NationStates Jolt Archive

Well this little tid bit is from Scott Ritter writing for Aljazeera. I know these two names to me mean enemy. But its always wise to watch what your "enemies" are doing. This time they are writing about US activities around Iran. I actually believe this story to be mostly true. However its delivered by two very shady characters. Anyone else agree that we are getting ready for hostilities with Iran? I actually welcome it. But this time I wont be over there to fight in it. So what do you guys think. Think this is a telltale sign of upcoming military action? I think they are preparing for a quick strike on Tehran as this article suggests. Maybe a small operation joined up with anti-government militias with AF flying cover as in Afghanistan?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7896BBD4-28AB-48BA-A949-2096A02F864D.htm

I don't know if they attack (although I hope they do), but small and quick operation is even not an option.
the irani nuclear program is wholeover the countrey, and the irani terror will strike them if they try to do it small. in addition, iran are the ones who had to be striken hard at the first place. the iraq's war was tottaly wrong.

I seriously doubt this president would engage in another war. It would be suicide, and there would be no way to manage it. Maybe down the road, but only after the unpopular aftertaste of the Iraq war wears off.

I would much prefer to take out North Korea. It would eliminate a much more dangerous regime and flex our muscles in front of the Chinese.

Well, the president doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected anymore, so even if it would be unpopular it wouldn't matter. But in all reasoning I do not think we would mess with Iran inless they do something major to get our attention. Bush will more then likely focus on the places we are in already and not worry to much about the small things.

I wonder if anyone remembers the story of the greedy dog and the bone?

I wonder if anyone remembers the story of the greedy dog and the bone?

Actually no. What happened.

Or, we could stop worrying about other countries, and focus on america. Hmm, what a strange idea.

Or, we could stop worrying about other countries, and focus on america. Hmm, what a strange idea.

Sigh...

...we ARE worrying about America. We don't invade or go to war for the fun of it. Every nation, in order to preserve its interests has flexed its military muscle once in a while. There are many geopolitical and strategic reasons for going into Iraq and possibly Iran, just as there are legitimate reasons to go into North korea.

I wonder if anyone remembers the story of the greedy dog and the bone?
The bone built the dog a spaceship and sent him to Sirius?

Another war whould not only have a negative impact on the US people, but the military in general. I highly doubt Bush is stupid enough to risk this much so soon.

I don't know if they attack (although I hope they do), but small and quick operation is even not an option.
the irani nuclear program is wholeover the countrey, and the irani terror will strike them if they try to do it small. in addition, iran are the ones who had to be striken hard at the first place. the iraq's war was tottaly wrong.

Sweet mercy! How many colonies do you want the US to have in the middle east? We're having enough trouble with Iraq, Afganistan, and all our various and sundry Allies over there! What, do you think the US is made of money? We can't afford 3 wars at once.

Actually no. What happened.

*Sigh* Whatever happened to childrens classics?

To put it simply, the story follows this basic premise. A dog in the market one day finds a discarded bone. Taking, it runs off to enjoy it. However, when crossing a bridge, it see's its reflection in the stream, plus bone. Thinking that it is another dog with a bone (that appears bigger due to the reflection), it jumps at the other "dog", attempting to liberate the other bone from its canine oppressor. Unfortunately, in doing so, it drops its own bone into the stream and thereby loses it.

And that is the story in a nutshell. Apply to this case as neccessary.

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/bushuncensored.wmv


Just my .02 cents.

Sweet mercy! How many colonies do you want the US to have in the middle east? We're having enough trouble with Iraq, Afganistan, and all our various and sundry Allies over there! What, do you think the US is made of money? We can't afford 3 wars at once.

We have allies in the middle east? I rather thought the lack of decent allies was the point of the Iraq excercise.

Bush couldn't help it that saddam made iraq look like a bigger aggresser.. all saddam had to do is not tell the world that he had WMDs when he didn't and we wouldn't be in this mess...

-=points the finger=- he started it!

Bush couldn't help it that saddam made iraq look like a bigger aggresser.. all saddam had to do is not tell the world that he had WMDs when he didn't and we wouldn't be in this mess...

-=points the finger=- he started it!

Nah, Iraq was going to get it in the ass anyway. If it hadn't been WMDs it would have been something else.

If anyone is at fault it is Saudi Arabia.

We have allies in the middle east? I rather thought the lack of decent allies was the point of the Iraq excercise.

Well, Qutar, Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia (kinda sorta used to be one), UAE, etc. Nobody much talks about most of 'em, because they're tiny and frequently only allies because the people don't have much say in the matter. And yeah, I never said DECENT allies, just allies. People we are vaguely friendly with that we give money to.

Sigh...

...we ARE worrying about America. We don't invade or go to war for the fun of it. Every nation, in order to preserve its interests has flexed its military muscle once in a while. There are many geopolitical and strategic reasons for going into Iraq and possibly Iran, just as there are legitimate reasons to go into North korea.

Oh really? First, lets look at given reasons for iraq.

1. Weapons of mass destruction: Ever since the first accusations, plenty of people refused to believe any were there. Yet this was made the primary reason. After the US pre-emptive strike, none were found. No plans to attack america were found.

2. Terrorism: No substantial links to terrorism have been found.

3. Humanitarian efforts: Refer to my original message

4. Oil: Bush vehemently denies this.

5. Support of Israel: Bush denies this, and even if true, refer to my first comment.

So, unless I missed any biggies, it seems like Bush doesnt have a good track record of keeping the US safe. Those troops, and that money, would be of more help at home than in the middle east.

As for iran, there is no nuclear capability that can hit america, none that we know about that they have. Iran can only hurt us through terrorism, and our troops will be less effective in Iran, than at home. Our troops at home can protect our borders, and provide manpower to search for links to terrorism, etc. Instead of spending more money on a new war, spend money on homeland security. Its more of a guaranteed thing, and given bush's record, he seems to have a low chance of getting his targets right.

As for North Korea, the last thing we want to do is to provoke them into firing a nuclear missile at us. Kim is a powerhungry dictator, not an idiot. He knows the minute a missile is fired, his rule is numbered in days or hours, depending on US response.

Well, Qutar, Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia (kinda sorta used to be one), UAE, etc. Nobody much talks about most of 'em, because they're tiny and frequently only allies because the people don't have much say in the matter. And yeah, I never said DECENT allies, just allies. People we are vaguely friendly with that we give money to.

Well yeah, I am aware of the little ones. (And I discount Pakistan because really it is more concerned with India, and Isreal because it is never going to help relations with the rest of the arab world - at least not in the foreseeable future). And allies like kuwait and oman, although very friendly to the west are just too small to effect our standing with the rest

The way I look at it, out of the big regional powers there, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria (Egypt -ish), the only real ally we had in terms of exercising pro-western influence on the rest of the region was S. Arabia. And it has become just too unreliable and fundamentally anti west of late. (Despite its official position). Obviously, because of the strategic importance of the region, being without at least one truly friendly regime in the region is not an option, so there was a definite need to create a new "friend". From a practical standpoint, Iraq was by far the best canidate for regime change. Thus I suspect the entire rational behind the whole Iraq situation was to create a new pro-western state in the middle east.

It's really not a terrible idea.

Well, Qutar, Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia (kinda sorta used to be one), UAE, etc. Nobody much talks about most of 'em, because they're tiny and frequently only allies because the people don't have much say in the matter. And yeah, I never said DECENT allies, just allies. People we are vaguely friendly with that we give money to.

Well yeah, I am aware of the little ones. (And I discount Pakistan because really it is more concerned with India, and Isreal because it is never going to help relations with the rest of the arab world - at least not in the foreseeable future). And allies like kuwait and oman, although very friendly to the west are just too small to effect our standing with the rest

The way I look at it, out of the big regional powers there, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria (Egypt -ish), the only real ally we had in terms of exercising pro-western influence on the rest of the region was S. Arabia. And it has become just too unreliable and fundamentally anti west of late. (Despite its official position). Obviously, because of the strategic importance of the region, being without at least one truly friendly regime in the region is not an option, so there was a definite need to create a new "friend". From a practical standpoint, Iraq was by far the best canidate for regime change. Thus I suspect the entire rational behind the whole Iraq situation was to create a new pro-western state in the middle east.

It's really not a terrible idea.

The joys of national self-determination...

Sigh...

...we ARE worrying about America. We don't invade or go to war for the fun of it. Every nation, in order to preserve its interests has flexed its military muscle once in a while. There are many geopolitical and strategic reasons for going into Iraq and possibly Iran, just as there are legitimate reasons to go into North korea.

Too bad all those people have to die in order for the American military to uh, flex its' muscles in order to preserve America's interests.

And what a wonderful catch-phrase. "America's interests". What exactly is America's overriding interest these days? Preservation of capital.

Wow.

So tens of thousands of humans have had their lives viciously ended in order for Americans to feel better about their bottom line.

Hallelujahgobble.

From a practical standpoint, Iraq was by far the best canidate for regime change. Thus I suspect the entire rational behind the whole Iraq situation was to create a new pro-western state in the middle east.

It's really not a terrible idea.

On the surface, its not a bad idea at all.

It had other benifits as well of course, including some that were longstanding problems, and some more recent developments. However I think the very recent "War on Terror" and the "New, Friendly Government" policies have intermixed a bit too much for anyone's liking.

I think attacking Iran would be one of the most miscalculated and brash things we could do in the immediate future. They have a much better established government than Iraq had, an organized Theocracy rather than a poorly wielded secular dictatorship that didn't even handle the whole country well (case in point, the Kurds). The war wouldn't be as easy, and Iraq hasn't been easy as it is.

And with Iran's possible nuclear program they could attack like this: :gundge: (Although I take it that's biosludge from Unreal. Damn I miss that game).

Oh really? First, lets look at given reasons for iraq.

1. Weapons of mass destruction: Ever since the first accusations, plenty of people refused to believe any were there. Yet this was made the primary reason. After the US pre-emptive strike, none were found. No plans to attack america were found.
Wrong. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs before the war. France Germany, and Russia wanted to allow inspectors more time to find those weapons. It wasn't until after the invasion that we've all learned there were no WMDs.


2. Terrorism: No substantial links to terrorism have been found.
Once again, wrong. There were no links to 9/11, but Saddam did have links to terrorism. His payments to Palestinian suicide bombers and the aid and comfort to Al Zarqawi after the Afghan invasion come to mind.

our troops will be less effective in Iran, than at home. Our troops at home can protect our borders, and provide manpower to search for links to terrorism, etc.
The United States has millions of terrorist targets. There's no way we could protect them all. Only by drawing the terrorists out can we kill them, and Iraq if performing that act beautifully.

Wrong. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs before the war. France Germany, and Russia wanted to allow inspectors more time to find those weapons. It wasn't until after the invasion that we've all learned there were no WMDs.
In other words, wait until actual proof exists and accomodate for the case that there are no weapons.
But yes, Germany, Russia and France also thought he had them, they just didn't think they were worth going to war for.


Only by drawing the terrorists out can we kill them, and Iraq if performing that act beautifully.
You are assuming that there is a limited set of "terrorists" that can either be in Iraq or somewhere else. That is obviously not the case. Of course there is only so many people trained in the camps, but all of Iraq really just needs a small clique (ie Zarqawi), the rest are dimwitted fools, disillusioned by the way things are going and then drawn in.
Whether or not you create such disillusioned people in a country is irrelevant as to how many actual trained Al Qaeda operatives do things.

We have allies in the middle east? I rather thought the lack of decent allies was the point of the Iraq excercise.

Well then it was a complete failure. If you had many allies before Iraq, you have less now. Look at how many countries refused to go. Look at how many countries went and have since pulled out.

If the US ever does go into Iran people would be complaing that Bush did it yet again for oil... Which Iran does have plenty of oil, but I mean come on, there are other reasons not for it to be oil. Also I wanted to use that as a stepping stone to say that if the US went into Iraq just for oil (which some claim... still), that would be so stupid of the US and such a waste of money. First, you can check how much the US spent on imported oil in 2003 ($100 Billion)... Second, look at the cost of Iraq ($178,491,189,451 - 3:52AM Central Time - 06-23-05). And now make the assumption we could have just spent the cost of the Iraq war on plenty of oil instead of risking lives as well.

Sources: http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/pdf/ORNL_TM2005_45.pdf
http://www.costofwar.com

If the US ever does go into Iran people would be complaing that Bush did it yet again for oil... Which Iran does have plenty of oil, but I mean come on, there are other reasons not for it to be oil.
I don't know what his reasons for iraq was, but in iran it will be much easier to found reasons in addition to oil.
they are radical islamic dictatorships. they had wide connections with the global and midlle-eastern terror (training and financical support+ defence and supply to the iraqi terror). they geting closer to neuclear ability (adding that to the terrorist support, and you will get much bigger problem than the treat on israel). they (with sirya) endangre the stbility in the middle east: supporting the Hizbulla and the Hamas that in many cases endangre the interests of lebanon and palastine (and endangre israeli civilians lives by the way).

I think the reasons would be the most easier part at that war.

Well this little tid bit is from Scott Ritter writing for Aljazeera. I know these two names to me mean enemy. But its always wise to watch what your "enemies" are doing. This time they are writing about US activities around Iran. I actually believe this story to be mostly true. However its delivered by two very shady characters. Anyone else agree that we are getting ready for hostilities with Iran? I actually welcome it. But this time I wont be over there to fight in it. So what do you guys think. Think this is a telltale sign of upcoming military action? I think they are preparing for a quick strike on Tehran as this article suggests. Maybe a small operation joined up with anti-government militias with AF flying cover as in Afghanistan?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7896BBD4-28AB-48BA-A949-2096A02F864D.htm

In America's interests in The Middle East, this is really not a good idea.

In Iraq, a Shia dominated government is in place, and the Shia Militia led by AlSadr have been quietened.

Invade or attack Iran, and you will have Shias and Sunnis against you in Iraq.

Al-Qaeda hate Iran, because Iran is Shia muslim, which Al-Qaeda see as a perversion of the muslim faith.

In the 90's, Iran lined thousands of troops on the Afghan border because a number of Iranian journalists were killed and wounded in Afghanistan by either Taleban or Al-Qaeda elements.

I would much prefer to take out North Korea. It would eliminate a much more dangerous regime and flex our muscles in front of the Chinese.

...and then, if you're really unlucky, China may get just a little upset at this, and flex their muscles in front of the Americans.

Then the shit really will hit the fan.

Honestly, I couldn't have cared less about Iraq's wmds, Saddam deserved to be ousted, and no other country had the balls to do it. If I was bush, I just would have said "hey guys, this prick is oppressing people and whatnot, so I want to go in there and change the government, you know, sorta like how we gave ourselves independence", but since this is a two-party system, the party not in power will always do whatever it can to make the party in power look bad, hence all that oil crap. As for allies in the middle east, we have none. There are countries that say they are our allies, but when push comes to shove, they're all hiding terrorists and cheering whenever an innocent American is kidnapped and beheaded. Iran's country is very authoritarian as well, and I wonder who here says the iranian people aren't oppressed...especially women.

Be against war with Iran because we can't afford another war. Be against war with Iran because it would make American soldiers die for the benefit of people who hated us before and will hate us after we liberate them. Be against war with Iran because we're not yet in a position to manage it well. But don't say we Iran shouldn't be invaded out of a moral obligation, especially if you're one of those liberals who tells themself they value human rights and liberties.

It's basically the same situation with North Korea. We're spider man, and Uncle Ben told us that with power comes responsibility. We have the power to destroy the entire world, not to mention one of the countries on it, so we also have the responsibility to be the hero to the many peoples who are oppressed.

EDIT: By "had the balls to do it" I meant "had the balls to lead the initiative". The US greatly appreciates the countries that followed us into war, and sorta appreciates the frances that later said they would support the effort to save face.

Sigh...

...we ARE worrying about America. We don't invade or go to war for the fun of it.


I'm sure that some people get great fun out of using boy's toys....it's like a big toy shop for some.


Every nation, in order to preserve its interests has flexed its military muscle once in a while.


And every nation that claims to do this, while flexing it's muscles, have ended in downfall eventually. It's called crossing a bridge too far, a war too many.

Napoleon, Hitler when he invaded The Soviet Union, France in Algeria, The British facing The American Revolution, The US in Vietnam.

Some get off with a bloody nose and wounds to lick. The more unfortunate, are completely destroyed.


There are many geopolitical and strategic reasons for going into Iraq and possibly Iran


For a nation with Imperial ambitions.


just as there are legitimate reasons to go into North korea.

Legitimate reasons being?

As for allies in the middle east, we have none. There are countries that say they are our allies, but when push comes to shove, they're all hiding terrorists and cheering whenever an innocent American is kidnapped and beheaded. well, there is 3 options: either you deny that Israel is ally of USA or you deny that Israel is in the middle east or you say that Israel is hiding terrorists and cheers when innocent american is kidnapped.
anyway, you wrong.

btw, if I didn't understand you well and you talked only about the islamic nations, it maybe true (although I still think that turkey is different case, and some see them as middle-eastern country).

Ahh I stand corrected. Israel might not be our best friends, but they're not our enemies. Thanks for pointing that out.

Ahh I stand corrected. Israel might not be our best friends, but they're not our enemies. Thanks for pointing that out.
no problem.

Iran's country is very authoritarian as well, and I wonder who here says the iranian people aren't oppressed...especially women.


Iranian women are treated better than woman in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

This is because they are Shia, which is more liberal in comparison with say, The Taleban, or Saudi Arabia.

Whilst they do wear scarves that cover their heads, and garments that cover their body, they have more freedom, having good jobs and oppurtunities.

Iran is getting better, it's not perfect but it's getting there.

For example, there's an female Iranian rally driver who constantly beats the male drivers.

Iran has a good, independent film industry as well.

Al-Qaeda hate Iran because Iran is not strict enough as well as being Shia, which Al-Qaeda see as a treachery of Islam or something along those lines.

Also worthy of note is that Iranians are Persians not Arabs, and I'm pointing this out because recently, the Arab population have been protesting for more rights, and have been blamed for a spate of bombing attacks in Iran.

If the US ever does go into Iran people would be complaing that Bush did it yet again for oil... Which Iran does have plenty of oil, but I mean come on, there are other reasons not for it to be oil. Also I wanted to use that as a stepping stone to say that if the US went into Iraq just for oil (which some claim... still), that would be so stupid of the US and such a waste of money. First, you can check how much the US spent on imported oil in 2003 ($100 Billion)... Second, look at the cost of Iraq ($178,491,189,451 - 3:52AM Central Time - 06-23-05). And now make the assumption we could have just spent the cost of the Iraq war on plenty of oil instead of risking lives as well.

Sources: http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/pdf/ORNL_TM2005_45.pdf
http://www.costofwar.com
Um... let's see who would have gotten the money if we'd paid for oil... Opec and other oil exporting countries. Who got the money spent on the war? US (and coalition) companies. The invasion has also created an increased demand for soldiers, ie it has been creating jobs and giving American firms money, and it would have been exclusively US and Coalition companies if Bush had managed to pull that off, potentially with internationally gathered funds.
For the oil? Not in the short run. After the dust has settled and the OPEC will start to run low on reserves, there'll be a US friendly state with the second largest confirmed reserves built up and ready.
But economic reasons certainly factor big in the equation.

they are radical islamic dictatorships.*Points at regular elections in Iran, women's suffrage, a rather active and mildly sucecssful opposition to the Mullahs (Who stand outside the democratic system, with their influence diminishing, slowly)*

Iran's significantly less of a dictatorship than, uh, all other middle east nations except possibly Israel.

Iran's country is very authoritarian as well, and I wonder who here says the iranian people aren't oppressed...especially women.Well, Iran does have women's suffrage (As mentioned above), the elections from a few years back resulted in 1/3 of the parliament consisting of... Females, they have several female ministers... Yes, in a sheer sociological sense, they're not even remotely as free as in the west, but on a regional scale, Iran's pretty liberal.

Lets compare this to the US' ally Saudi Arabia, and... Yeah.

Oh, and of course, 'Authoritarian' is possibly the wrong term... There is a domestic conflict in Iran, between more liberal (I wont say secular, though) and the more conservative groups... A conflict the conservatives are losing.

Now, what would happen if Iran was invaded? Righto, the conservatives could go all the way 'We were right!' and regain lost power. Admittedly, in the underground, but that's bad enough.

Essentially, invading Iran (Heck, even threatening it) endangers the (Slow, but present) process of change in, well, essentially the most promising society in the entire middle east.

Of course, I do believe that Iran's pushing a nuclear program (They would be incredibly stupid if they didn't). I do know that Iran possessing nuclear capacities would be a not-at-all insignificant problem for US dominance in the region. Thus, removing this risk DOES make sense from a I-want-to-be-the-biggest-guy-in-here point of view.

But claiming that it would spread democracy or liberate Iran is an outright lie.

Yeah, I remember learning a while ago that Iran is persian. Since you seem to know a bit about the Iranian people, let me ask you:

1) Do you believe whatever oppressions can and will be changed under the current government?

2) The last time I read about Iran, they have a twelve man religious council that can overrule any decision made by the government. This council has often been considered the true government. I do not know if the leader of this council is called an Ayatolah (sp?), but in Parade magazine's recent list of the worst dictators, said leader was high on the list. Do you believe the removal of this council would benefit the Iranian people?

3) You mentioned how more strict Islamic nations don't like Iran because of its comparatively liberal practice. In the event of a conflict, would Iran be more likely to ally with the US, or these nations?

4) In follow-up to 3, and keeping in mind that the article at the start of this thread comes from Al-J, do you believe this article is intended to cause trouble between these three parties, either to make Iran ally with these countries to go against the US, or make Iran state a non-hostile stance toward the US to make Al-J viewers rally against Iran, or some other reason?

5) If you think the answer to 2 would benefit Iranian people, do you feel that the US presence in Iran to accomplish said task would help Iranian people get democracy and a "better" government, or would it make Iranian people rally against the US forces?

6) Is there anything else you would like to point out to bring light to this issue?

Napoleon, Hitler when he invaded The Soviet Union, France in Algeria, The British facing The American Revolution, The US in Vietnam.

Some get off with a bloody nose and wounds to lick. The more unfortunate, are completely destroyed.

For a nation with Imperial ambitions.

Legitimate reasons being?

Its right out of the Art of War it is. And for that matter, every other military manual ever made. If you war too much, even if you WIN too much; you'll lose in the end.

I would not characterize the US as being having ambitions of being an Empire, but rather an Empire that is developing a sense of ambition. The national character of the US is not one that much cares one way or another about world affairs, even to this day. Just too much apathy over here to want glory and power for long.

I would suggest that the American Empire is one that has been slowly built on by successive leaders who either steward the Empire or expand it. Thus Cuba, Hawaii, Panama and the initial wave of imperial additions many decades ago, and random projects in Empire here and there. But there American government has eventually given up most of these aquisitions, the people's taste for Empire has never been that lusty. More of a shadowy coup here, and a friendly dictator there, very little direct control. A "soft power" empire.

The PNAC crowd, the neocons, or any other label you care to use for the current administration and its intellectual base are simply a more aggressive group of Imeperialists than usual who are taking the US for a spin around the world. This joyride of Empire and Conquest will likely sputter to a halt as the American public grows tired of policing all these new colonies. "Hard power" is too involved, people don't want to rule others in the US, they just want everything handed to them, and aren't too picky about where it came from.

This summation is the result of me listening to too much alternative radio on NPR. ;) How much it reflects my own viewpoint is hard to say; I agree with some of the premise and a few of the conclusions, but at the same time I disagree with quite a bit. Its a rather cynical viewpoint, one typically expressed by those who feel no real attachment to the US. But it seems reasonable enough to suggest that it may be the case, or is at the very least worthy of consideration.

I wouldn't blame Iran or Israel for that matter for a nuclear weapons program. I would be a hypocrite if I supported the US's program but not someone else's. Frankly, it's like owning a gun. You should have one for protection, especially since on an international scale, there isn't much law (the UN isn't exactly able to enforce the way a country's local police can). And sometimes the only reason a country won't use a nuclear strike is the thought of retaliation. However, like with gun ownership, there are some people who shouldn't be anywhere near the decision to launch nuclear missles. The US has a lot of nukes, but our congress and government would never allow us to launch missles unless there was an extremely dire situation, like an invasion into the US. There's always the threat of a crazy dicator who gets too trigger happy, but that would be resolved if said nations not abandoned their nuclear programs, but made treaties that stated said countries would not engage in nuclear warfare unless there was no other option.

1) Do you believe whatever oppressions can and will be changed under the current government?
Unlikely. Now, give it another ten of fifteen years...

And the alternative being invasion and the (Likely) rise of more radical groups that would result in a throwback... No, thanks.

The last time I read about Iran, they have a twelve man religious council that can overrule any decision made by the government. This council has often been considered the true government. I do not know if the leader of this council is called an Ayatolah (sp?), but in Parade magazine's recent list of the worst dictators, said leader was high on the list. Do you believe the removal of this council would benefit the Iranian people?Yes, they do have it. Yes, they can (Theoretically) Overrule every decision made by the democratically elected government.

No, they do not do it often. Why? Because if they did do it, it would mean revolution and their immediate removal by lots of angry people. Admittedly, this does on occasion result in rather problematic situations, with the government threatening to step down, the council reversing its decision... Well, that's the universal trait of nations that are in the process of change.

And yes, overall, I would say that removing this council would benefit Iran 8I find it unlikely that it would actually be removed during peaceful change, though. It would most likely change, its powers being drastically reduced, and ending up as somewhat less powerful than, say, the supreme court).

Now, it does, of course, depend ont he way it is removed. I do not believe that Iran would take foreign influence (Read: Invasion) lightly. Iran's proud, and rightfully so. Insulting this pride by way of doing what they are supposed (And, in all likelyhood, capable of doing within the next decade) by themselves will, in all likelyhood, have rather negative effects on Iran.

3) You mentioned how more strict Islamic nations don't like Iran because of its comparatively liberal practice. In the event of a conflict, would Iran be more likely to ally with the US, or these nations?These nations. The siblings might not like each other, but they still prefer each other to the stranger from across the street.

... Of course, actually, I think Iran wouldn't so much ally as try to spread its own influence, kicking the US out and replacing it as the regional doggie. Which it should be able to do within two decades or so, given sheer economic/ military capacities.

5) If you think the answer to 2 would benefit Iranian people, do you feel that the US presence in Iran to accomplish said task would help Iranian people get democracy and a "better" government, or would it make Iranian people rally against the US forces?Se the answer to 2. Admittedly, this isn't guaranteed to end as a disaster (If the US managed to calm Japan after WW2, it should be possible with Iran, too), but it would most definitely be hard to acomplish this things. And given that Iran is likely to change by itself, it would be an unnecessary risk.

[/QUOTE]Yeah, I remember learning a while ago that Iran is persian. Since you seem to know a bit about the Iranian people, let me ask you:

1) Do you believe whatever oppressions can and will be changed under the current government?

Sadly, probably not...

2) The last time I read about Iran, they have a twelve man religious council that can overrule any decision made by the government. This council has often been considered the true government. I do not know if the leader of this council is called an Ayatolah (sp?), but in Parade magazine's recent list of the worst dictators, said leader was high on the list. Do you believe the removal of this council would benefit the Iranian people?

Any benifit depends on how the council is removed. (See Below)

3) You mentioned how more strict Islamic nations don't like Iran because of its comparatively liberal practice. In the event of a conflict, would Iran be more likely to ally with the US, or these nations?

More likely to ally with "these nations" than US, but more likely to stay out of it all together and spew hate via news.

4) In follow-up to 3, and keeping in mind that the article at the start of this thread comes from Al-J, do you believe this article is intended to cause trouble between these three parties, either to make Iran ally with these countries to go against the US, or make Iran state a non-hostile stance toward the US to make Al-J viewers rally against Iran, or some other reason?

Saddam called for a jihad and he opressed religious groups under his rule. It just means that there are very opportunistic people out there, not that what they do will succeed. (Also not that they will fail.)

5) If you think the answer to 2 would benefit Iranian people, do you feel that the US presence in Iran to accomplish said task would help Iranian people get democracy and a "better" government, or would it make Iranian people rally against the US forces?

Hell no! They would hate us all the more for pulling off something like that again!
You might have trouble remembering the Islamic Revolution in the 70s (I do too, but that's because I wasn't around until the 80s) but the Iranians don't and they probably know the reasons for ousting the Shah better than anyone else.
The Shah was implaced after the elected ruler of Iran decided to nationalize the Iranian oil fields instead of letting the Americans and British exploit them (they murdered him for it and let the Shah have a go).
I personally only met Iranians that would applaud US action, but I don't speak for all Americans and they probably don't speak for all Iranians, especially not for the ones that like it and stayed.

6) Is there anything else you would like to point out to bring light to this issue?
I'd like to point out that I'm not the person you're quoting but I think that my contribution to the discussion wouldn't be all that bad. I'm not defending the atrocities committed by the Iranian government with this either.

:mad: WTF?!!! IRAN? WHY NOT NORTH KOREA?

Kim Jong-il would've made Stalin himself look like a nice person. We got rid of Saddam (and he cleverly sold his WMDs). Jong-il actually HAS WMDs and he has threatened to use them if "given a reason". On a side note, China is building up its military. Afghanistan can fight without us now. We should focus more on our threat from the East.

If it's anyone's fault it's the CIA's. They gave the documents to Bush saying that Iraq has WMDs. Of course, Saddam deserved to be deposed and arrested. But it was too early to do that.

:mad: WTF?!!! IRAN? WHY NOT NORTH KOREA?

Kim Jong-il would've made Stalin himself look like a nice person. We got rid of Saddam (and he cleverly sold his WMDs). Jong-il actually HAS WMDs and he has threatened to use them if "given a reason". On a side note, China is building up its military. Afghanistan can fight without us now. We should focus more on our threat from the East.And you consider it a good idea to attack China's sphere of influence (Instead of letting China take care of the problem (No, it doesn't like Korea's nukes. It's competition China doesn't want)), risking a massive multicontinental conflict over something with zero resources and zero strategic importance (Especially not after a vaguely effective NMD will be introduced, which is generally a chaper alternative), heck, with something that isn't an actual threat (The nukes are there to protect NK's independence and, more to the point, Kim's regime, not to actually attack anyone) because...?

1) Do you believe whatever oppressions can and will be changed under the current government?


Yes, but within and it is already happening. The youth of Iran is what the religous council fear. They are forced to change with the times, but slowly. Too quickly will destablise the country, but change is occuring, and the religious council is not viewed as the unquestioning leadership as it once was, but an obstacle. This obstacle is being forced to go with the times, but again, slowly.


2) The last time I read about Iran, they have a twelve man religious council that can overrule any decision made by the government. This council has often been considered the true government. I do not know if the leader of this council is called an Ayatolah (sp?), but in Parade magazine's recent list of the worst dictators, said leader was high on the list. Do you believe the removal of this council would benefit the Iranian people?


The Ayatollah is the supreme leader of Iran, and if we searched for a similar figure elsewhere in the world, then it would be the Queen, or The Pope, a figurehead of a nation. He passes decrees from time to time, but the running of the country is left to the President.
Presidential elections are currently underway.
In the past few years, a battle has been underway between the President and the religous council over the direction of the country. In this sense, the President is far from a yes man to them, and struggles against them constantly.

The removal of the council would benefit the Iranian people if they wished to see it removed, but not externally. External pressure will most likely see 20 odd years of progress in change completely ruined as the people would rally behind the council and it's leaders.

Internally, it is being challenged. It may not dissapear, but it is likely it will have to reform.


3) You mentioned how more strict Islamic nations don't like Iran because of its comparatively liberal practice. In the event of a conflict, would Iran be more likely to ally with the US, or these nations?


After September 11th 2001, Iran handed over members of Al-Qaeda, probably people seized after crossing the border from Afghanistan, and gave America intelligence regarding Al-Qaeda in what could be seen as a hand of friendship towards America.

So sadly, this was opportunity of reconciliation was ended in Bush's 'Axis of Evil' speech, thus sparking Iran's nuclear programme to move forward, probably because Iran feels America does not differentiate between Al-Qaeda and it's supporters and Shia Muslims.

In the event of a full out war between the US and say, Saudi Arabia or other, It depends on how the US treat Iran, but if the US is hostile to Iran diplomatically in such a war, Iran will most likely be neutral, letting nations it does not like 'get on with it' while it stays in peace.

If the US is friendly towards Iran in such a war, Iran will probably secretly aid America, giving intelligence it knowns to America but in covert ways.



4) In follow-up to 3, and keeping in mind that the article at the start of this thread comes from Al-J, do you believe this article is intended to cause trouble between these three parties, either to make Iran ally with these countries to go against the US, or make Iran state a non-hostile stance toward the US to make Al-J viewers rally against Iran, or some other reason?


Iran placed a ban on Al-Jazeera broadcating in Iran some months ago, I do not know if the ban is still in place, but the reason given was that Al-Jazeera was stirring up Arab nationalism in Iran of the Arab population to cause trouble against Iran's government. There was reports of skirmishes between the Arabs and the Persian majority, and Iran blamed Al-Jazeera for this, which mirrors US accusations that Al-Jazeera were stirring up the insurgency in Iraq.

It could be that the article is intended to stir up Iran's mood, but either way, Iran would not ally with Sunni Islamic extremists. This dispute goes back hundreds upon hundreds of years ago, and is unlikely to be resolved even if the US did attack Iran.

Iranians would fight for their country, not Al-Qaeda.


5) If you think the answer to 2 would benefit Iranian people, do you feel that the US presence in Iran to accomplish said task would help Iranian people get democracy and a "better" government, or would it make Iranian people rally against the US forces?


Externally, let us say a US invasion, no. It would lead to the leaders of Iran being rallied around by the people. They will put aside their differences in the face of external interference, and a national unity will set in, 20 years of progress will be vapourised. In short, it will be a disaster.

Only internally can change come, and it is happening, slowly, but surely.


6) Is there anything else you would like to point out to bring light to this issue?

Only that Iran should not be viewed as an evil nation, nor one which allys itself to Al-Qaeda, because neither is true in any sense of the word.

300 Iranians died last year battling drug smugglers from Afghanistan.

Iranians are good people. Like you, and Like me, and they strive for a better life, and they are doing this in their way. Let them do this without external interference, for it is working, for the leaders of Iran know the populace can not be ignored. To do so would be dangerous for them.

Al-Qaeda hate Iran because Iran is not strict enough as well as being Shia, which Al-Qaeda see as a treachery of Islam or something along those lines

Wow are you joking? Do some research. Not strict enough? Shia are like catholics compared to liberal christians.

People for some reason have this misconception that Shia are the opressed majority. In Iraq, Sunnis are the majority, I don't care what the media tells you. The US media breaks it down something like this:
Sunni: 30%
Shia: 40%
Kurd: 20%

Kurds are a race, not a religion. They are Sunnis traditionally. That gives Sunnis the majority if you add the block the media likes to conviniently seperate.

Iran is good for the US because its an anchor holding down the rest of the Middle East, just like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.


Personally, I think Bush will set up the scenerio for war, mislead the entire public, then have the republicans lose the election to the democrats. Then the democrat leader will have to deal with this warhawk scenerio, look like a complete and utter pansy, paving the way for another 8 years of Republican domination after everyone thinks the democrats failed.

Wow are you joking? Do some research. Not strict enough? Shia are like catholics compared to liberal christians.


I've done my research. Concerning your comparisons, well, whatever floats your boat.

To play along similar lines of your comparison, If Shias are like (I'm assuming you mean strict) catholics compared to 'liberal' Christians, then Al-Qaeda are Ultra Ultra neo nazis compared to catholics or indeed, anyone else for that matter.

Although comparisions are dangerous things in such context.


People for some reason have this misconception that Shia are the opressed majority. In Iraq, Sunnis are the majority, I don't care what the media tells you. The US media breaks it down something like this:
Sunni: 30%
Shia: 40%
Kurd: 20%


Kurds are a race, not a religion. They are Sunnis traditionally. That gives Sunnis the majority if you add the block the media likes to conviniently seperate.


Because the Kurds are not a religious faction like Sunnis or Shias, they can actually be Muslim (Sunni, Shia) or Christian or possibly other. Not all of them would be Sunni, just as not all of them are Shia or Christian. There's a mix.



Iran is good for the US because its an anchor holding down the rest of the Middle East, just like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.


Iran yes. Saudi Arabia, Egypt? No.


Personally, I think Bush will set up the scenerio for war, mislead the entire public,

Who said Lightening does not strike the same place twice?

I could see an invasion of Iran coming, but only as a pretty stupid move to draw fire away from the Iraq policy. I mean, given that it turns out we knew the WMD case was pretty thin and that the post-war scenario was ridiculously utopian (where were the girls throwing flowers, during the thunder runs?).

Iran will have to be dealt with one way or another. It's a growing power in the region (not in and of itself a bad thing) and one of its foreign policy goals is the elimination of a particular nearby country (rather bad, from their point of view), which just happens to be a US ally and a partner in many technological ventures for the military, agriculture, water management, etc.

Mainly, the United States' interest in the Near East region is to ensure that its access to energy supplies is not interrupted. That protection can take a number of forms; but at least for now, we won't have to worry about it being threatened by a regional war between Israel and Iran. The Iranian government, nukes or no nukes, knows that Israel has nukes, missiles to put them on, submarines to launch them from, etc., not to mention a serious biological and chemical weapons program - in event of a war, Israel would lose, no doubt about that, but Iran wouldn't exactly win, if it had cities cored out, smothered or infected.

Iran is not a military threat.

And if we of the West want Iran to be more like us, the best thing to do would be normalize relations as much as possible.* Openness breeds revolt against authoritarianism.

* Same goes for North Korea, Cuba, and yet others.

Its right out of the Art of War it is. And for that matter, every other military manual ever made. If you war too much, even if you WIN too much; you'll lose in the end.

I would not characterize the US as being having ambitions of being an Empire, but rather an Empire that is developing a sense of ambition. The national character of the US is not one that much cares one way or another about world affairs, even to this day. Just too much apathy over here to want glory and power for long.

I would suggest that the American Empire is one that has been slowly built on by successive leaders who either steward the Empire or expand it. Thus Cuba, Hawaii, Panama and the initial wave of imperial additions many decades ago, and random projects in Empire here and there. But there American government has eventually given up most of these aquisitions, the people's taste for Empire has never been that lusty. More of a shadowy coup here, and a friendly dictator there, very little direct control. A "soft power" empire.

The PNAC crowd, the neocons, or any other label you care to use for the current administration and its intellectual base are simply a more aggressive group of Imeperialists than usual who are taking the US for a spin around the world. This joyride of Empire and Conquest will likely sputter to a halt as the American public grows tired of policing all these new colonies. "Hard power" is too involved, people don't want to rule others in the US, they just want everything handed to them, and aren't too picky about where it came from.



Agreed. But I would say that the PNAC crowd were not the first US Administration to go on romps around the world, as you have said, a coup here, coup there, invasion here, invasion there, assassination here, assassination there, financing here, financing there.

Why doesn't the US invade Israel, a real evil, instead of sovereign Islamic nations which would pose little to no threat to us if we simply stopped provoking them with accusatations, and siding with their evil enemies? Israel isn't an innocent island of freedom being attacked by their for no reason. In fact they are the ones who are committing most of the violent acts in the 'conflict' http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org/
Before anyone says that I am being anti-semitic, let me say that I am not anti-jews, but only anti-the-evil-Israeli-gov't. Furthermore, anti-semitism shouldn't mean you are only anti-jew, but that you're anti-semite, which if you happen to look up, refers to most middle eastern peoples, including Palestinians and Syrians. Don't you think it's kind of arrogant to place yourself as the best, if not only, members of your ethnic group? Also, isn't it odd that whenever someone questions the policies of Israel, they are simply being 'anti-semitic?' If an Israeli hates a Palestinian just for being Palestinian, shouldn't he be considered an anti-semite?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the nation of Israel, just kind of stolen, and made into what it is today?
:fluffle:+:sniper:=:(:(:(:(:(:(

Well this little tid bit is from Scott Ritter writing for Aljazeera. I know these two names to me mean enemy. But its always wise to watch what your "enemies" are doing. This time they are writing about US activities around Iran. I actually believe this story to be mostly true. However its delivered by two very shady characters. Anyone else agree that we are getting ready for hostilities with Iran? I actually welcome it. But this time I wont be over there to fight in it. So what do you guys think. Think this is a telltale sign of upcoming military action? I think they are preparing for a quick strike on Tehran as this article suggests. Maybe a small operation joined up with anti-government militias with AF flying cover as in Afghanistan?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7896BBD4-28AB-48BA-A949-2096A02F864D.htm

This is new. Or it was in February this year. :rolleyes:

They would be in a hurry by now; Ritter predicted it would be in June, and that's only another week. Perhaps that U2 plane yesterday might spark something.

And to avoid sounding smug, with what is America going to attack Iran? And with whom? There isn't that much left, and Iran is bigger than Iraq.

They would be in a hurry by now; Ritter predicted it would be in June, and that's only another week. Perhaps that U2 plane yesterday might spark something.

And to avoid sounding smug, with what is America going to attack Iran? And with whom? There isn't that much left, and Iran is bigger than Iraq.Errr... The article, as biased as it may be, mentions June as start for active preparations (As which the recent bombings could possibly count), not as start of the 'Massive' campaign.

Although yes, given the US' current requirements, a (Sucecssful) war against Iran is somewhat out of the question.

:mad: WTF?!!! IRAN? WHY NOT NORTH KOREA?

Kim Jong-il would've made Stalin himself look like a nice person. We got rid of Saddam (and he cleverly sold his WMDs). Jong-il actually HAS WMDs and he has threatened to use them if "given a reason". On a side note, China is building up its military. Afghanistan can fight without us now. We should focus more on our threat from the East.

If it's anyone's fault it's the CIA's. They gave the documents to Bush saying that Iraq has WMDs. Of course, Saddam deserved to be deposed and arrested. But it was too early to do that.
China a threat in the East? If China were to do anything against the US, it would be sure to get its ass...ets seized. Even if China were capable of doing anything serious to the US without using its nukes (which there are a bunch of good arguments against, but I don't know how many nukes the US could toss at them) why would they? There's currently a wave of Chinese firms trying to establish themselves on the American market. It's not likely that the "communist" government is going to slaughter its golden geese, especially not when they're getting the praise for the economic boom.
Afghanistan can fight with us? Highly unrealistic. The Afghans are still busy trying to unite their country and they aren't doing it very fast, even with foreign help. They're in no condition to go to battle against the countries they border.
As for the CIAs fault, Bush actually got a report from one of his diplomats telling him there was absolutely no link between Saddam and nuclear materials being smuggled in Nigeria (which is one of the few places with a nuclear powerplant in that region) minutes before Bush gave his State of the Union Adress claiming that Saddam was seeking to obtain nuclear weapons.

I would much prefer to take out North Korea. It would eliminate a much more dangerous regime and flex our muscles in front of the Chinese.

Oh, yes, of course. Slaughter thousands of innocent people to "flex your muscles". Brilliant. :roll:

You call yourself a human being?

Jong-il actually HAS WMDs and he has threatened to use them if "given a reason".

"Jong-Il"? You're on a first name basis with the guy, are you? Or are you just too ignorant to know that Koreans put their family name first and their given name second? Though I'd have thought that Kim Jong-Il being the son of Kim Il-Sung would have been a bit of a give-away... How little do you know about North Korea anyway?

Besides, are you really sure you want to "give him a reason"?

I could, yet again, point out that the DPRK is not a threat unless provoked, and that the South's "Sunshine Policy" is far more constructive and effective than Bush & Co's inflammatory war-mongering rhetoric - which is making people furious in South Korea. But there'd be little point... From too many debates in these fora, I've found that you blood-thirsty, simplistic, ignorant war-hounds are beyond the reach of fact or logic...

Iranians are good people. Like you, and Like me, and they strive for a better life, and they are doing this in their way. Let them do this without external interference, for it is working, for the leaders of Iran know the populace can not be ignored. To do so would be dangerous for them.

*Thank* you! There are too few people in these fora capable of understanding this. It's good to have it pointed out from time to time, even if the effect will be lost on most.

Or, we could stop worrying about other countries, and focus on america. Hmm, what a strange idea.

I think you could make an arguement that being focused on other countries in particular is being focused on Americas security.

I can't believe what i am reading. You people F...... acts like it's ok to kill shit loads of innocent people.

I mean, i think your country (USA) is a terror regime. But i don't think it is ok for you (idiot warmongers) to die like collateral damage like the way you think of others.


F... sake.. Read some books. Get some knowlege. Or join the war and die. So we rid ourself of your stupid blank minded thoughts. :headbang:

I can't believe what i am reading. You people F...... acts like it's ok to kill shit loads of innocent people.

I mean, i think your country (USA) is a terror regime. But i don't think it is ok for you (idiot warmongers) to die like collateral damage like the way you think of others.


F... sake.. Read some books. Get some knowlege. Or join the war and die. So we rid ourself of your stupid blank minded thoughts. :headbang:

Well thats nice that you could make a new character up just to flame people on this thread. Anyway war is something that is in our genetics. Even if you were to "kill" all those who are for it. Although that would be against your arguement of not killing. More people would be born that would have these genetic urges to fight. So I think the "war gene" is here to stay.

About damn time, the only bad thing I see here is one:

Neither Iran, or Iraq, or Afghanistan are the enemy, the true enemy are communists, North Korea and China, and I fear it will become to late to act against them, specially China, they're gathering such terrifying power, if US takes China's puppet out the chinese goverment will be forced to understand that our western civilization will rule a little longer, we must not stop until the chinese are destroy, look at our corporations leaving our soil to get better oportunities at the chinese market which is already winning the american one.

Personally I rather see a western country be a superpower (wether it's US, UK, Germany, Mexico...) (the french suck F@ck them) than some crazy eastern country become a superpower, chinese are like a plague, we can contain them now, we must before it's too late I hope all western leaders can understand this before we are doomed to an uncertain fate...

Thank you :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

*Thank* you! There are too few people in these fora capable of understanding this. It's good to have it pointed out from time to time, even if the effect will be lost on most.

No problem at all. I'm simply telling the truth.

I can't believe what i am reading. You people F...... acts like it's ok to kill shit loads of innocent people.

I mean, i think your country (USA) is a terror regime. But i don't think it is ok for you (idiot warmongers) to die like collateral damage like the way you think of others.


F... sake.. Read some books. Get some knowlege. Or join the war and die. So we rid ourself of your stupid blank minded thoughts. :headbang:Hooray for sophisticated and rational arguments based on previous statements by a variety of participants in this discussion.

Wanna try it, too?

About damn time, the only bad thing I see here is one:

Neither Iran, or Iraq, or Afghanistan are the enemy, the true enemy are communists, North Korea and China, and I fear it will become to late to act against them, specially China, they're gathering such terrifying power, if US takes China's puppet out the chinese goverment will be forced to understand that our western civilization will rule a little longer, we must not stop until the chinese are destroy, look at our corporations leaving our soil to get better oportunities at the chinese market which is already winning the american one.

Personally I rather see a western country be a superpower (wether it's US, UK, Germany, Mexico...) (the french suck F@ck them) than some crazy eastern country become a superpower, chinese are like a plague, we can contain them now, we must before it's too late I hope all western leaders can understand this before we are doomed to an uncertain fate...

Thank you :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
The Chinese are actually far more corrupt than they are communist and the DPR Korea is just as much as a thorn in their side as it is to the US, with the exception that they live right next to it.

Found a site called regime change in Iran. Looks like a bunch of news stories and blogs supporting democracy.

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/05/qasem-sholeh-sadi-prevented-from.html

Making a new one up?? Whatever. I just read this link now and thought i should reply.

I never said kill all the warmongers. But i hope for the ones who join up in the name of bullshit and lies, to die in the war they so sincerely want.. That's all.. :)

Another war whould not only have a negative impact on the US people, but the military in general. I highly doubt Bush is stupid enough to risk this much so soon.Bush is no genius, and his intentions are a mystery. Surely he could be at least as stupid as the people in this thread who think a war with Iran is a good idea. Besides, if you'd actually read the article you'd realize that it's already begun. They just can't find a way to get things going with so much of the military tied up in Iraq. If only they could get yet another Pearl Harbor like event...

Neither Iran, or Iraq, or Afghanistan are the enemy, the true enemy are communists, North Korea and China, and I fear it will become to late to act against them, specially China, they're gathering such terrifying power, if US takes China's puppet out the chinese goverment will be forced to understand that our western civilization will rule a little longer, we must not stop until the chinese are destroy, look at our corporations leaving our soil to get better oportunities at the chinese market which is already winning the american one.


Does your kind still exist? I thought you'd died out in the early nineties... I find you mildly amusing.

Does someone want to point out to this... person of limited intellect and grasp of reality that China is anything but communist, and that the Cold War is over? Oh, and that China actually has no desire to nuke the rest of the world into submission, nor to erase Western civilisations?


the chinese goverment will be forced to understand that our western civilization will rule a little longer


Are you seriously saying the West should impose its ways on the rest of the world?


we must not stop until the chinese are destroy


No comment.

Does someone want to point out to this... person of limited intellect and grasp of reality that China is anything but communist, and that the Cold War is over? Oh, and that China actually has no desire to nuke the rest of the world into submission, nor to erase Western civilisations?


In a sentence:

China are as communist as America, in the sense that America is not communist but capitalist orientated, which China also is, and China has no desire to nuke the rest of the world into submission,, or to erase western civillisation, because quite simply, the capitalist system is making the party rich and do not want to risk their overseas investments and deals, only becoming aggressive if provoked in anyway by other aggressive nations.

How's that?

4) In follow-up to 3, and keeping in mind that the article at the start of this thread comes from Al-J, do you believe this article is intended to cause trouble between these three parties, either to make Iran ally with these countries to go against the US, or make Iran state a non-hostile stance toward the US to make Al-J viewers rally against Iran, or some other reason?The article was written by an American named Scott Ritter (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37306,00.html). He writes for anyone who will publish his articles.

Kim Jong-il would've made Stalin himself look like a nice person. We got rid of Saddam (and he cleverly sold his WMDs). Jong-il actually HAS WMDs and he has threatened to use them if "given a reason". On a side note, China is building up its military. Afghanistan can fight without us now. We should focus more on our threat from the East.

Look on your own backyard. US also have WMDs and has threatened to use them. They also are the only country that ever used nuclearbombs. Im far more scared for US terror then the easts terror. You are not understanding that its your actions that make terrorist, it isnt any evil or good people, they are just oppressed people with their families killed and no other realistic way to fight back. Religion doesnt matter. Please understand that your action only makes people in the rest of the world to hate you, we dont understand your need of destroying middle east contries and slaughter innocent people for peace.

If it's anyone's fault it's the CIA's. They gave the documents to Bush saying that Iraq has WMDs. Of course, Saddam deserved to be deposed and arrested. But it was too early to do that.
Thanks to the Downing Street Memos (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Y7xcJxuFSRQJ:www.theregular.org/node/3141+%22the+intelligence+and+facts+were+being+fixed+around+the+policy%22&hl=en), even people as ill-informed as you can get a clue about what actually happend.

Thanks to the Downing Street Memos (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Y7xcJxuFSRQJ:www.theregular.org/node/3141+%22the+intelligence+and+facts+were+being+fixed+around+the+policy%22&hl=en), even people as ill-informed as you can get a clue about what actually happend.

It's interesting that you place so much faith in copies of a document whose original was "destroyed" by the reporter. Or that you read so much into it.

I've read it many times, and I don't see anything that's even faintly alarming in it.

Or, we could stop worrying about other countries, and focus on america. Hmm, what a strange idea.


A strange idea would be to ignore these issues as they allign against us.Do we wait till its too late? I worry about fanatics with nuclear capabilities.

I can't believe what i am reading. You people F...... acts like it's ok to kill shit loads of innocent people.

I mean, i think your country (USA) is a terror regime. But i don't think it is ok for you (idiot warmongers) to die like collateral damage like the way you think of others.


F... sake.. Read some books. Get some knowlege. Or join the war and die. So we rid ourself of your stupid blank minded thoughts. :headbang:

give it a rest
you're going to have an anurism.

you think the USA is a terror regime? you have trouble thinking,dont you.

Local militias? Ha! There are no local militias which could get the job done with just a bit of air support. The society is too ordered, too industrialised, too "Western".

No, if the US wants a quick and total change of political system there, it can only be accomplished by invasion, and it would have to be a BIG one, place is three times the size and population as Iraq, and much better armed.

you think the USA is a terror regime? you have trouble thinking,dont you.

Interesting line of thought. What, by your specific definition, is a terrorist regime? Details mind you, the kind of specifications that can be used to place any other country on a scale rather than just a listing of facts.

In short, how do you measure it essentially.

Names and rantings will not carry any weight. Proper scales of measurements will do.

Who said Lightening does not strike the same place twice?Are you asking that knowing that lightning often does strike twice? The Eiffel Tower is frequently hit.

Interesting line of thought. What, by your specific definition, is a terrorist regime? Details mind you, the kind of specifications that can be used to place any other country on a scale rather than just a listing of facts.

In short, how do you measure it essentially.

Names and rantings will not carry any weight. Proper scales of measurements will do.


My definition clearly wont be similar to yours, but I'm not here to impress either of you. Dont think for a minute I'll waste any time tangling with word games and who is worse than whom.

No matter what your opinion may be, labelling the United States as a "terror regime" is ignorant. I'm sure you have a list of atrocities ready to fire off, but you can save it. I'm not interested in any smug rhetoric.

My definition clearly wont be similar to yours, but I'm not here to impress either of you. Dont think for a minute I'll waste any time tangling with word games and who is worse than whom.

No matter what your opinion may be, labelling the United States as a "terror regime" is ignorant. I'm sure you have a list of atrocities ready to fire off, but you can save it. I'm not interested in any smug rhetoric.

I asked for your definition. No more no less. Other than that, you will not hear about it from me on this thread. This I can promise you.

Are you asking that knowing that lightning often does strike twice?

Yes, thus why I said it in response to a post made that would fit the fact it does strike twice perfectly into the context of my reply.

It's interesting that you place so much faith in copies of a document whose original was "destroyed" by the reporter. Or that you read so much into it.

I've read it many times, and I don't see anything that's even faintly alarming in it.Do you think the document is a forgery (http://slate.msn.com/id/2085616/)? Downing Street memo #1 and the rest (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/zeese4.html) explicitly state that intelligence was being assembled to make the case for the Iraq invasion. This means that the stated reasons were lies because the decision to invade existed prior to the conclusions of said fixed intelligence. If that's news to you, you should find that alarming.

Yes, thus why I said it in response to a post made that would fit the fact it does strike twice perfectly into the context of my reply.Cool. That's what I thought. I was just making sure.

Cool. That's what I thought. I was just making sure.

Ok. No probs.

I think the americans should mind there won business and sort out there own problems first, like having a meat head in charge of california, stuff like that, america sucks, sorry but it does.

Oh, yes, of course. Slaughter thousands of innocent people to "flex your muscles". Brilliant. :roll:

You call yourself a human being?

Let me tell you something.... my parents have lived under an oppressive communist regime. They would have much prefered someone to come and liberate them and cause some collateral damage then have lived through the bullshit. My grandfather died in a communist labor camp. So take your bullshit rhetoric about civilian casualties and shove it up your arse.

North Koreans are living in complete poverty. All because Kim Jong-il wanted some nukes and military parades. What kind of rights do people have? None.

People like yourself will always allow shit to happen just because stepping in may hurt people. Wow. Great attitude. Ironically, you are probably the same type of guy to throw away billions of dollars of aid to help refugees instead of going in and eliminating the tyrant and thus eliminating the cause of refugees.

There is also a whole other aspect that peace-lovers such as yourself avoid. Nations have a vested interest to protect their interests - be it economic interests, military interets, regional interests, alliance interests, etc...

North Korea destabalizes the region. It threatens South Korea and Japan by constantly flexing its military muscle and its hardline rhetoric. It also applies excess pressure on China because China has to always play the middleman and try and warm up relations.

An invasion of Korea would end that threat, put an end to an oppressive regime, allow the Korean peninsula to be whole again, and - as an added bonus would show the Chinese that America is still a formidable power.

What would showing the Chinese America's military power do? It might stem their own rhetoric towards Taiwan considering they have pledged to invade it if they declare formal independence. This is important considering America has pledged to defend Taiwan against any such invasion.

Let me tell you something.... my parents have lived under an oppressive communist regime. They would have much prefered someone to come and liberate them and cause some collateral damage then have lived through the bullshit. My grandfather died in a communist labor camp. So take your bullshit rhetoric about civilian casualties and shove it up your arse.

And I have lived with people who tell me that living in Slovakia under Soviet rule wasn't actually that bad. In the same way I know people who will praise Capitalism to the stars (coincidentally they are all fairly wel off) and others (the ones on the raw end) will curse it to the depths of hell.

What would showing the Chinese America's military power do? It might stem their own rhetoric towards Taiwan considering they have pledged to invade it if they declare formal independence. This is important considering America has pledged to defend Taiwan against any such invasion.

Well, your faith is strong I guess. I have my doubts that the US would really step in. Partcularly now where it is having to station combat troops in the Middle East rather than be able to use them against China. That and the term 'bloody stalemate' being the most likely one to describe any China/US war.

Well, your faith is strong I guess. I have my doubts that the US would really step in. Partcularly now where it is having to station combat troops in the Middle East rather than be able to use them against China. That and the term 'bloody stalemate' being the most likely one to describe any China/US war.

Not to mention the resulting economic damage that will occur. Nations with no money and huge debts don't go very far or do very much. At least not when your in the middle of a war.

And I have lived with people who tell me that living in Slovakia under Soviet rule wasn't actually that bad. In the same way I know people who will praise Capitalism to the stars (coincidentally they are all fairly wel off) and others (the ones on the raw end) will curse it to the depths of hell.

I know what you are talking about. There were a few East Bloc countries that were considerably better off than others. East Germany and the then Czheckoslovakia were examples. There is also a notion among certain youth who grew up during the collapse of communism who look through to communism through slightly rose tinted glasses because after it's immediate collapse things got much worse. Even 16 years later some countries still have not recovered from the shock. Since things are seemingly worse when compared to their pre-collapse lifestyle, sure - people can say that they were better off under the communist system.

Unfortunately that view partains to their immediate economic situation - which is only one part of the picture. Even in East Germany, political freedoms were zilch, and even though people were not impoverished their lives did not enjoy the luxuries the west did. My cousin and second cousin live in Germany and they have been telling me for years about the stark differences, even to this day, between East and West Germany.

it's interesting to hear a Slovak say that though considering the USSR invaded Czhechoslovakia and forced communism on them.

Well, your faith is strong I guess. I have my doubts that the US would really step in. Partcularly now where it is having to station combat troops in the Middle East rather than be able to use them against China. That and the term 'bloody stalemate' being the most likely one to describe any China/US war.

Perhaps. What I honestly think is that Taiwan will give in to Chinese pressure and will eventually relinquish control to China. I don't think they would want total destruction - which is what would happen to the isliand without 1 Chinese soldier ever having to set foot on Formosa.

As far as "bloody stalemate", I don't know. I really see this as a naval and air war - where China would be lacking. Their air defenses are strong and being modernized so U.S. casualties will be up there, but I think we can take a lot of it out eventually. I don't think Americans would consider an invasion of the mainland, maybe in just a few coastal cities like Macoa and Honk Kong, which is unlikely. My guess is that the strategy would be to remain on the defensive and wear out their military.

This, of course, assumes no nukes would be used which is optomistic. And if nukes are used? Well then no one wins.

duh! obviously this man is aready biased against the president. i'm not letting on as to MY political affiliations, but this guy is obviously leaning towards the left and will want to make bush look bad. maybe we are going to iran, maybe not, but i don't trust biased articles, i like facts, tyvm. biased people are always trippin on their own egos, it's worse than acid. i say the next country is not iran, but north korea!