And while that is amusing, more so is the statements about how we are punishing the people if Iraq as a result of this little operation we have going here. I don't know what kind of drivel you see on the news, and you're free to believe anything you want, but I can tell you that I have yet to find very many Iraqis that are upset at us for coming in, ridding them of Saddam (because his actions were so popular with the people) or rebuilding their infrastructure. Furthermore, I haven't been killing or beating on the civillians lately, again believe what you wish. I am a team leader on the ground. I don't live on a big base, but in the city with the people. I see the citizens everyday, and everyday I get the chance to talk to them, play with their children, and support them anyway I can. This on top of rounding up bad people, (judged so by the Iraqis or Coalition) and regular patrols.
I believe the UN is impotent, and if the EU wants to negotiate. Please do, but have some conviction and make sure that you are prepared to back up all promises and/or threats. THis current war has cost me very dearly, but I am thanked for it on a daily basis by the populace here.
This doesn't mean that war is the right thing. But please get the best information you can before making judgement calls about what is going on over here, I assure you it is not all the media will tell you, because success isn't as good a story as violence and death is it?


Nope. It reminds me of the news stories before the first Gulf War, when Dan Rather predicted that we would be killed by the thousands trying to rush the Iraqi barbed wire and fire trenches.

When it didn't happen, Dan looked a little disappointed.

The media (and some people here) are seizing on every act of violence they can, because they want a way to say that it was all wrong.

It's a little too late for that - the Iraqis have a new government that they voted for.

If you think about it, the majority of the voting population came out and voted. Despite the risk of death. This means that the majority of the voting population is going along with the new Iraq - the people who are fighting against that are in the minority.

You'll never hear the anti-war people say that the insurgents and their supporters are in the minority. No, when you hear their spin on the news, you'll hear that "everyone in Iraq" is fighting against the US.

The EU has explicitly told the US that IT will negotiate a peaceful settlement with Iran. And guarantee that Iran will not produce nuclear weapons.

So, we're waiting. The EU has volunteered for this impossible task.

And when you fail, and they get a nuke, and they use it on Israel, we'll destroy Iran, and blame you for it.
amen

I already had the pleasure of reading one of my very favorite statements in this thread. "breeding ground for thousands of insurgents, just like in Iraq...." Really, where are they then? If someone could get me some tips on this I'd be oh so happy to go and verify them. For the sake of the message board of course....

Nope. It reminds me of the news stories before the first Gulf War, when Dan Rather predicted that we would be killed by the thousands trying to rush the Iraqi barbed wire and fire trenches.

When it didn't happen, Dan looked a little disappointed.

The media (and some people here) are seizing on every act of violence they can, because they want a way to say that it was all wrong.

It's a little too late for that - the Iraqis have a new government that they voted for.

If you think about it, the majority of the voting population came out and voted. Despite the risk of death. This means that the majority of the voting population is going along with the new Iraq - the people who are fighting against that are in the minority.

You'll never hear the anti-war people say that the insurgents and their supporters are in the minority. No, when you hear their spin on the news, you'll hear that "everyone in Iraq" is fighting against the US.
wow, there are some good posts on today. Normally I walk away discouraged because of my right-wing stance but this is nice... :D

and one more note before I go to bed.
Just an interesting note. Everyone here drives a European automobile. Okay, not everyone, but I would venture to say that 99 out of a hundred are European. The same goes for cigarettes, clothing, and anything else you may imagine. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with the EU's failure to support this war. Just an observation from here on the ground...

and one more note before I go to bed.
Just an interesting note. Everyone here drives a European automobile. Okay, not everyone, but I would venture to say that 99 out of a hundred are European. The same goes for cigarettes, clothing, and anything else you may imagine. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with the EU's failure to support this war. Just an observation from here on the ground...

No, all that French and Russian military equipment wouldn't have anything to do with it either.

I'm an American and proud of it, but I really think going to war with Iran would be a bad idea. I'm pretty sure we aren't going to get any help from other countries, and I heard somewhere that Russia and China plan on helping Iran if we do decide to go after Iran. This may be completely wrong, but...it's what I heard. I just can't wait until we can kick Bush out of the White House and get a president who actually knows what he's doing. The problem is, he can do a lot of damage in the next few years...


You are a Anti-American nazi, Your argument consists exclusively of vile & deceitful comments. The quantity of utterly retarded shite that eminates from that piece of dough that sits between your wax-filled ears is unbelievable, quite frankly. Im absolutely positive that your ears are linked by some sort of titanium pipe so that any sound wave passing in one will be reflected through one and out of the other - freeing your deeply ignorant mind of the obligation to consider a person with a different point of view or different ideology rationally, instead you are able get on with the sordid business of writing your viciously hateful comments. YOU do not seem capable of producing any relevant or reasonable comment and the sad thing is - you're typical of the political Libs I've come across - self aggrandising maggots who, YES, can come up with 12 letter words, irrelevant decontextualised quotes and clever rhetorical statements that "prove" how somebody who doesn't agree with you is untrustworthy or misguided but completely fail to grasp the actual issues of the day (while at the same time selectively applying your middle-class quasi-morality and accusing anybody who views things differently as being apologists for and kinderfolk of everybody from Pol Pot to Al Qaeda). Your comments are amongst the most ill-founded & deeply ignorant I've had the misfortune to read on the internet. They simply serve to highlight the intense stupidity of people like you who rationalise the idealogy of devious liberal democrat anti-war pacifists happy to sit doing nothing wearing your rose tinted glases like charles kennedy and jack shirak just enough to suit their petty, nasty, self-righteous personalities which are characterised by even nastier relavistic middle-class sensibilities.

In fact, your own "idealogy" and political position is so vacuous that you can only defend it by masquerading your moronic, frivolous ramblings as some sort of pseudo-intellectual commentary and pedanticaly & captiously hypercriticising those who dare question the logic of the Lib-Christian-right.

You are a Ant-American nazi,
Hey thats a bit harsh, an ant couldn't have written such a cohesive argument.

Hey thats a bit harsh, an ant couldn't have written such a cohesive argument.

What are you on about?

What are you on about?
Oh yeah whatever man! Everyone note that the post has been edited.

The fault for the current violence in the Middle East lies entirely with the Palestinians. Israel’s actions are wholly justified as an appropriate response to suicide bombings.

I know you are but what am I????? This is funny!

The fault for the current violence in the Middle East lies entirely with the Palestinians. Israel’s actions are wholly justified as an appropriate response to suicide bombings.


so if I kick you out of your house and you try to get it back, the hole thing would be your fault? Relealy now....

In fact, your own "idealogy" and political position is so vacuous that you can only defend it by masquerading your moronic, frivolous ramblings as some sort of pseudo-intellectual commentary and pedanticaly & captiously hypercriticising those who dare question the logic of the Lib-Christian-right.
What the crap is the Lib-Christian-right.

The fault for the current violence in the Middle East lies entirely with the Palestinians. Israel’s actions are wholly justified as an appropriate response to suicide bombings.

Okay Jabba Huts? you said that already. Probably more than once. And do you just have a saved file with all your big waffles in so you can just redirect who theyre at in the frist line and simply copy and paste like you did earlier?

And this is pretty funny Ive been reading this thread all night, glad its not quite as tense as it was an hour ago :p

so if I kick you out of your house and you try to get it back, the hole thing would be your fault? Relealy now....

You should not of blown yourself up, then you don't need a house!

What the crap is the Lib-Christian-right.

Its a English thing!

Okay Jabba Huts? you said that already. Probably more than once. And do you just have a saved file with all your big waffles in so you can just redirect who theyre at in the frist line and simply copy and paste like you did earlier?

And this is pretty funny Ive been reading this thread all night, glad its not quite as tense as it was an hour ago :p

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? Of course I don't, what a ridiculous thing to say.

:p Look, we (the U.S) will most likely avoid Iran because it is currently in a political civil war and the fact that they are farily advanced is even worse.
Syria i can understand and for all you Europeans who think the war is unjustified in iraq, it doesnt feel too good to have National Icons destroyed or damaged. IE Pentagon/WTC. Afghanistan was attacked because the taliban are the ones that knocked the towers down. So,we went and killed them. The war in afghanistan has turned into a war on all terrorist. This is for the safety of the French :p . When your fighting someone, and they flee to a country that is letting them seek shelter, you have no choice but to go and kill them. If nazi germany all fled to russia, we probably would have invaded russia. Same case with Iraq, in order to hunt down the terrorist, you actually have to go find them and unfortunately for the Iraqis, Sadaam welcomed them. I like Bush and yes he made a mistake. Had he told everyone that this is reason for invasion, I believe we would be better off. I still admire his persistence. Je pense que il est necessaire vous aidez nous!

Im trying to say what I said, although I must admit it can get difficult to read things I said.

The first paragragh is stating that you repeated yourself at least twice, once with a missive ramble about ant-[insert race] nazi's. The second was agreeing with what Jatwish said.

I like Bush and yes he made a mistake. Had he told everyone that this is reason for invasion, I believe we would be better off.I have to say that I probably wouldnt think Bush was such an idiot if he had given that reason for invasion and shown some proof for it (got to say its a new idea on me that thats why the war happened). The only reason Im against the war on Iraq is that Im against war in general; and they went in for the wrong reasons, or they lied, their choice really.

Kertiom, what on earth are you talking about? There is no terrorist link between Iraq and Afghanistan, and contrary to crack pot right-wingers, there was never any link between Saddam and "al-Qaeda". In fact, Al-Qaeda types have always wanted to overthrow Saddam, for being too secular. The "terrorists" only entered Iraq and engaged US forces during and after the invasion, because finally, they have a chance to create an Islamist state there, with Saddam gone. The former Ba'athists are providing technical assistance to the insurgency, while the rank and file are mostly radical Islamists. There would not be an Islamist presence in Iraq without the US invasion. And again, there was never any Saddam-9/11 Link, and I'd like to see any real evidence to the contrary. The 9-11 Commission report found no link, so how are you more qualified? The invasion of Iraq was first justified because of WMD....which didn't exist, and now everyone admits they didn't exist...then they justified by saying we need to liberate them...and in the last year, nearly 85% of Iraqis say they view the US presence as an occupation, and as of 2004, only 13% of Iraqis believe the invasion was worthwhile. Large majorities have consistently said they felt better off before the US aggression. Face it, the war was justified through fraud.There would be no "terrorist" training ground or arsenal in Iraq under the secular Ba'ath. Now unfortunately, militants of all types are finding a safe haven there.

If there is, the Americans will be going in on their own.

In that case, it'll at least get done right!

You should not of blown yourself up, then you don't need a house!

but yet you have been unlawfuly removed from your home? is not the peaple who throw you out that is at fault?

but yet you have been unlawfuly removed from your home? is not the peaple who throw you out that is at fault?

In recent years there has been an increased use of identification checks as a security measure. Airlines always demand photo IDs, and hotels increasingly do so. They're often required for admittance into government buildings, and sometimes even hospitals. Everywhere, it seems, someone is checking IDs. The ostensible reason is that ID checks make us all safer, but that's just not so. In most cases, identification has very little to do with security.
This is because the Palestinians blow people and children up.

A Palestinian wearing a bomb belt blew himself up Thursday on a Jerusalem city bus packed with high school students and soldiers, killing 11 passengers and wounding dozens in a morning rush hour suicide attack. Sandwiches and schoolbooks lay scattered in the street.

Islamic militants said attacks would continue, despite efforts by Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to negotiate a freeze in attacks at least until Israel's Jan. 28 election. A continuation of bombings and shootings - there have been scores in the past 26 months of fighting - would strengthen Israel's right-wing parties.

Now tell me again how the Palestinians have any interest in peace with Israel, when they know damn well that these attacks are going to strengthen the Israeli right? They know they're in a full-blown war; lots of folks in Israel know they're in a full blown war; why can't we just admit the simple truth of the matter?

Israeli's dont build pipe bombs and fill them with Rusty Nails Dirt and filthy Ball Bearings Raw Sewage and other items of similar like, Palestinians do that, who are their Teachers?

Would you go that far to get your house back.

I've only read to page 7 so I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before.

I think a lot of people need to think a lot about this old saying..

Evil begets evil

Invading countries will likely disrupt terrorist activities for a while, but will also make the country a terrorist spawning pool. I the long run this will make us worse off than we were to begin with.

Do not get me wrong. I absolutely believe that both EU and the US needs to do their best at stopping these terrorists. But I think that we need to focus the effort on hitting the isolated terrorist-cells. How to do this I leave to smarter people than me.

Someone wrote that there are enough terrorists to warrent the destruction of the entire muslim population. I am of the belief that nothing is "worth" the expendure of an innocent life. Another reason why I think we need to reinvent our methods of harming the terrorist organisations.

Hitting their economy. If a person/bank account is suspected of funding terrorist actions; Shut it down. I don't care whether its in a state-of-the-art, swiss super-bank I still the anti-terror units should be able to shut them down. Possibly use the money for anti-terror. Of course shutting down a bank account should require quite large amounts of evidense and also the accept of a judge.

I you know a bank account is funding terrorism you probably also know what the next line in the proces is. Who is recieving the money? Hit their economy as well. This will cripple their financial sector and thus their ability to do virtually anything.

This will render many terrorist-cells unfunctional.

Also the ones financing terrorism should be imprisoned.

If one follows this money-trail closely one will probably locate some active terror-cells since the money is meant for them. Imprison the members. Else, :sniper: them.


This I believe is a viable alternative to war. Also its a lot cheaper. The money spared should be used to help the innocent people to raise their standard of living. This will also minimize the terrorist recruitment base.

Concerning what this topic is mainly about, Iran, I think inciting and helping the people to overthrow their government is a way better solution than war.


Also relevant for this topic is the Bob Dylan song With god on our side. http://bobdylan.com/songs/withgod.html. Read it and think about it a little. Really put things into perspective for me when we worked with it in my english class.


My point is this; It should never have to come to a outright war. Too many innocent will suffer. I'm not saying, that the european negotiations aren't worthless, since they seem to be atm, but there other alternatives to war. Combating terrorists with full scale invasions seems a bit like trying to make an elephant squish one black mouse between millions of white. There's better ways of doing it..


Btw before the flaming begins I'm neither American or British (not that It's a bad thing.. You're just getting flamed a lot in this thread). I'm Danish and therefore sorry for my lacking english abilities. I hope its still readable.

That is a disguisting thing to say, and obviously you have no human decency or compassion in you, so its impossible to negotiate or discuss things with you logically. You have no understanding of other people's problems, so why bother explaining anything. Do you even know why the first suicide mission was launched? because Baruch Goldstein stepped into a Mosque on the West Bank and shot several Palestinians in the back at prayer time, unprovokedly. And why is suicide bombing not ok, but demolishing homes, launching helicopter airstrikes on parapalegics and crippled people, shooting children with real bullets for throwing stones, and other forms of torture, and the widespread confiscation of land in the West Bank Ok? Why should Palestinians sit back and allow themselves to be murdered? Why is ok that Israel can use tanks and F-16s on civilians, but Palestinians can't use suicide bombing? where is the balance? Would you also condemn the French resistance, or the Russian partisans? In my original post, I acknowledged the UN Resolution that created Israel, the only thing I am concerned about is the failure to grant the Palesitnians a state on 49% of their original homeland. How is it that Palestinians are unreasonable in your mind, for continuing resistane, but Israel is ok for denying them human rights and a homeland.

I shouldn't even try arguing, because you will only respond with namecalling. You obviously are racist yourself, and care nothing for people of Arab origin, so its useless trying to reason with you. One hopes that one day in this life, you will realize some things, but probably not.

If its true that we need ID checks for Palestinians, what about Israelis? The Rosenbergs were Jewish, so was Jonathan Pollard, Israel's nuclear spies. We have found Israeli spy rings in the US before...in New Zealand Mossad agents were arrested for stealing the passport of a crippled man...in Norway, Mossad agents assasinated an innocent man....and of course Israelis stole the whole of Palestine..so should we institute ID checks to keep out potential Israeli spies and terrorists then too?

...and in the last year, nearly 85% of Iraqis say they view the US presence as an occupation, and as of 2004, only 13% of Iraqis believe the invasion was worthwhile. Large majorities have consistently said they felt better off before the US aggression. Face it, the war was justified through fraud.There would be no "terrorist" training ground or arsenal in Iraq under the secular Ba'ath. Now unfortunately, militants of all types are finding a safe haven there.

This is what I'm getting at. I am happy to debate all views as to whether it was the right thing to do or not, but lay off the unfounded statistical BS. I would be happy to give you the names of the first thousand Iraqis I see tomorrow morning, and we'll find out if they really feel that way. They don't, and if you think it upsets me, you should hear them when they get going about it. If you're not here, not Iraqi, then you're getting your information second hand. In the year I have been here I can tell you that not one journalist embedded with us wanted to tell the story of what the Iraqis were feeling. But I got a scrapbook full of emotional tripe that isn't news. You want to talk about how the Iraqi people feel about the US, come over here and ask them.


....saw it on the tv, must be true........


(edited to correct spelling errors, apologies.)

That is a disguisting thing to say, and obviously you have no human decency or compassion in you, so its impossible to negotiate or discuss things with you logically. You have no understanding of other people's problems, so why bother explaining anything. Do you even know why the first suicide mission was launched? because Baruch Goldstein stepped into a Mosque on the West Bank and shot several Palestinians in the back at prayer time, unprovokedly. And why is suicide bombing not ok, but demolishing homes, launching helicopter airstrikes on parapalegics and crippled people, shooting children with real bullets for throwing stones, and other forms of torture, and the widespread confiscation of land in the West Bank Ok? Why should Palestinians sit back and allow themselves to be murdered? Why is ok that Israel can use tanks and F-16s on civilians, but Palestinians can't use suicide bombing? where is the balance? Would you also condemn the French resistance, or the Russian partisans? In my original post, I acknowledged the UN Resolution that created Israel, the only thing I am concerned about is the failure to grant the Palesitnians a state on 49% of their original homeland. How is it that Palestinians are unreasonable in your mind, for continuing resistane, but Israel is ok for denying them human rights and a homeland.

I shouldn't even try arguing, because you will only respond with namecalling. You obviously are racist yourself, and care nothing for people of Arab origin, so its useless trying to reason with you. One hopes that one day in this life, you will realize some things, but probably not.

If its true that we need ID checks for Palestinians, what about Israelis? The Rosenbergs were Jewish, so was Jonathan Pollard, Israel's nuclear spies. We have found Israeli spy rings in the US before...in New Zealand Mossad agents were arrested for stealing the passport of a crippled man...in Norway, Mossad agents assasinated an innocent man....and of course Israelis stole the whole of Palestine..so should we institute ID checks to keep out potential Israeli spies and terrorists then too?

Israeli's dont build pipe bombs and fill them with Rusty Nails Dirt and filthy Ball Bearings Raw Sewage and other items of similar like, Palestinians do that, who are their Teachers?


And people who don't agree with you are not automatically racist they just have a different opinion to you. You are anti-jew in that case!

Theres having a different opinion, and theres wanting to kill all muslims, theres a large difference Jabba Huts, and its a racist difference, wanting to kill all terrorists is one thing, just so long as you can sit here all day defining whats right in a way all people can accept.

[Apologizes if this is far behind, I usually am]

[Apologizes if this is far behind, I usually am]


I couldn't keep up either.

I should probably put that at the bottom of all my posts, I only seem to be in the right place when I do! Sods law sucks :p

Theres having a different opinion, and theres wanting to kill all muslims, theres a large difference Jabba Huts, and its a racist difference, wanting to kill all terrorists is one thing, just so long as you can sit here all day defining whats right in a way all people can accept.

[Apologizes if this is far behind, I usually am]

Arafat was a total waste of space, nothing but a sad loser, a terrorist, and if he were still alive today, the pain and the misery and the suffering among his people would continue, due to his Intifada, because the only thing Arafat ever did, was instigate death and destruction, he had no time for his people, the Palestinians suffered at the hands of Arafat and his war mongering, at least Abu Mazen has a brain inside his head, and can differentiate between destructiveness and peace!
kill all terrorists isn't being racist, Its being logical.

I'm sorry? Why is it our fault? You're the stupid bastards who ignored the UN and went into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place!


Whoa... We needed permission to go into Afghanistan?! They fucking flew planes into our trade center towers. It was nothing short of a declaration of war on us. Why should we even bother with those stupid hippies in the UN who don't even act on their own resolutions? They sit around on their thumbs and try to appease to prevent war. Last person to do that allowed ww2 to happen. Quit talking out of your ass and state some facts, we don't need UN to go into afghanistan, and we don't need them to go into Iraq.

Ok, you might be right, or you might not be. You may have created paradise in Iraq, or you might not have. Only you and God know if you are lying or telling the truth. But how do you explain this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4543997.stm
What about the Iraqi you guys shot in the head in the mosque in falluja...and what about the massacres that took place in Falluja....? Was that how you liberate people....and Abu Ghreib was that an exercise in humanitarianism and "liberation" and how do you explain these pictures? http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/?page=3

and this? http://electroniciraq.net/news/1701.shtml

and how do you account for all of this in Falluja? http://crisispictures.org/infocus/2005/05/fallujah-in-pictures.html

I'd like to get the honest opinion of ordinary Iraqis, and that probably isnt possible with heavily armed US troops around, and for that matter, neither is a truly democratic election.

And finally i would direct you to look at this: a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies on "Strengthening Iraqi Security Forces" Its hardly a subversive left-wing organization, it aims at winning the war, yet it mentions that:
In a poll conducted in Iraq in August 2003 by Zogby International, revealed that just over 50% of Iraqis felt that the U.S. will “hurt” Iraq over the next five years ......Some 31.6% felt that Coalition Forces should leave within six months; 34% said within one year; and 25% within two years. In addition, just under 60% felt that Iraq should determine its political future alone and without the help of the Coalition. Some of these findings were substantiated by a poll conducted in May 2004 by BBC, ABC News, the German network ARD and NHK in Japan. Among these: while more than half said that life
was better a year ago under Saddam, “only 25 per cent expressed confidence in the US/UK occupation forces and 28 per cent in both Iraq’s political parties and the CPA”.5 USA Today/CNN/Gallop polls published in April 2004 revealed further developments in Iraqi
perceptions of U.S. policy, presence and operations. Among these was that “53% say they would feel less secure without the Coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway”, while 71% of the respondents identified Coalition troops as “occupiers”. 29 April 2004 USA Today poll cited earlier, many Iraqis considered American troops to be
arrogant and insensitive: 58% said [Coalition Forces] soldiers conduct themselves badly or very badly;60% said the troops show disrespect for Iraqi people in searches of their homes, and 42% said U.S. forces have shown disrespect toward mosques; 46% said the soldiers show a lack of respect for Iraqi women; and 11% of Iraqis say Coalition Forces are trying hard to restore basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water.
• US/Oxford polls show 78% of Iraqis had no confidence in Coalition forces in October 03 and 81% in June 2004 – and this figure included the Kurds.

I'm relying on the sobering effect nuclear weapons have on governments. With any luck the Iranian Government will build a nuke, aim it at Isreal and suddenly realise that should they fire it their nice big homes, nice big cars, nice big personal mosques, nice big families and nice big them will all be glass beneath the mushroom cloud. It's a slim hope but worked for the Soviets.

*crosses fingers* Peace in our time, peace in our time, peace in our time...

There will probably be war with Iran eventually, but not very soon. Of more importance is stabilizing Iraq and smacking Syria around a bit until they stop funnelling insurgents across the border. Once we've proven to the Muslim world that the US is capable of stepping in, overthrowing a dictatorship, establishing democracy and stability, and then leaving to let the nation's people decide their own futures, all while being ridiculed and opposed by pretty much everyone else, THEN we'll be able to settle Iran.

That's OK I'm happy to wait for that :D
After all when that all has happend it is quite possible it will happen in Iran, too. :p
Just will get another cup of tea for my waiting.
And after Iran, there are still some nations left that need, you know, to be liberated. So the US won't ever run out of enemies and/or work :p
Isn't that a nice thing :confused:
Perhaps you even get to settle all those stupid minded socialists and anti-american nations in old europe. Wouldn't that be nice if there is at last no one is left to oppose american politics and everybody will obey and happily love the United States of the World. After all this would resolve the UN issue too! The only government that really matters, lets face it is that of the US, all others suck! Look back in (recent) history, the US government was alway right, the keeper of the holy truth, speaker and actor sent by god, and did never ever lie :p
Wouldn't that be impressing, at least I would be fascinated :D

I'm sorry? Why is it our fault? You're the stupid bastards who ignored the UN and went into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place!

Very compelling arguement! stupid bastards, didnt listen to UN, shouldnt have gone to Afghan. You're right! Let alone that 3000 Americans died, and forget that the Taliban, the govt. in Afghanistan, supported terrorism, Some guys from a different part of the world thought that it was a bad idea, lets go with him and all the guys in the European chairs!

Hm. Invading Iran or Syria (or both!) would stretch forces dangerously thin. Also actions such as those would probably bring tens of thousands of new recruits to the terrorist legions, just like happened in Iraq. And another thing to keep in mind: currently the terrorists in Iraq are mainly sunnite extremists. If you would invade Iran, which is mainly shiite, the shiite majority of Iraq will not be too happy. Which would make things even worse for the US soldiers in Iraq.

And don't forget: wars are really expensive. Just look at the daily costs of the occupation of Iraq.

Forces wouldnt be thin spread if they got a draft.

No way will the US have a war with Iran. They are too chicken to invade any country where there is a chance they might lose more than a few thousand troops.

The only way that a war with Iran would happen is if they first weakened the country with 10 years of sanctions. Which would be a real tragedy for the people of Iran.

Very compelling arguement! stupid bastards, didnt listen to UN, shouldnt have gone to Afghan. You're right! Let alone that 3000 Americans died, and forget that the Taliban, the govt. in Afghanistan, supported terrorism, Some guys from a different part of the world thought that it was a bad idea, lets go with him and all the guys in the European chairs!Argh! Doesn't make much sense, unless you are blaming the UN and/or Europe of 9/11, OR saying most of the world wasn't FOR going to Afghanistan...
(either way, you are wrong)


Forces wouldnt be thin spread if they got a draft. so this sentence is something in form of...'forces wouldn't be thin spread if we got more forces'...? Spectacular.

Ok, you might be right, or you might not be. You may have created paradise in Iraq, or you might not have. Only you and God know if you are lying or telling the truth. But how do you explain this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4543997.stm.
Depends on where you look. Inside the Sunni triangle services are down. Outside services are up. It averages out, admittedly, to be below pre-war levels. Who's to blame for this, though? The guys building new electric plants, or the guys blowing them up?
What about the Iraqi you guys shot in the head in the mosque in falluja.
Insurgents are playing dead holding live grenades. As the GI approaches the body; BOOM. That soldier would have risked the lives of his team (and the cameraman) if he had not shot.
...and what about the massacres that took place in Falluja....?.
Did you miss the long delay before the Falljah operation. Civilians were given plenty of warning and time to evacuate the war-zone.
...and Abu Ghreib was that an exercise in humanitarianism and "liberation"
Those photos were discovered Jan.15, 2004. By Jan.17 the military was investigating the prison. By the time the media was plastering those photos all over television, the guilty soldiers were on their way to hearings and court martials. All of you who are so concerned with human rights should be applauding the Army's speed in their investigation and punishment.
...and this? http://electroniciraq.net/news/1701.shtml
This woman has great respect for the defending Mujahadeen. The same Mujahadeen that stored weapons in mosques, schools, and hospitals. The same Mujahadeen that used these mosques, schools, and hospitals as cover as they fired on Coalition soldiers. This woman's claims need to be taken with a grain of salt.
...and how do you account for all of this in Falluja? http://crisispictures.org/infocus/2005/05/fallujah-in-pictures.html
Civilian casualties are unfortunate and unavoidable in a war. Especially this war where the enemy brings the fight into civilian ares. Nobody tries harder to limit these deaths than the US miliitary.
Admittedly, there have been 18000-24000 civilian deaths since the invasion. I can assure you they were all unintentional. Compare this to the 12000 intentional civilian deaths on the hands of the terrorists.

If i was running europe i wouldnt piss around at that game

And what game would that be?

Nevermind! I'm tired and it was late when I posted this :p To bad your not running Europe. I think we would get along just great :)

Someone needs to read their history again. Hitler would have won if he hadn't continued negotiations. Misled he was, but unknowingly he gave us a chance.

Your telling a history major that I need to read history more? I'm talking about the "We at last know peace in our time" line. That was the dumbest statement ever. Then Hitler goes on his rampage of Europe. So much for peace in our time. That was the dumbest and stupidist things I've seen.

No, we'd just be girding ourselves for the fallout as Israel or the US start laying nuclear smackdown.

We would only do that if one is used on us first. I'm surprised Israel hasn't used any by now. Anyway, I think they will also show restraint till a nuke is dropped on their heads.

The idea that the Iranians feel threatened by us (the US, Israel, NATO...) is of course laughable. They must be the evil aggressors, not us.

I'm sure they are threatened by us but they are smart enough not to show it. It'll be bad politically if word got out that they are threatened by us.

*Hysterical laughter.* that's all the response this deserves. Even Corneliu criticizes this guy!

That's because he's an idiot! LOL

If you hold all life in high sanctity, that includes our soldiers and our citizens who live in a country that was attacked by terrorism. We are constantly told Bush didn't do enough to prevent 9-11 beforehand, yet people like you whine about preemptive action on Iraq. There is no pleasing you liberals, other than appeasing terrorists, getting rid of nukes, and embracing a big government nirvana. We could sit around a campfire started on an American flag, and sing John Lenin songs. World socialism and getting rid of America's sovereignity would please you liberals, but these are the great lengths we would have to go to. I would rather stick with what is working, and have liberals leave the country they loathe. Then, we would all be happy.

Jabba Huts. My advise to you is to stop. You've already humiliated yourself and your not scoring points. Not even with me and I'm on the Right. That should tell you something right there. :rolleyes:

You strike me as an extremely angry and bitter lunatic. Please tone down your call for bloodshed, its not even 9 PM.

Thank you Hrstrovokia. He's getting on my nerves and that's tough to do.

Would a nuclear war suffice?

If Iran or North Korea want to be dumb to start one, I'll be glad to move their leaders into that spot.

You know, Iran is on the way to completely reforming itself. More and more moderate people make decisions, there is more freedoms to go around for people, and even culturally there is lots going on.
Contrary to what many believe, Iran is very much unlike Afghanistan. The rulers in Iran are not a band of mercenaries and bullies like the Taliban were, they are a functioning government, allowing more democracy than in most of the US' allies in the war against "terror", and even Islam is not enforced as strongly as one might think. Women are becoming more and more emancipated and educated as well.
And their police drives Mercedes Benz.
I heard recently that people are starting to talk of themselves as Persians again rather than as Iranians. The language is occasionally being referred to as "Parsi" rather than Farsi.

Modernaisation requires a lot of energy. If they want to have nuclear power plants, then why not? There are things that can be done to avoid them building bombs.

Just for once, please credit the other side with a little rationality. What would Iran have to gain from nuking Israel? Or supporting terrorists when they attack the states? You always seem to assume others to be psychos who won't think before they act. Why?

You're thinking of Old Iran, I'm thinking of Iran more in terms of a new emancipating player on the world stage.

a war with iran would be just as daft and as illegal as the war with iraq. Does bush really want to throw the middle east into chaos? because that is what he is doing.

a war with iran would be just as daft and as illegal as the war with iraq. Does bush really want to throw the middle east into chaos? because that is what he is doing.

How would a war with Iran be illegal?

How would a war with Iran be illegal and how would a draft be illegal too?


whare does he mention drafts?

whare does he mention drafts?

It seems our dear friend has never heard of the word "daft".
Not very good for a global politics student, especially considering that English is my second language and I know... ;)

It seems our dear friend has never heard of the word "daft".
Not very good for a global politics student, especially considering that English is my second language and I know... ;)


oh DAFT...:lol: i though i had missed something...no..maybe i should translate?

I should expect a war with Iran, but I really hope Britain leave America to it. The global enforcement of democracy is basically what the middle east campaign is about - I discovered a quote I really liked relevant to the subject - Democracy is not worth a brass farthing if it is installed by bayonets. How can it be democracy that America is putting on when they effectively take over the country to create it? Plus I think before America wishes to make a democracy elsewhere they should get one themselves - Two parties just short of identical battle it out for election on the basis of how rich the candidate is - Great democracy! Blair needs to make sure that he does not waste more innocent lives on the 'liberation' of countries. BTW i love the way Russia start arms trading with Iran after Bush criticises Putins government! Those Russians make some pretty good decisions at times lol

No way will the US have a war with Iran. They are too chicken to invade any country where there is a chance they might lose more than a few thousand troops.

The only way that a war with Iran would happen is if they first weakened the country with 10 years of sanctions. Which would be a real tragedy for the people of Iran.

Um... the US has had sanctions on Iran for 25 years already. Only humanitarian trade (ie: for the victims of the earthquake that hit Bam).

whare does he mention drafts?

Bah! Thanks E Blackadder. Its still early yet. LOL

Bah! Thanks E Blackadder. Its still early yet. LOL

..you need cofee my freid..CAFINE!...its half past one here....i am going off to play video games soon...he he i got off school

..you need cofee my freid..CAFINE!...its half past one here....i am going off to play video games soon...he he i got off school

I had 2 cups already. Problem was that I woke up earlier than I normally do. I'm normally getting out of bed at this time and getting coffee. LOL.

Anyway, thanks. I thought I saw an r. OOPS!!!! :D

I had 2 cups already. Problem was that I woke up earlier than I normally do. I'm normally getting out of bed at this time and getting coffee. LOL.

Anyway, thanks. I thought I saw an r. OOPS!!!! :D

understandible...i didnt know americans used the word Daft anyway....i think i will write a US_English translation book....Trousers = Pants etc

First, tactical and strategic plans are drawn up all the time to deal with a miriad of possible scenarios. This is so we don't go into situations completely unprepared, if at all possible. As things change in the world, new plans get drawn up for various possible outcomes that are seen as reasonably probable.

All governments with significant militaries do this. All governemnts with intelligence operatives in the field gather information on other governments. Israel spies on the US for crying out loud!

This is all done to make sure that we are as prepared as possible for what comes down the road. It's all about playing the odds. Try to see the future coming and be as ready as you can.


Now, as to the question. If we go in simply to stop them from having nukes, I'd have mixed emotions. If we go in because of some direct threat to our security, I'm all for it. If we go in because it's a vital part of a sound strategic plan, then I could be for it...it depends on the plan.

The latter, BTW, is what I see Iraq as. Granted, that's not the war that was sold to the American public, but we went in to serve a strategic purpose. We put US troops on the ground in the center of the Middle East - on the borders of Iran and Syria and with a coastal outlet ot the Persian Gulf. It also put the world on notice that the US would take action without the constraints of world opinion. Lastly, and most importantly, it defined a front line in the war on terror....outside of the US.

How many terror strikes have occurred in the US since 9/11? Terrorist resources are facing armed troops rather than the American civilian population.

Iran would bury America. Period. It's a mountainous country with a population motivated by self-defense. Unlike in Iraq, the Iranian government has a lot of people's support (except students). And if the country were attacked for attempting to further its own interests, the US could enjoy the spite and anger of every Shiite country on the planet.

Is that what the US wants?

And if we're looking to take out nukes, why not go after North Korea with more force? Oh, that's right, the US already got spanked in that country. Better to find whimps to beat up on than take on people who can fight you.

When was the last time we invaded Grenada?

understandible...i didnt know americans used the word Daft anyway....i think i will write a US_English translation book....Trousers = Pants etc

Americans still say trousers too! :p

We maybe American but we do speak english! :D

Americans still say trousers too! :p

We maybe American but we do speak english! :D
:)
Oh yes you speak english...but its americanised..not that its a bad thing...it just may lead to confusion....my english teacher was in america taking an exam. She had forgotten Her Eraser. She puts her hand up and asks for an Eraser (except in brittain we call them india-rubbers. rubbers for short. So in american it sounded like she was asking for a comdom) ...see..its chaos! :eek:

Iran would bury America. Period. It's a mountainous country with a population motivated by self-defense. Unlike in Iraq, the Iranian government has a lot of people's support (except students). And if the country were attacked for attempting to further its own interests, the US could enjoy the spite and anger of every Shiite country on the planet.

Is that what the US wants?

And if we're looking to take out nukes, why not go after North Korea with more force? Oh, that's right, the US already got spanked in that country. Better to find whimps to beat up on than take on people who can fight you.

When was the last time we invaded Grenada?


America would lay waste to Iran. Not the other way around. The civilian population would rise up against the government. there is no love lost between the majority of civs and kronies running the gov.

Iran would bury America. Period. It's a mountainous country with a population motivated by self-defense. Unlike in Iraq, the Iranian government has a lot of people's support (except students). And if the country were attacked for attempting to further its own interests, the US could enjoy the spite and anger of every Shiite country on the planet.

Is that what the US wants?

And if we're looking to take out nukes, why not go after North Korea with more force? Oh, that's right, the US already got spanked in that country. Better to find whimps to beat up on than take on people who can fight you.

When was the last time we invaded Grenada?


Also want to point out about N Korea. We didnt get spanked there my friend. Was fought to a stalemate at the dmz. If we wanted to expand the war into China, which we didnt want to start WWIII. Then we could have really whipped some ass. N Korea today would end up killing most of the civilians within 50 miles of the DMZ if war broke out. Due to the mass of weapons on the border. It just makes sense in human death toll to try and work it out to a peaceful solution before doing any military action. Iran wouldnt have the death toll as a N Korea war would. Save the bloodiest for last is what i say.

Why is it that the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons but if another country develops them they are called WMD and the US can justify attacking them?

Iran would bury America. Period. It's a mountainous country with a population motivated by self-defense. Unlike in Iraq, the Iranian government has a lot of people's support (except students). And if the country were attacked for attempting to further its own interests, the US could enjoy the spite and anger of every Shiite country on the planet.

Gee, I remember Afghanistan was a MORE mountainous country with a population motivated by self-defense, and with 20 years of fighting experience. As I recall, we kicked their asses in very short order - something another major nation, the USSR, was never able to do.

And if we're looking to take out nukes, why not go after North Korea with more force? Oh, that's right, the US already got spanked in that country. Better to find whimps to beat up on than take on people who can fight you.

It wasn't North Korea doing the fighting in that war - it was the whole Chinese army of the time. And they didn't spank anyone - the war was a stalemate. We had already kicked the whole North Korean army out of all of Korea before the Chinese came in and fought. And that was in the early 1950s, when technology was closely matched. It isn't closely matched anymore.

There isn't, in any real practical sense, any nation on earth today that could survive an all-out conventional attack by the United States. We might not be able to continue to occupy a country, but we could certainly destroy its government, all of its industrial infrastructure, ruin its agricultural production, and kill anyone who tried to stop us.

Right now, we have a better kill ratio against die-hard Islamic insurgents than any armed force on Earth. The previous record was held by the Israelis, who managed to kill 1 insurgent (Hezbollah) for every 10 Israelis.

In the close-in fighting in Fallujah, in house-to-house encounters, we killed 28 insurgents for every 1 American.

Sure you want to roll those dice?

...

There isn't, in any real practical sense, any nation on earth today that could survive an all-out conventional attack by the United States. We might not be able to continue to occupy a country, but we could certainly destroy its government, all of its industrial infrastructure, ruin its agricultural production, and kill anyone who tried to stop us.

...
However, the US will be running risks of WMD attack upon the Mainland. If the risk is too great... will America take it?

Gee, I remember Afghanistan was a MORE mountainous country with a population motivated by self-defense, and with 20 years of fighting experience. As I recall, we kicked their asses in very short order - something another major nation, the USSR, was never able to do.

And look at tem now, the warlords have taken over as the US wandered off. I know there are US soldiers there still but Afghan drug production is on the up now the Taliban who the people had no love for have gone.

However, the US will be running risks of WMD attack upon the Mainland. If the risk is too great... will America take it?

It depends on who the enemy is.

I think the current policy is going to lead to war, but it is not the fault of the US.

The leaders in Iran have announced for years that the only reason they are developing ICBMs and nuclear weapons is to destroy Israel.

I believe that as soon as they have this capability, they will use it.

Right now, they are talking with the Europeans to stall for time.

The Europeans are talking with the Iranians, willing to promise them money, and virtually anything, to get them to stop.

The US is waiting patiently to see what the outcome will be. Either Iran makes a deal with the Europeans (and the European idea works) - they give up on the idea of destroying the Jews and building nuclear weapons

or they continue on, and eventually nuke Israel.

At that point, the United States steps in. And cleans up. In such a case, I do not believe that Iran will have the ability to put any WMD on the US mainland, and no nation will say the US is wrong to nuke Iran at that point.

Nuking is also easier, because we won't have to occupy the country, and be subjected to insurgents. A single properly tailored nuclear burst that generates the right kind of fallout could completely depopulate Iran in less than a month.

Gee, I remember Afghanistan was a MORE mountainous country with a population motivated by self-defense, and with 20 years of fighting experience. As I recall, we kicked their asses in very short order - something another major nation, the USSR, was never able to do.



Let's try to use some small semblance of accuracy here shall we? Just this once?


Afghanistan was already under foreign occupation - the Taliban - when we went in, and we did so with the aid of the Afghani warlords - not their opposition.

Which is to say that the general population of Afghanistan was NOT motivated by self defense at all, because the general population of Afghanistan was anti-taliban.

But, of course, even in a country that DID want stability and help the opportunites to make a real impression went right down the shitter as it took almost two years even to begin the most pressing infrastucture work such as the Kabul-Kandahar highway etc. The promised billions of Aid were reduced to a trickle and instead diverted to the bigger PR nightmare a country away. Afghanistan COULD have been the real showcase of helping Muslims acheive a full, functioning, independant deocratic government to put "freedom on the march", but they got dropped in the gutter like a $2 whore as the men, material, and money headed off for Baghdad.

So now we have the elected President of KAbul surrounded by autonomous warlords who are right back to selling opium to americans to feed their power base,

We have outbreaks of cholera in the country because the required power and sanitation works were never seriously addressed.

We have increasing re-penetration by the Taliban who are taking advantage of the power vacuum in the country, requireing recent discussions of the need to increase troop deployments to quell what could have been eliminated in the first year.


Indeed, what we have is the recipe for another abject failure of foreign policy implementation leading to the continued suffering of the Afghani people who were raring to get on with building a better country and better lives for themselves when we went in.


And, as mentioned, they were a people who mostly WERE ON OUR SIDE. Not "motivated by self defense" as you falsely claimed.

And look at tem now, the warlords have taken over as the US wandered off. I know there are US soldiers there still but Afghan drug production is on the up now the Taliban who the people had no love for have gone.

Don't we still have 20,000 people in Afghanistan? I don't call that wondering off.

How much attention is paid to Afghanistan?

How much has it now been acting to the detriment of the US? A lot. How successful are he US in stopping it? Not very.

How much attention is paid to Afghanistan?

How much has it now been acting to the detriment of the US? A lot. How successful are he US in stopping it? Not very.

Proof of this statement please?

Recent Afghanistan Stories:

Afghani troops deserting army (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4078118.stm)

Why?

Soldiers are paid around $75 a month - a good wage in Afghanistan - but the absence of a banking system prevents them from sending money to their families

For fuck's sake, it's been almost four years. And no-one can set up a rudimmentary banking system sufficient to handle this? You expect people to fight and die for a cheque that they can't even cash?

NO COUNTRY WILL EVER SURVIVE WITHOUT A PROPER FINANCIAL SYSTEM AS A FUNDAMENTAL UNDERPINING OF THE COUNTRY!


The Plague in KAbul (http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/world/11883697.htm)

So, still no safe water supply there either....


And aparently, more troops are needed to "RE-ESTABLISH ORDER" (http://ickent.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15626263&method=full&siteid=50102&headline=more-uk-troops-set-for-afghanistan-name_page.html)


Re-establish order?

That implies that we have lost ground in Afghanistan, which is not a good thing is it?

You only quoted on primary news source. Tell me why I should believe the BBC?

BTW: Your last article is talking about......BRITISH troops :rolleyes:

Article Number 2 talks about a health epidemic. Something we're working to stop now. :rolleyes:

And your number 1 article deals with something that really isn't the US's responsibility but that of the Afghani Government. You really need to pick your articles better.

A single properly tailored nuclear burst that generates the right kind of fallout could completely depopulate Iran in less than a month.
Pakistan may be a wee bit upset by this kind of thinking! They're downwind, ya know!

Pakistan may be a wee bit upset by this kind of thinking! They're downwind, ya know!

You need a decent weather report, a Mark 12A warhead with variable yield (so you can vary the size of the burst).

Set it for airburst, and make sure the fallout is something with a short half-life (say 28 to 30 days).

You can set it off at one edge of the country and there won't be anything worth mentioning when it reaches the opposite border.

Meanwhile, everyone in Iran is getting 6000 rads/hour - internally.

And not a building would be scratched, as the detonation would take place too high up to hurt anyone with blast or heat.

You only quoted on primary news source. Tell me why I should believe the BBC?

Why shuld we believe Fox? In fact, why believe anything at all?

Also, re-read the third article. The US are making a plan to 're-establish order'. The UK troops are incidental to the point. The US is planning a campaign to re-establish order.

This is 3 years down the line from when we declared victory there. Not worrisome at all?

Why shuld we believe Fox? In fact, why believe anything at all?

I don't always believe Fox! I love how people characterize that I do. Yes I watch it. I won't deny that I do. However, I don't believe everything they say either.

As for your second question. That is a very good question.

Why shuld we believe Fox? In fact, why believe anything at all?

Even better - we can unbelieve ourselves out of existence.

I don't always believe Fox! I love how people characterize that I do. Yes I watch it. I won't deny that I do. However, I don't believe everything they say either.

As for your second question. That is a very good question.

And I'm categorized as believing the Guardian (actually, if they knew anything about Uk papers they'd say the Independent). Also, I wasn't aiming Fox as a specific thing, it's just a target of opportunit with a specific name.

Even better - we can unbelieve ourselves out of existence.


So we could. I just have to work with what I'm given.

And I'm categorized as believing the Guardian (actually, if they knew anything about Uk papers they'd say the Independent). Also, I wasn't aiming Fox as a specific thing, it's just a target of opportunit with a specific name.

HEHE! Seems we both have the same problem then :p

Also, re-read the third article. The US are making a plan to 're-establish order'. The UK troops are incidental to the point. The US is planning a campaign to re-establish order.

This is 3 years down the line from when we declared victory there. Not worrisome at all?

I re-posted this as no-ne dealt with it last time desite it being the centre of my argument. probably because I edited it in and this forum is crazily fast.

You only quoted on primary news source. Tell me why I should believe the BBC?

BTW: Your last article is talking about......BRITISH troops :rolleyes:

Article Number 2 talks about a health epidemic. Something we're working to stop now. :rolleyes:

And your number 1 article deals with something that really isn't the US's responsibility but that of the Afghani Government. You really need to pick your articles better.


Excuse the fuck out of me, but it's more than I've ever seen your cite as support for any of your flights of fancy. You ask for sources all the time, denigrate everything ever offered, and never provide diddly of your own to back up your point of view. It's pretty fucking easy to debate with that sort of slanted playing field.


And are you suggesting that if it ain't American troops that are being deployed that they aren't really needed?

Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, that others are picking up the slack because your either a) you own army is overextended, missing recruitement targets, and facing significant shortfals so the help is needed, or b) because maybe the original premise is correct - that the US is unwilling to do what is needed in Afghanistan - which is to say that you HAVE abandoned them to some extent.

Anyway you slice it, the fact that this is an increased deploment under NATO auspices TO MEET A NEED is indicitive that the need truly exists - regardless of which uniforms the deployed troops wear.

OR would you care to clarify your criticism of this issue in a way that actually makes some fucking sense?

You can set it off at one edge of the country and there won't be anything worth mentioning when it reaches the opposite border.
First, the "edge of the country" would either be a border with another country like Iraq, Turkey, Armenia or Azerbaijan (I assume Trkmenistan, Afgahnistan and Pakistan are the nations that would be safe from the fallout pattern you describe) or the coast of the Persian Gulf. Either way, I think anyone in that area might be somewhat upset if nuclear weapons are going off!


Second, you miss one of the most problematic aspects of nuclear warfare - escalation. If we start using nuclear weapons, even in strikes such as you describe, then other nations will see no reason not to use them. If Iran nukes Israel and the US response is nuclear as well, then you'll see nukes used by any Schmo who has them. If the US response is an overwhelming conventional dismantling of Iran, then the world knows that using nukes will not achieve them anything positive and will only serve to destroy themselves.

Nukes will only (and should only) be used by the US in self defense from a directly opposing nuclear threat. This will only occur when someone either uses them against us or someone close to the US mainland gets them.

Also, re-read the third article. The US are making a plan to 're-establish order'. The UK troops are incidental to the point. The US is planning a campaign to re-establish order.

I know what the article said but it was talking about British troop deployments. The US will use what forces we have there because I haven't heard anything about increasing the number of troops going to Afghanistan.

This is 3 years down the line from when we declared victory there. Not worrisome at all?

Nope. I'm not worried at all.

I re-posted this as no-ne dealt with it last time desite it being the centre of my argument. probably because I edited it in and this forum is crazily fast.

Yea it is crazily fast. By the way, is that desPite? :p Anyway.... I don't think there will be a war with Iran personally. I think it'll collapse from within first but if there is a war, we can blame Europe because they are charged with negotiations. When negotiations fail, you place the blame on those negotiating. In this case, that'll fall on Europe's shoulders. I am hoping they succeed but knowing the history of Europe, I'm skeptical.

Nukes will only (and should only) be used by the US in self defense from a directly opposing nuclear threat. This will only occur when someone either uses them against us or someone close to the US mainland gets them.

I guess that's why since the early 1980s (and accelerating now), the US has been desigining precision weapons that will carry very small nuclear weapons.

Some earth penetrating designs. And some fallout enhanced designs - designed to produce intense, short-duration local fallout with no long term contamination.

The Pentagon is pursing a policy of making a "practical" nuclear weapon.

These aren't your daddy's nukes...

Also, fallout has 2 things against it.

1) it takes time. if the nukes are at the other end of the country, well, you're in trouble.

2) one change of the wind and it's everywhere. Chernobil radiation got as far as Wales, imagine a strong wind blowing the fallout into Turkmenistan or south towards Saudi Arabia.

Also, fallout has 2 things against it.

1) it takes time. if the nukes are at the other end of the country, well, you're in trouble.

2) one change of the wind and it's everywhere. Chernobil radiation got as far as Wales, imagine a strong wind blowing the fallout into Turkmenistan or south towards Saudi Arabia.

The tailored fallout weapons are designed with a specific kind of fallout to be generated. It isn't the traditional "make this a ground burst and send hot dirt in the air".

They even have an ability to adjust the exact amount produced, so that the range is specifically and accurately limited.

It's not a counterforce weapon - it's intended to kill every living thing in the area.

The fallout is also selected for maximum biological uptake - it's an element that your body desperately wants to take in - and retain.

In an area with 6000 rads/hr exposure, you would take a lethal does in a couple of minutes. By the time ten minutes went by, no one in the area would be able to stand up. And before the hour was up, most people would be dead.

At that level, even the cockroaches would die.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1579.shtml

War with Iran is increasingly likely. What do you think? Will there be a war with Iran?
Let's hope so.

The US will find it difficult to invade Iran, because most of its military resources are tied up in Iraq. A division of forces would lead to a defeat in detail, in both countries.

Needless to say, there is not one country in Europe, New and Old, which would commit forces to such an operation. Invading Iran is not in Europe's interest.

But I suppose the Americans are free to try if they are willing to pay the full cost and take all the casulaties.
Oh come on. Blair for one would be exaulted at yet another opportunity to follow the US crawling on his knees. For the rest of the continent. Well, hard to say realy.

[QUOTE=Leonstein]You know, Iran is on the way to completely reforming itself. More and more moderate people make decisions, there is more freedoms to go around for people, and even culturally there is lots going on.


Leonstein is right, Iran is reforming and any notion that the US will attack Iran is b******t. I'm a Zimbabwean and we have more reason to want Iran invaded than the British or Americans because the clerics are selling arms, oil and intelligence equipment to our really evil dictator and his thugs who destroy our homes and steal our elections. That doesn't mean that the US (and it would only be them) invading would serve any purpose what so ever. Like Iraq it would be counter productive and we all would see that it is a thinly veiled attempt at securing oil for an overly bloated ecconomy. If the Americans invaded they would loose, worse than Veitnam, worse than the invasion in 1812, because it would really set America on a war path with the whole world. Also one small point, the hatred of France is really getting old, their standing up to the US is quite a brave thing, because it takes an aulful amount of courage to tell an allie he/she is wrong. Militarily the French have been where America is now and that ended in Algeria, so Americans should listen to their older, wiser counterparts. If the Americans want a war that is relatively bloodless, where the people come out on to the streets and great them as libarators, and where the lack of oil doesn't make them look like two bit JR Ewin wanabees just look at the country last alphabetically, we could do with the help.