NationStates Jolt Archive

Iran is developing a covert nuclear program.

It has threatened Israel and the United States.

It backs terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and this summer started a proxy war in Lebanon.

It directly funds the Shi'ite insurgency in Iraq, and is directly responsible for the deaths of 178 U.S. servicemen from EFPs (explosively formed projectiles.)

It is attempting to assert its authority in the Middle East and promoting sectarian violence.

Recently, it illegally kidnapped 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters.

All these are just causes for war.

Should we go to war with Iran?

Iran is developing a covert nuclear program.

It has threatened Israel and the United States.

It backs terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and this summer started a proxy war in Lebanon.

It directly funds the Shi'ite insurgency in Iraq, and is directly responsible for the deaths of 178 U.S. servicemen from EFPs (explosively formed projectiles.)

It is attempting to assert its authority in the Middle East and promoting sectarian violence.

Recently, it illegally kidnapped 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters.

All these are just causes for war.

Should we go to war with Iran?

Nah. One foul-up at a time.

To put this into perspective, we lost 60,000 servicemen in Vietnam, and we have only lost 3,000 in Iraq and the war there is winding down. That means we can handle crises several times larger than the Iraq war.

If the United States seeks to maintain its supremacy in the world, it must control the Middle East -and to do that, it must remove Iran.

To put this into perspective, we lost 60,000 servicemen in Vietnam, and we have only lost 3,000 in Iraq and the war there is winding down. That means we can handle crises several times larger than the Iraq war.

If the United States seeks to maintain its supremacy in the world, it must control the Middle East -and to do that, it must remove Iran.

Are you joking?

For the love of God, tell me that you're joking.

Seriously, wtf (http://www.cs.tut.fi/~turunenk/WTF.bmp).

To put this into perspective, we lost 60,000 servicemen in Vietnam, and we have only lost 3,000 in Iraq and the war there is winding down. That means we can handle crises several times larger than the Iraq war.
It isn't a military problem, it's a political one.

If the United States seeks to maintain its supremacy in the world, it must control the Middle East -and to do that, it must remove Iran.

We're not a world empire, nor should we be.

Are you joking?

For the love of God, tell me that you're joking.

Seriously, wtf (http://www.cs.tut.fi/~turunenk/WTF.bmp).

Thank you. My sentiments exactly.

Why shouldn't the United States be a world empire?

Ahmadinejad is on his way out soon. That moderate guy is gaining support.

It isn't a military problem, it's a political one.Yes, you have insulted Iran so often, you cannot ever back down.

We're not a world empire, nor should we be.Is that a majority or minority position in the US?

To put this into perspective, we lost 60,000 servicemen in Vietnam, and we have only lost 3,000 in Iraq and the war there is winding down. That means we can handle crises several times larger than the Iraq war.

If the United States seeks to maintain its supremacy in the world, it must control the Middle East -and to do that, it must remove Iran.

I hate to say it, but I disagree....The war over there is not winding down...There are still many Iraqi militia leaders and clerics that are rallying men and fleeing to Iran...

If the United States invades Iran and annexes it, then we will be viewed as an imperialist that sweeps down and invades what they please...

In the Vietnam War we were fighting about half a million people. In the Iraq War, we are fighting about 400,000 people. The Vietnam War was a complete bloodbath...It is not the United States fault that the Viet Kong were extremely better than the Republic of Vietnam...

Why shouldn't the United States be a world empire?

Because if the United States turns into an empire I'll need to get myself an X-wing.

To put this into perspective, we lost 60,000 servicemen in Vietnam, and we have only lost 3,000 in Iraq and the war there is winding down. That means we can handle crises several times larger than the Iraq war.

If the United States seeks to maintain its supremacy in the world, it must control the Middle East -and to do that, it must remove Iran.

Frankly I'd like to avoid Vietnam type casualties especially if the war they die in is in the name of imperialism. Besides, a solid percentage of Iranian citizens actually LIKE the U.S., it is the government that is the problem, we just need to wait them out and the problem of Iran will be taken care of internally.

Why shouldn't the United States be a world empire?

Read the constitution. Imperialism is a doctrine directly opposed to American political philosophy, this country was founded in opposition to an empire.

Furthermore, hasn't the world been fucked up enough by empires? Slavery, Apartheid, World Wars, genocide, have
you learned nothing from the last 200 years?

The idea of sending men into Iraq looking for the weapons of mass destruction was a good idea...Yet, keeping them in Iraq was when Bush messed up...

Iran and (more impportantly) North Korea both need to be dealt with, and dealing with them will probably involve troops.

Problem is, we don't HAVE any spare troops. If you've watched the news, you've seen that reservists are being called up at an alarming rate and soldiers in Iraq are having their terms extended by months.

Right now, the only answer is to get a large number of nonamerican troops to help us out, and that will probably mean getting the UN to support an invasion of Iran and North Korea.

It also means convincing China to agree not oppose a regime change in North Korea. Otherwise, they'll likely send reinforcements as they did in the Korean war.

And yes, North Korea needs to be dealt with more urgently. Sure, iran pops up in the news more, but that's only because their current leader is (like Saddam) an attention whore. Meanwhile, North Korea is disturbingly close to having nuclear weapons, yet Bush falls for the mideast diversions time and time again....

Since when have just causes have anything to do with why America goes to war?

Iran and (more impportantly) North Korea both need to be dealt with, and dealing with them will probably involve troops.

Problem is, we don't HAVE any spare troops. If you've watched the news, you've seen that reservists are being called up at an alarming rate and soldiers in Iraq are having their terms extended by months.

Right now, the only answer is to get a large number of nonamerican troops to help us out, and that will probably mean getting the UN to support an invasion of Iran and North Korea.

It also means convincing China to agree not oppose a regime change in North Korea. Otherwise, they'll likely send reinforcements as they did in the Korean war.

And yes, North Korea needs to be dealt with more urgently. Sure, iran pops up in the news more, but that's only because their current leader is (like Saddam) an attention whore. Meanwhile, North Korea is disturbingly close to having nuclear weapons, yet Bush falls for the mideast diversions time and time again....

What is it with you people and invading Iran and North Korea! All you have to do is get their leader out of power and bam! Regime change!

It is attempting to assert its authority in the Middle East and promoting sectarian violence.
That's one of the big reasons why the Iraq war was bad. It opened up a power gap which Iran inevitably filled. The US foolishly did Iran a favour. But I'm sure you thought it was a great idea at the time.

All these are just causes for war.
None of them are.

Should we go to war with Iran?
No. Not only would it be wrong, it would be logistically and diplomatically impossible for the USA.

The idea of sending men into Iraq looking for the weapons of mass destruction was a good idea...Yet, keeping them in Iraq was when Bush messed up...

Looking for them? Here I thought Bush claimed he knew Iraq had WMDs, wasn't there all kinds of supposed "proof" to that?

We are already screwing up the region by our actions in Iraq, what, we want to multiply our problems by attacking Iran because people have the itch to go to war?

Looking for them? Here I thought Bush claimed he knew Iraq had WMDs, wasn't there all kinds of supposed "proof" to that?

We are already screwing up the region by our actions in Iraq, what, we want to multiply our problems because people have the itch to go to war?

Quote for the Win!

I buy an iran invasion in defence of the petrodollar. our currency would be worthless without it, we invaded Iraq for the same reasons, and the CIA assisted a coup attempt in venezula in 2001 (failed)

http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

Iran is developing a covert nuclear program.

It has threatened Israel and the United States.

It backs terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and this summer started a proxy war in Lebanon.

It directly funds the Shi'ite insurgency in Iraq, and is directly responsible for the deaths of 178 U.S. servicemen from EFPs (explosively formed projectiles.)

It is attempting to assert its authority in the Middle East and promoting sectarian violence.

Recently, it illegally kidnapped 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters.

All these are just causes for war.

Should we go to war with Iran?
The US has massive stockpiles of plutonium grade nuclear arsenal; ready to launch missiles and they have violated the Non-Proliferation Agreement.

It has invaded two nation under the pretext of the 'War on Terror' and threatened others.

It has and continues to prop up dictatorial regimes (IE: Saudi Arabia).

It is directly responsible for the growing loud mouth malcontent movement in Iraq where any jackass can pick up a gun and go postal/suicide bomber.

It's fuelling the violence in Iraq.

It is holding "enemy combatants" without charge and has sponsored state-sanctioned torture to elicit information from supposed terrorists.

The US is just as guilty as Iran... both have blood on their hands.

War with Iran! Unfortunately our military is not up to the task, but if they get to aggressive, what choice to we have? Also the UN and EU believe Iran is devloping nukes. They've admitted to it, unlike Iraq.

EDIT: Forgot to mention as a Last Resort if Diplomacy fails.

The US has massive stockpiles of plutonium grade nuclear arsenal.

It has invaded two nation under the pretext of the 'War on Terror' and threatened others.

It has and continues to prop up dictatorial regimes (IE: Saudi Arabia).

It is directly responsible for the growing loud mouth malcontent movement in Iraq where any jackass can pick up a gun and go postal/suicide bomber.

It's fuelling the violence in Iraq.

It is holding "enemy combatants" without charge and has sponsored state-sanctioned torture to elicit information from supposed terrorists.

The US is just as guilty as Iran... both have blood on their hands.


Congrats, you have just won the most liberal and ignorant post of the day award!

president dumbass called n korea, iran and iraq an axis of evil, he has plans people. i think we messed up taking saddam out, at least he kept those people in check, i don't think a regime change would work in iran, north korea, maybe; but we've been in korea since the late 40's and accomplished nothing. dubya and his pals used 9/11 to perpetuate an endless "war on terror" , much like the "war on drugs" that has gone on officially for 20 years, there is no tangible enemy, thus the war will never end and all bush's buddies make mad cash

Congrats, you have just won the most liberal and ignorant post of the day award!
Why? Because I twisted the OP's asinine litany of arguments? :rolleyes:

president dumbass called n korea, iran and iraq an axis of evil, he has plans people. i think we messed up taking saddam out, at least he kept those people in check, i don't think a regime change would work in iran, north korea, maybe; but we've been in korea since the late 40's and accomplished nothing. dubya and his pals used 9/11 to perpetuate an endless "war on terror" , much like the "war on drugs" that has gone on officially for 20 years, there is no tangible enemy, thus the war will never end and all bush's buddies make mad cash
Oh boy, you ARE ignorant.

1. There is more OIL is CANADA than IRAQ!
2. never call the PRESIDENT of the United States an IDIOT. I wouldn't call a liberal president an idiot, he's my leader and commander in chief.
3. Yay! Let's stop the war on Terror and war on Drugs and see what happens.

Why? Because I twisted the OP's asinine litany of arguments? :rolleyes:

Cause half of them are wrong, IMHO

Congrats, you have just won the most liberal and ignorant post of the day award!

in other words...you can't respond to it. Would you care to refute a single thing he said?

besides it being a bad idea politically and just plain uneeded, we can't even afford the billion dollars every three days we are spending on Iraq.

in other words...you can't respond to it. Would you care to refute a single thing he said?

Sure. Give me a few minutes to type. :D

Oh boy, you ARE ignorant.

1. There is more OIL is CANADA than IRAQ!

And as we all know, Canada is a member of OPEC, the organization that has in the past cut us off.

No...wait.

2. never call the PRESIDENT of the United States an IDIOT. I wouldn't call a liberal president an idiot, he's my leader and commander in chief.

And on top of that he's a big fucking idiot.

3. Yay! Let's stop the war on Terror and war on Drugs and see what happens.

.....sure. Sounds good.

Cause half of them are wrong, IMHO

Ah yes, nice strategy. Hiding behind the shroud of "IMHO"; the ultimate deflection tactic when one can't be bothered to answer.

War with Iran! Unfortunately our military is not up to the task, but if they get to aggressive, what choice to we have? Also the UN and EU believe Iran is devloping nukes. They've admitted to it, unlike Iraq.
There is no need for war with Iran. The costs would outweigh the benefits.


EDIT: Forgot to mention as a Last Resort if Diplomacy fails.
You didn't forget to mention it. I think you just don't want it to be true.

Cause half of them are wrong, IMHO

It all looked pretty damn accurate to me.

3. Yay! Let's stop the war on Terror and war on Drugs and see what happens.

Don't recall saying anything about stopping the war on terror. Just the one in Iraq. And the one on drugs as well, we would be much better off if we didn't spend so much effort stopping people from messing up their own bodies.

Sure. Give me a few minutes to type. :D

given the incoherency I've seen you put out, I suggest a few years of history lessons first, then a few minutes to type.

Because absent the first part, the second part is just gonna be silly.

2. never call the PRESIDENT of the United States an IDIOT. I wouldn't call a liberal president an idiot, he's my leader and commander in chief.
That fact that you can't go 5 minutes without saying "liberal" surely marks you out as an idiot, especially in an argument where the term is irrelevant.

It's not about Bush being "conservative", the man actually is seriously incompetent.

1.The US has massive stockpiles of plutonium grade nuclear arsenal; ready to launch missiles and they have violated the Non-Proliferation Agreement.
Okay, we didnt threaten to wipe a nation off the map. How have we violated the NPA?

2.It has invaded two nation under the pretext of the 'War on Terror' and threatened others.
Not eneiterly true. We invaded because 1. WMD (later to be prove false) and 2. Evil Dicator
3.It has and continues to prop up dictatorial regimes (IE: Saudi Arabia).
And how is S.A. a dictatorship? And where else?
4.It is directly responsible for the growing loud mouth malcontent movement in Iraq where any jackass can pick up a gun and go postal/suicide bomber.
Thats OUR FAULT? Sure buddy.

5.It's fulling the violence in Iraq.
No, the religious differences are, we are trying to prevent them form killing each other.

6.It is holding "enemy combatants" without charge and has sponsored state-sanctioned torture to elicit information from supposed terrorists.
Proof of torture? No. Also we have taken POW's before, why not now.

The US is just as guilty as Iran... both have blood on their hands.
7.Sure, Sure.

Oh boy, you ARE ignorant.

1. There is more OIL is CANADA than IRAQ!
2. never call the PRESIDENT of the United States an IDIOT. I wouldn't call a liberal president an idiot, he's my leader and commander in chief.
3. Yay! Let's stop the war on Terror and war on Drugs and see what happens.

1 - Yes, yes there is. However, extraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Extraction_process) isn't as easy given the nature of where the majority of the oil is located. Most of Canada's oil comes from the Athabasca Tar Sands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Tar_Sands) in Alberta.

The open pit method doesn't work because 80% of the oil is out of reach and requires insit-tu to extract it. It takes time, funds and energy.

2 - There is no harm in calling the president an idiot. He's a politician. It's a given.

3 - What's this? You mean the US can suddenly start funding healthcare and education? And how is it a bad thing? Oh wait, I forgot, the Defense Industry would go bell up if that happened...

Look in Quotes

Learn to quote. I'm not undoing your format mess.

That fact that you can't go 5 minutes without saying "liberal" surely marks you out as an idiot, especially in an argument where the term is irrelevant.

It's not about Bush being "conservative", the man actually is seriously incompetent.

I don't think your an idiot, and you call me one? Incompetent, how so? Everything any President does is checked and balanced by both the courts and congress.

1. This may be true, but it doesn't negate the fact.
2. Maybe.
3. I'm saying if we stop the war, we will be attacked again.

Learn to quote. I'm not undoing your format mess.

I'm sorry your to lazy. I'll reformat.

Look in Quotes

seriously...this is the best you got? Your response to half of the claims is "oh really?"

seriously...this is the best you got? Your response to half of the claims is "oh really?"

What are you talking about?

1. This may be true, but it doesn't negate the fact.

it does however negate your whole point


3. I'm saying if we stop the war, we will be attacked again.

oh noes! It's teh terroristz!

But yes, it is a good thing that the war in Iraq is going on, this way we can be sure that the huge number of deaths on 9/11 never happens again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14959937/)

3. I'm saying if we stop the war, we will be attacked again.
And on what grounds is this factual?

The objective of terrorism is to make people live in fear. The terrorists have already won. America has given up essential freedoms because it fears another attack. The terrorists don't have to attack America because America has already surrendered with its 'Patriot Act' and other anti-terror measures.

I don't think your an idiot, and you call me one? Incompetent, how so? Everything any President does is checked and balanced by both the courts and congress.

*blinks*

Clearly he hasn't been checked as his incompetence has ran amok.

2. never call the PRESIDENT of the United States an IDIOT. I wouldn't call a liberal president an idiot, he's my leader and commander in chief.

Well if the liberal president in question had an IQ somewhere south of a ROCK it would be quite accurate to call him an idiot.

I'm saying if we stop the war, we will be attacked again.

Why? Because all the terrorists are too busy killing in Iraq to look to the U.S.?

What are you talking about?

that your entire style of argument seems to consist of saying "nuh uh" over and over again.

it does however negate your whole point



oh noes! It's teh terroristz!

But yes, it is a good thing that the war in Iraq is going on, this way we can be sure that the huge number of deaths on 9/11 never happens again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14959937/)

1. My point is is that if we really needed the oil we could drill there. Bush is already rich enough, and since we've spent like 800 billion, I dont see how that can be a profit.

3. It's called a war. People die. Honestly you think if we stop, they wont come again? They want to destroy us. If they had nukes, don't you think they would use them.

Dude, the Sunnis, if you haven't noticed, are not giving up...But in southeastern Iraq, the militia fighting has slowed down. Thus the UK is pulling men out as well as many European countries...We are the only country with an urge to kill all the militia men in there, no matter how many US soldiers we lose...

Well if the liberal president in question had an IQ somewhere south of a ROCK it would be quite accurate to call him an idiot.

Typical statement. Do you have his IQ? I have never personally seen it. You could be right, but all because he isnt booksmart doesn't mean anything. That includes a lib pres.

Why? Because all the terrorists are too busy killing in Iraq to look to the U.S.?

What? There have been numerous new plots. Remember the airplane bombing plot?

5.It's fulling the violence in Iraq.
No, the religious differences are, we are trying to prevent them form killing each other.

I'm sure others have responded to the rest of this, but I'd like to take a shot at this statement . . .


Yes, we're trying to prevent them from killing each other by killing them all first.

that your entire style of argument seems to consist of saying "nuh uh" over and over again.

Backed up by statements.

1. My point is is that if we really needed the oil we could drill there. Bush is already rich enough, and since we've spent like 800 billion, I dont see how that can be a profit.

3. It's called a war. People died. Honestly you think if we stop, they wont come again. They want to destroy us. If they had nukes, don't you think they would use them.

Don't you suppose that the 500 billion we've spent in Iraq could have been put to better use securing and improving the US?


ALso, if you are saying "let's fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" you are basically using Iraqis as human sheilds and are no better than the terrorists.

1. My point is is that if we really needed the oil we could drill there.

Um, no, we can't. That's the point.

3. It's called a war. People died. Honestly you think if we stop, they wont come again. They want to destroy us. If they had nukes, don't you think they would use them.

The terrorists kill americans so we go to war to stop them from killing more americans and in the process get more americans killed than got killed when the terrorists attacked.

Right.

I'm sure others have responded to the rest of this, but I'd like to take a shot at this statement . . .


Yes, we're trying to prevent them from killing each other by killing them all first.

Really? I wasn't aware we were murdering innocent people.

Backed up by statements.

um, no. No they were not.

Not eneiterly true. We invaded because 1. WMD (later to be prove false) and 2. Evil Dicator
There are tons of evil dictators, why haven't we invaded Zimbabwe or N. Korea? They don't have oil, that's why.

It has and continues to prop up dictatorial regimes (IE: Saudi Arabia).
And how is S.A. a dictatorship? And where else?
Are you kidding!?

Saudi Arabia is ruled by one man who bars all elections, it's the epitome of dictatorships. We also supported Suharto, The Shah, Pinochet, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein.

Thats OUR FAULT? Sure buddy.
Who toppled Saddam and disbanded the Iraqi Army, and created a power vacuum?

Proof of torture? No. Also we have taken POW's before, why not now.
The men in Guantanamo are not the soldiers of an enemy army.

3. You fail to see the point. IF we stop right now, they will cause more civilian deaths, and then the current death toll will look small.

Really? I wasn't aware we were murdering innocent people.

Us? never (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/iraq-j01.shtml).

3. You fail to see the point. IF we stop right now, they will cause more civilian deaths, and then the current death toll will look small.

and the war in Iraq was linked to the people that attacked us....how?

There are tons of evil dictators, why haven't we invaded Zimbabwe or N. Korea? They don't have oil, that's why.

Are you kidding!?

Saudi Arabia is ruled by one man who bars all elections, it's the epitome of dictatorships. We also supported Suharto, The Shah, Pinochet, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein.


Who toppled Saddam and disbanded the Iraqi Army, and created a power vacuum?


The men in Guantanamo are not the soldiers of an enemy army.


Screw this oil argument. Why not just invade S.A. and claim that they are a dictatorship, and they are a Monarchy, which I think, is backed by religious leaders.

And the men in Guantanamo are suspected of being terrorist. That makes them an enemy. Do I think our measures are to strict? Yes. I think they should have trials.

I don't think your an idiot
I hope you soon do.

Incompetent, how so?

Starting the Iraq war, which has handed so much power to Iran and various Islamic terrorist movements.

Destroying his own popularity. Squandering worldwide goodwill towards America that was generated in the aftermath of 9/11.

What? There have been numerous new plots. Remember the airplane bombing plot?

Was that somehow related to the war in Iraq?

Really? I wasn't aware we were murdering innocent people.

How many civilians have died because of our invasion and than with our occupation?

Screw this oil argument. Why not just invade S.A. and claim that they are a dictatorship, and they are a Monarchy, which I think, is backed by religious leaders.

Because Saudi Arabia is still selling us oil quite nicely.

And the men in Guantanamo are suspected of being terrorist. That makes them an enemy.

No, that makes them suspects, nothing more. Moreover, they belonged to no army, wore no uniform, and under the geneva convention are not considered prisoners of war.

3. You fail to see the point. IF we stop right now, they will cause more civilian deaths, and then the current death toll will look small.

Why did we even get involved in their civil war just to lose more US soldiers? Answer that please.

and the war in Iraq was linked to the people that attacked us....how?

Maybe not in Iraq, but was it not Al-Quadea(sp) who incited the Civil war? It was. Also, I know atrocities have occurred, but thats a few select cases, were are not slaughtering them, like Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Stalin, or etc...

I hope you soon do.


Starting the Iraq war, which has handed so much power to Iran and various Islamic terrorist movements.

Destroying his own popularity. Squandering worldwide goodwill towards America that was generated in the aftermath of 9/11.

Which was backed by congress.

and the war in Iraq was linked to the people that attacked us....how?


It was the Taliban, which happens to be in Iraq/Afghanistan/etc.....That is like the UK invading us because of the KKK....

I'm saying if we stop the war, we will be attacked again.
Let's be realistic here.

Exactly what does it take to do another 9/11? It takes a few committed guys (plenty there, even moreso after the attack on Iraq), a bit of training (easily done, the border regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan come to mind), a few explosives (I don't think AQ is gonna worry too much about that) and a bit of info (that's what the internet is for).

It's not like Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups don't have the resources to both fight Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, and strike targets in the west at the same time. They did in Madrid and London, right?

The things that do make sense are tighter airport security, air marshalls and better trained emergency services. The things that don't make sense are sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers somewhere where they are going to be nothing but a great recruiting ad for AQ.

Maybe not in Iraq, but was it not Al-Quadea(sp) who incited the Civil war? It was.

No, that would be the shiites and the sunnis.

Also, I know atrocities have occurred

gee, that's not what you said a moment ago.

It was the Taliban

no...that would be afghanistan.

Which was backed by congress.

Well in that case I guess the war in Iraq is the greatest thing since sliced bread.



:rolleyes:

Because Saudi Arabia is still selling us oil quite nicely.



No, that makes them suspects, nothing more. Moreover, they belonged to no army, wore no uniform, and under the geneva convention are not considered prisoners of war.

Oh yea, we aren't trying to re-build their country. Then let's move them from cuba to our jails then, and let them have trials, like I said.

Which was backed by congress.

a backing that is now being withdrawn.

no...that would be afghanistan.

Read my edited post...Lol...

Well in that case I guess the war in Iraq is the greatest thing since sliced bread.



:rolleyes:

No, but they are acting like Its Bush's fault alone.

a backing that is now being withdrawn.

Yes. Did I ever say that? Soon our troops will be out, and you all will be happy. I'm not denying that.

No, that would be the shiites and the sunnis.

Actually he's right, Abu Al-Zarkouwi blew up a mosque in Samarrah, IIRC. The mosque was a major Shi'ite shrine, the Shi'ites got angry and started attacking Sunnis...

And the men in Guantanamo are suspected of being terrorist. That makes them an enemy.

So if I only SUSPECT that you might be a terrorist that makes YOU an enemy we should toss into a cell?

No, that makes them suspects, nothing more. Moreover, they belonged to no army, wore no uniform, and under the geneva convention are not considered prisoners of war.

Apparently it means they are shit out of luck, are simply "illegal combatants" or whatever and so means they have no rights whatsoever.

Maybe not in Iraq, but was it not Al-Quadea(sp) who incited the Civil war? It was. Also, I know atrocities have occurred, but thats a few select cases, were are not slaughtering them, like Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Stalin, or etc...

We have to kill people at the rate of Stalin in order for it to be worth talking about?

No, but they are acting like Its Bush's fault alone.

He is the commander in chief, he bears by far the most responsibility.

So if I only SUSPECT that you might be a terrorist that makes YOU an enemy we should toss into a cell?

This is the third time ive stated I don't agree entirely with Guantanamo.

Apparently it means they are shit out of luck, are simply "illegal combatants" or whatever and so means they have no rights whatsoever.



We have to kill people at the rate of Stalin in order for it to be worth talking about?

No. But C'mon are we really slaughtering people? No. Atrocities happen, thats why they are being tried. Are they getting off free? No.

Actually he's right, Abu Al-Zarkouwi blew up a mosque in Samarrah, IIRC. The mosque was a major Shi'ite shrine, the Shi'ites got angry and started attacking Sunnis...

Thank you. That wasn't all of it but a big part. Thats how the deaths squads formed.

Oh yea, we aren't trying to re-build their country. Then let's move them from cuba to our jails then, and let them have trials, like I said.

We should shut down Guantanamo and try the people we have imprisoned there within a year or let them go. That would be a good start.

*nods*

No. But C'mon are we really slaughtering people? No. Atrocities happen, thats why they are being tried. Are they getting off free? No.

The army doesn't seem to take these trials very seriously though. I have no faith in Americans being tried for crimes in Iraq ever getting tough sentences with any kind of regularity. Sweeping it under the rug sounds more the style of the military.

No. But C'mon are we really slaughtering people? No. Atrocities happen, thats why they are being tried. Are they getting off free? No.

No, you're just occupying their country.

We should shut down Guantanamo and try the people we have imprisoned there within a year or let them go. That would be a good start.

*nods*

Is that sarcastic?

No, you're just occupying their country.

Welcome to war. What will happen when we leave?

3. I'm saying if we stop the war, we will be attacked again.
What makes you think this? Please refer to political facts rather than amateur psychology, please.

Screw this oil argument. Why not just invade S.A. and claim that they are a dictatorship, and they are a Monarchy, which I think, is backed by religious leaders.

Not too informed are you? You're showing it all over this thread. And that is the only reason why anyone continues to support current US policy: ignorance.

There is no need to invade Arabia because they co-operate with the US in terms of oil business. Or rather, vice versa. Iraq didn't.

Really? I wasn't aware we were murdering innocent people.
Alright this is where I have to ask if you are serious... do you really think that every one of the thousands of people who have died in this war has been an evil one who deserved it?

Which was backed by congress.
Then congress was also incompetent.

Alright this is where I have to ask if you are serious... do you really think that every one of the thousands of people who have died in this war has been an evil one who deserved it?...

Make that hundreds of thousands of people who've been killed

What makes you think this? Please refer to political facts rather than amateur psychology, please.


Not too informed are you? You're showing it all over this thread. And that is the only reason why anyone continues to support current US policy: ignorance.

There is no need to invade Arabia because they co-operate with the US in terms of oil business. Or rather, vice versa. Iraq didn't.


Alright this is where I have to ask if you are serious... do you really think that every one of the thousands of people who have died in this war has been an evil one who deserved it?


Then congress was also incompetent.

Not to informed? Whatever. Did war cause these thousands of deaths. Did our planes bomb them? Did or soldiers shoot them? Did our Naval Ships bombard them? No, No, and No. They are killing each other. Well, you vote for congress remember?

*snip*

No!

Make that hundreds of thousands of people who've been killed

*Sigh* Did we purposely kill them? No. They are killing each other. That's a fact.

If the United States seeks to maintain its supremacy in the world, it must control the Middle East -and to do that, it must remove Iran.

Control the Middle East? What is this? The 1800s? THis is not the 1800s nor is this the Colonization period. Iran does not need to be removed. The government though , does.

Is that sarcastic?

Hell no. You don't hold people without trial and that entire facility is wrong on so many levels. If the government chooses not to try them then clearly they have no proof of any wrongdoing and those prisoners should be let go. We are supposed to be a nation of law and of rights and don't imprison people for no reason.

Hell, no. You don't hold people without trial and that entire facility is wrong on so many levels. If the government chooses not to try them then clearly they have no proof of any wrongdoing and should be let go. We are supposively a nation of law and don't imprison people for no reason.

Okay making sure. I agree with you somewhat...

As for the trails, the military is embrassed, which is why they are low key, but it is by no means that they don't punish them.

Not to informed? Whatever. Did war cause these thousands of deaths. Did our planes bomb them? Did or soldiers shoot them? Did our Naval Ships bombard them? No, No, and No. They are killing each other. Well, you vote for congress remember?
If you do not address my points specifically I will not argue with you. If you do not stop lying I will not discuss with you.

*Sigh* Did we purposely kill them? No. They are killing each other. That's a fact.

Here are the actual facts my misguided friend:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm

Not to informed? Whatever. Did war cause these thousands of deaths. Did our planes bomb them? Did or soldiers shoot them? Did our Naval Ships bombard them? No, No, and No. They are killing each other. Well, you vote for congress remember?
If you do not address my points specifically I will not argue with you. If you do not stop lying I will not discuss with you.

I didn't claim that the US military is directly killing everyone there. However, it is your country's fault that the situation, where so many people are getting killed, exists there.

Iran is developing a covert nuclear program.
Yet their suspected weapons program is still unproven and most likely has years before completion if it exists.

It has threatened Israel and the United States.
Speaking of chicken and egg: Did the US threathen Iran before or after Iran threatened Israel? And you may link to said threat against the US, please.

It backs terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and this summer started a proxy war in Lebanon.
And? Ignoring that Hezbollah may not qualify for the title of a terrorist organization, Iran should not support the terrorist activities of Hamas. But a cause for war? Not bloody likely.

It directly funds the Shi'ite insurgency in Iraq, and is directly responsible for the deaths of 178 U.S. servicemen from EFPs (explosively formed projectiles.)
Proof? I hear the US is looking for it, so after you've shown us you might want to think about sending it to them.

It is attempting to assert its authority in the Middle East and promoting sectarian violence.
Again, so? Asserting it's authority is bad because it challanges the US, is it? The violence part we could do without but it does not make a just cause for war.

Recently, it illegally kidnapped 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters.
Though they should be released, the time for diplomacy is not yet over.

All these are just causes for war.
No, they are not. Not a single one, actually. Well done.

Should we go to war with Iran?
Hell no.

I am not lying. Theres not doubt that thousands of people have died. I am not disputing that. What I am saying however is that we are not directly responsible. It was was wasn't a civil War at first, the terrorists did that, and after Hussein support one religion, the other wanted revenge. I forget if it was the shia (sp) or Shiite. If Saddam died, it may have happened anyway.

OK, well first off we can't just go to war. Theres a lot of stuff involved. During the first Gulf War Israel was kept out of the coalition so as not to build more hatred towards Israel and the US in the region. Santions are pretty good but we may end up in war in oh 20 or so years. Especially if they don't release those British soldiers. Rember that " proxy war" well Hezbolla captured 2 Israeli soldiers which sparked the war. But war with Iran ( if the British start it) would probably drag in a lot of countries to the allies(the Brits) like the US and maybe on the enemy (Iran) like North Korea. However we still hove the issue of oil. Delicate balance for the US in the Middle East. THe whole thing is like a house of cards.

It isn't a military problem, it's a political one
We're not a world empire, nor should we be.


Your right it is a political problem, but your wrong in that we ARE a world empire

I am not lying. Theres not doubt that thousands of people have died. I am not disputing that. What I am saying however is that we are not directly responsible. It was was wasn't a civil War at first, the terrorists did that, and after Hussein support one religion, the other wanted revenge. I forget if it was the shia (sp) or Shiite. If Saddam died, it may have happened anyway.



I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm saying that you are misguided/uninformed.

Saddam was sick and dying?

The civil war most likely would have occurred upon Saddam's death but at least there wouldn't be American involvement in it.

We seem to have gotten slightly off topic...


I don't think it would have with his sons still alive and ready to take over.

I am not lying. Theres not doubt that thousands of people have died. I am not disputing that. What I am saying however is that we are not directly responsible. It was was wasn't a civil War at first, the terrorists did that, and after Hussein support one religion, the other wanted revenge. I forget if it was the shia (sp) or Shiite. If Saddam died, it may have happened anyway.

The civil war most likely would have occurred upon Saddam's death but at least there wouldn't be American involvement in it.

We seem to have gotten slightly off topic...

I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm saying that you are misguided/uninformed.

Saddam was sick and dying?

No. I'm saying it may have occurred when that did happen. All that resentment was still there under Saddam. The attacks on Mosques escalated it to the boiling point.

The civil war most likely would have occurred upon Saddam's death but at least there wouldn't be American involvement in it.

We seem to have gotten slightly off topic...

You just admitted that it might have happendend even without us. So how would we be responsible?

Iran and (more impportantly) North Korea both need to be dealt with, and dealing with them will probably involve troops.
Problem is, we don't HAVE any spare troops. If you've watched the news, you've seen that reservists are being called up at an alarming rate and soldiers in Iraq are having their terms extended by months.
Right now, the only answer is to get a large number of nonamerican troops to help us out, and that will probably mean getting the UN to support an invasion of Iran and North Korea.....

OHHH but wait the UN never does anything it just says "OK USA you can take this one for the one millionth out one millionth time" And if were lucky some other nations like Britian will help us out while most of the burden lies on the US. And then the UN yells at us for doing stuff that THEY made us do in the first place.

I am not lying. Theres not doubt that thousands of people have died. I am not disputing that. What I am saying however is that we are not directly responsible. It was was wasn't a civil War at first, the terrorists did that, and after Hussein support one religion, the other wanted revenge. I forget if it was the shia (sp) or Shiite. If Saddam died, it may have happened anyway.

The Sunni are attacking the Shiite....

Welcome to war.

The war is over. The army is defeated.
What will happen when we leave?
What happens if you stay?

The war is over. The army is defeated.

What happens if you stay?

If we stay... Honestly, I am not sure.

And then the UN yells at us for doing stuff that THEY made us do in the first place.

Excuse me.

*Head explodes due to flawed logic*

What exactly did the UN manage to force the Americans to do, which they complained about later?

Anyway, Im off for food, so I'll see you debaters later :)

No. I'm saying it may have occurred when that did happen. All that resentment was still there under Saddam. The attacks on Mosques escalated it to the boiling point.

With the Iraqi army ready to stop them, it wouldn't have happened.

You just admitted that it might have happendend even without us. So how would we be responsible?

And even if it had, Utracia just said that had that actually happened , then it wouldn't be our fault because the US wouldn't be involved. Right now, it most certainly is our fault. How could you even deny that?

The US has massive stockpiles of plutonium grade nuclear arsenal; ready to launch missiles and they have violated the Non-Proliferation Agreement.

It has invaded two nation under the pretext of the 'War on Terror' and threatened others.

It has and continues to prop up dictatorial regimes (IE: Saudi Arabia).

It is directly responsible for the growing loud mouth malcontent movement in Iraq where any jackass can pick up a gun and go postal/suicide bomber.

It's fuelling the violence in Iraq.

It is holding "enemy combatants" without charge and has sponsored state-sanctioned torture to elicit information from supposed terrorists.

The US is just as guilty as Iran... both have blood on their hands.

F**k YOU!!

If we stay... Honestly, I am not sure.

The same thing that's been happening since the start of the occupation.

You just admitted that it might have happendend even without us. So how would we be responsible?

It MIGHT have occurred anyway. We can guesstimate all we want but the fact is that we wrongly invaded Iraq and as a result it is a current state of violent turmoil. Nothing can avoid that simple fact. We invaded, we are occupying the country, we are responsible for what happens because of this.

Congrats, you have just won the most liberal and ignorant post of the day award!


Liberal as in the DEmocratic liberal (like john kerry) SENSE OF THE TERM NOT SO MUCH. ignorant is an understatement. I wanna punch this guy! Kyronika or watever the hell his name is that is.

F**k YOU!!

Dude, calm down...No need for profanity...

F**k YOU!!

"When in doubt resort to childish insults"
-Debating for Dummies

I am not lying.
You are. To say that America is not directly responsible for the current war (i.ei situation in which the aforementioned thousands are getting killed) in Iraq is a lie, in its most classic form.

Anyway, Im off for food, so I'll see you debaters later :)
Food is for the weak!

NO. We would rather die a painful, tortured death, be conquered and divided up between China, Russia, and Mexico, have our organs boiled out, and have our disembowled bodies and penises eaten by dogs, then burned in a fire, than use nuclear weapons. Or open a can of American/Brittish super-power wh00p@$$.

Or so the liberals say.

NO. We would rather die a painful, tortured death, be conquered and divided up between China, Russia, and Mexico, have our organs boiled out, and have our disembowled bodies and penises eaten by dogs, then burned in a fire, than use nuclear weapons. Or open a can of American/Brittish super-power wh00p@$$.

Or so the liberals say.

Point being?

Iran is developing a covert nuclear program. Who is to say who can and cannot have nuclear weapons. Nobody should have nuclear weapons, but as long as powers like the USA, UK, Israel have them, these countries have a right to self defence mechanisms.

It has threatened Israel and the United States. Many claim that the leader of Iran was actually mistranslated. He didn't call to "wipe Israel off the map," but in fact called to erase the Israel situation "from the page of time," referring to the racist government that oppresses and humiliates helpless palestinians on a daily basis.

It backs terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and this summer started a proxy war in Lebanon. Proxy war with Lebanon? Please tell me you are joking. Israel invaded the Lebanon and they initiated the war. Hezbollah actually represent the majority of the people, not the American puppet government that is already in place there. Also, define terrorist please? Look closely at your definition and then think about other such examples which don't seem to have been classified as "terrorist" in the media.

It directly funds the Shi'ite insurgency in Iraq, and is directly responsible for the deaths of 178 U.S. servicemen from EFPs (explosively formed projectiles.) There is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever and is currently just speculation by America. The Shi'ite "insurgency" was there long before US forces and what they want is US forces to leave their country alone and let people get on with their lives.

It is attempting to assert its authority in the Middle East and promoting sectarian violence. Nobody wants sectarian violence. The sectarian violence is a tit for tat perpetual conflict instigated by the US and coalition forces with lies and misinformation.

Recently, it illegally kidnapped 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters. Correction, they did not kidnap sailors, they arrested them. Whether or not they were in Iranian waters is disputed. Also what about the 5 Iranian diplomats the Americans have in their custody? And moreover, what about the hundreds of prisoners that America have in custody at Guantanamo Bay, some of whom have been there for years without a trial, without being told what they have done wrong and without a right to see a lawyer. Guantanamo Bay is currently one of the worlds biggest breaches of Human Rights today.

If the United States seeks to maintain its supremacy in the world, it must control the Middle East -and to do that, it must remove Iran. That is just psychopathic. Supremacy? Maintain? wtf? That is just the height of arrogance to suggest that one country should hold supreme power over the whole world, especially one like America whose citizens have no idea about anything that goes on outside America.

Should we go to war with Iran? NO! We don't need any more war. We don't need any more bloodshed. America has been defeated in Iraq. Put it this way, they aren't making it any better. More people are dying there every day now than there were during Saddam Hussain. Saddam Hussain was a bad man, but it's not America's place to take him out when America put him there in the first place!!! It should be up to the Iraqi people to determine their fate. Not the US, not the UK, not the UN, and not you. You have fallen for every media lie on the air. Read both sides of the story.

Point being?

We won't get anything done with a liberal majority, especially militarily.

Kryozerkia, dear God I cannot express how much I hate your comment. The US just wants to spread the American dream, that everyone can have equal oppurtunity, which is why the US frees oppresed countrys. Granted we made a few mistakes, but never that bad or on purpose. If you don't like it get out of the US. I mean you are free to express your opion, but comparing US to a dictatorship thats just wrong. Oh and if you don't live in the US why don't you go live in Iran or North Korea.

PS: I am DEFINATELY not saying that you commited treason. That would be wrong. Ad I don't sopport that torture I think that is being no better than them.

PSS: Treason must have 2 witnesses and is punishable by death. Once again I am NOT saying you commited treason

Why shouldn't the United States be a world empire?
Why shouldn't Nazi Germany have been a world empire, either?

Both are about as good of ideas.

Iran is developing a covert nuclear program.
Oh no, they can power their country with nuclear energy.

It has threatened Israel and the United States.
Just words.

It backs terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and this summer started a proxy war in Lebanon.
Diplomacy ended it.

It directly funds the Shi'ite insurgency in Iraq, and is directly responsible for the deaths of 178 U.S. servicemen from EFPs (explosively formed projectiles.)
You know who else funded insurgents and militia? The US.

It is attempting to assert its authority in the Middle East and promoting sectarian violence.
Diplomacy is the answer.

Recently, it illegally kidnapped 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters.
That is disputable. They are being treated well while this issue is being worked out.

All these are just causes for war.
If you're an empire bent on controlling the entire world perhaps.

Kryozerkia, dear God I cannot express how much I hate your comment. The US just wants to spread the American dream, that everyone can have equal oppurtunity, which is why the US frees oppresed countrys. Granted we made a few mistakes, but never that bad or on purpose. If you don't like it get out of the US. I mean you are free to express your opion, but comparing US to a dictatorship thats just wrong. Oh and if you don't live in the US why don't you go live in Iran or North Korea.

PS: I am DEFINATELY not saying that you commited treason. That would be wrong. Ad I don't sopport that torture I think that is being no better than them.

PSS: Treason must have 2 witnesses and is punishable by death. Once again I am NOT saying you commited treason


Lol...It looks like we have another victim of crazy US propaganda...

We won't get anything done with a liberal majority, especially militarily.

Did you just call the Democrats "Liberal"?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaa

So we can safely disregard anything else you have to say.

NO. We would rather die a painful, tortured death, be conquered and divided up between China, Russia, and Mexico, have our organs boiled out, and have our disembowled bodies and penises eaten by dogs, then burned in a fire, than use nuclear weapons. Or open a can of American/Brittish super-power wh00p@$$.

Or so the liberals say.

Are you trying to suggest that we should open cans of American and British wh00p@$$ on Iran, including nuclear weapons and that any suggestion otherwise makes us liberals who would see us all tortured and conquered by China, Russia and Mexico and than to have our body parts eaten by dogs?

Who is to say who can and cannot have nuclear weapons. Nobody should have nuclear weapons, but as long as powers like the USA, UK, Israel have them, these countries have a right to self defence mechanisms.

Many claim that the leader of Iran was actually mistranslated. He didn't call to "wipe Israel off the map," but in fact called to erase the Israel situation "from the page of time," referring to the racist government that oppresses and humiliates helpless palestinians on a daily basis.

Proxy war with Lebanon? Please tell me you are joking. Israel invaded the Lebanon and they initiated the war. Hezbollah actually represent the majority of the people, not the American puppet government that is already in place there. Also, define terrorist please? Look closely at your definition and then think about other such examples which don't seem to have been classified as "terrorist" in the media.

There is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever and is currently just speculation by America. The Shi'ite "insurgency" was there long before US forces and what they want is US forces to leave their country alone and let people get on with their lives.

Nobody wants sectarian violence. The sectarian violence is a tit for tat perpetual conflict instigated by the US and coalition forces with lies and misinformation.

Correction, they did not kidnap sailors, they arrested them. Whether or not they were in Iranian waters is disputed. Also what about the 5 Iranian diplomats the Americans have in their custody? And moreover, what about the hundreds of prisoners that America have in custody at Guantanamo Bay, some of whom have been there for years without a trial, without being told what they have done wrong and without a right to see a lawyer. Guantanamo Bay is currently one of the worlds biggest breaches of Human Rights today.

That is just psychopathic. Supremacy? Maintain? wtf? That is just the height of arrogance to suggest that one country should hold supreme power over the whole world, especially one like America whose citizens have no idea about anything that goes on outside America.

NO! We don't need any more war. We don't need any more bloodshed. America has been defeated in Iraq. Put it this way, they aren't making it any better. More people are dying there every day now than there were during Saddam Hussain. Saddam Hussain was a bad man, but it's not America's place to take him out when America put him there in the first place!!! It should be up to the Iraqi people to determine their fate. Not the US, not the UK, not the UN, and not you. You have fallen for every media lie on the air. Read both sides of the story.

You may be right about the Guantonomo Bay thing but on everything else your DEAD wrong. For example Hezbolla started the proxy war when HEZBOLLA cPTURED 2 ISREALI soldiers. Oh bet you didn't know that and even if you were right Hezbolla are terrorists. War on terror. But ah Hezbolla didn't do anything diplomatic.So ah basically your wrong

I could argue for hours about this, but it would be a waste of time. Instead, you people calling for this war, listen to Bob Dylans song Masters of War for my opinion of you.

New new nebraska, your days on this forum are numbered. Be prepared to say goodbye to this forum. Your words are totally out of line; they are beyond a flame, they are threats. I'm not going to stoop to your level and levy threats and insults (flames/trolling) against my target. I'm just going to ignore this thread and leave the mods to deal with you.

ps - being stoned keeps your temper in line.

You may be right about the Guantonomo Bay thing but on everything else your DEAD wrong. For example Hezbolla started the proxy war when HEZBOLLA cPTURED 2 ISREALI soldiers. Oh bet you didn't know that and even if you were right Hezbolla are terrorists. War on terror. But ah Hezbolla didn't do anything diplomatic.So ah basically your wrong

It could have been solved easier, Israel did not have to invade Lebannon and kill people just to find Hezbolla...

New new nebraska, your days on this forum are numbered. Be prepared to say goodbye to this forum. Your words are totally out of line; they are beyond a flame, they are threats. I'm not going to stoop to your level and levy threats and insults (flames/trolling) against my target. I'm just going to ignore this thread and leave the mods to deal with you.

ps - being stoned keeps your temper in line.

He flamed?

Kryozerkia, dear God I cannot express how much I hate your comment. The US just wants to spread the American dream, that everyone can have equal oppurtunity, which is why the US frees oppresed countrys. Granted we made a few mistakes, but never that bad or on purpose. If you don't like it get out of the US. I mean you are free to express your opion, but comparing US to a dictatorship thats just wrong. Oh and if you don't live in the US why don't you go live in Iran or North Korea.

Are you serious? Do you have anything to say other than the old "America only spreads freedom" "if you don't like it than leave" and "why do you hate freedom?" If you have anything other than these disgusting lines, please share them with us.

He flamed?

Enough for you?

F**k YOU!!

Liberal as in the DEmocratic liberal (like john kerry) SENSE OF THE TERM NOT SO MUCH. ignorant is an understatement. I wanna punch this guy! Kyronika or watever the hell his name is that is.

Kryozerkia, If he posted what you just outlined. That is blatantly against NS rules as I understand them. However an official NS Moderator ruling may be in order.

Kryozerkia, If he posted what you just outlined. That is blatantly against NS rules as I understand them. However an official NS Moderator ruling may be in order.

I reported it in moderation before I made that warning post.

Enough for you?

I've seen far worse. This is nothing :D

F**k YOU!!

Do you think the asterisks mean you're not making a personal attack?

Warned for flaming. Knock it off, NOW.

Why shouldn't the United States be a world empire?

Because the rest of the world exists and you WILL respect it.

3. I'm saying if we stop the war, we will be attacked again.

You say many things.

Because the rest of the world exists and you WILL respect it.

Somehow I doubt that. Like Bush and his lackeys, he thinks America DOES rule the world and everyone should just accept that.

Somehow I doubt that. Like Bush and his lackeys, he thinks America DOES rule the world and everyone should just accept that.

I said he'll respect it, I didn't say he'll want to.

I hope New new nebraska and Nuevo Italia answer me. I would really like them to expand on the posts they made before.

Kryozerkia, dear God I cannot express how much I hate your comment. The US just wants to spread the American dream, that everyone can have equal oppurtunity, which is why the US frees oppresed countrys. Granted we made a few mistakes, but never that bad or on purpose. If you don't like it get out of the US. I mean you are free to express your opion, but comparing US to a dictatorship thats just wrong. Oh and if you don't live in the US why don't you go live in Iran or North Korea.

PS: I am DEFINATELY not saying that you commited treason. That would be wrong. Ad I don't sopport that torture I think that is being no better than them.

PSS: Treason must have 2 witnesses and is punishable by death. Once again I am NOT saying you commited treason

Why do your PS's sound more like you're NOT not saying he committed treason?

Why do your PS's sound more like you're NOT not saying he committed treason?

What I'd like to know is, how can I commit treason against America when I'm a passport holding Canadian citizen...

What I'd like to know is, how can I commit treason against America when I'm a passport holding Canadian citizen...

Hmmm. Maybe you are trying to bring down our government so are an enemy to America. Better watch out, may find yourself kidnapped and taken to Gitmo. :eek:

Hmmm. Maybe you are trying to bring down our government so are an enemy to America. Better watch out, may find yourself kidnapped and taken to Gitmo. :eek:

I look too white bread to fit that description.

I look too white bread to fit that description.

Always a first time. I'm sure Bush is looking hard at the uber ebil Canadians.

Always a first time. I'm sure Bush is looking hard at the uber ebil Canadians.

Not really. He has a lapdog up here in the PMO. :D

Not really. He has a lapdog up here in the PMO. :D

Just makes it more likely that Harper will give Bush the nod to grab you. :p

You say many things.

Its my right :) But, you remember, that Bin Laden declared war on us!

The same thing that's been happening since the start of the occupation.

I do think the consequences will be much worse if we leave than if we stay.

Kryozerkia, dear God I cannot express how much I hate your comment. The US just wants to spread the American dream, that everyone can have equal oppurtunity, which is why the US frees oppresed countrys. Granted we made a few mistakes, but never that bad or on purpose. If you don't like it get out of the US. I mean you are free to express your opion, but comparing US to a dictatorship thats just wrong. Oh and if you don't live in the US why don't you go live in Iran or North Korea.

Each country has its own dream. Your troops are wise to keep their blood-soiled boots out of mine. Brazil, BTW, a leftist (by your standards) democracy.

I do think the consequences will be much worse if we leave than if we stay.

Again: You think many things.

Again: You think many things.

Well honestly, what's keeping them from ripping each other up worse than they are now?

Its my right :) But, you remember, that Bin Laden declared war on us!

That he did. But Iraq didn't. That was all America doing a little "preemptive action".

Well honestly, what's keeping them from ripping each other up worse than they are now?

It's our responsibility to keep them from fighting? It is their civil war, we don't have to referee them.

That he did. But Iraq didn't. That was all America doing a little "preemptive action".

I wasn't talking about Iraq with regard to that. Your right about the Iraq part.

Well honestly, what's keeping them from ripping each other up worse than they are now?

You assume there IS a "worse".

You assume there IS a "worse".

It can get worse. Its not exactly a full-blown civil war yet.

Good, Iran has a right to defend it's national interests from US imperialism. Iran should also execute those captured British spies immediately.

Good, Iran has a right to defend it's national interests from US imperialis. Iran should also execute those captured British spies immediately.

Wow.

And how is Saudi Arabia a dictatorship?
let me guess.. You get your news from FOX/CNN/AP.

And where else?Bahrain,
Egypt, rigged elections
Iraq,
Jordan,
Kuwait,
Oman,
Qatar,
United Arab Emirates

....Syria and Lybia are Dictatorships.. but they do not belong in the US "protectorates" list.

let me guess.. You get your news from FOX/CNN/AP.

Bahrain,
Egypt,
Iraq,
Jordan,
Kuwait,
Oman,
Qatar,
United Arab Emirates

....Syria and Lybia are Dictatorships.. but they do not belong in the US "protectorates" list.

! Well true they are dictators, or mostly. A lot have Kings, which isn't the same. Most of their King's are not dictators, like Jordan or Bahrain, not sure about the rest. Kings are not dictators, all the time. Some are, like Egypt's.

! Well true they are dictators, so far so good (your post is making sense)

or mostly. A lot have Kings, which isn't the same. Most of their King's are not dictators, like Jordan or Bahrain, not sure about the rest. Kings are not dictators, all the time. Some are, like Egypt's.I lost you.. damn.. lost in space!!!

I hate it when that happens. :(
like when their first paragraph is so rational.. is all good.. and then WHAM!! all of a sudden they go bananas.

so far so good (your post is making sense)

I lost you.. damn.. lost in space!!!

I hate it when that happens. :(
like when their first paragraph is so rational.. is all good.. and all of a sudden they go bananas.

Well, I just don't see how most of them are. Like Egypt locks people up for speaking against the king, but to my knowledge Jordan doesn't, hardly the same?

That he did. But Iraq didn't. That was all America doing a little "preemptive action".



It's our responsibility to keep them from fighting? It is their civil war, we don't have to referee them.

True, but we must try and finish the job. It bugs me at school when some people want to send troops to Sudan instead of Iraq, but Iraq will be doing what Sudan does if we leave.

if it follows these guidelines then by all means

"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"

* Comparative justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;

* Legitimate authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;

* Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

* Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

* Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[6]

* Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted

Well, I just don't see how most of them are. Like Egypt locks people up for speaking against the king, but to my knowledge Jordan doesn't, hardly the same?Let me make this verry simple:
Who holds the executive power in Jordan?

the President of Jordan?
the Prime Minister of Jordan?
the King of Jordan?
(Whoever it is)..

Was he elected by the people? (and is he to hold elections after a term)
if he was NOT elected, he is a Dictator.

<< BTW Egypt does NOT have a king.

Let me make this verry simple:
Who holds the executive power in Jordan?

the President of Jordan?
the Prime Minister of Jordan?
the King of Jordan?
(Whoever it is)..

Was he elected by the people? (and is he to hold elections after a term)
if he was NOT elected, he is a Dictator.

<< BTW Egypt does NOT have a king.

Ah, I stand corrected. But then again *my* definition of a Dictator is one who abuses his people.

Elizabeth II of UK is the ruler of my country, and she was not elected, she isnt even a resident of my country, does that not make her Dictator of my country?

Elizabeth II of UK is the ruler of my country, and she was not elected, she isnt even a resident of my country, does that not make her Dictator of my country?
Does the Queen actually have any power? Her role always confused me.

Does the Queen actually have any power? Her role always confused me.

Technically, she has absolute power, but obviously she acts in the restraints of the Constitutional monarch. In Australia and other Commonwealth states, the Governor General acts as her representative, no legislation can become law unless he signs it on the permission of the Queen. Given, she has told the GG to just approve all laws, but the GG has dissolved an Australian Govt in the past.

Ah, I stand corrected. But then again *my* definition of a Dictator is one who abuses his people.there is some more accurate words for that:

oppressor
tyrant

http://m-w.com/

of course this is just a suggestion, Freedom of speech and all..

there is some more accurate words for that:

oppressor
tyrant

http://m-w.com/

of course this is just a suggestion, Freedom of speech and all..

true. It depends how specific you want to get.

Elizabeth II of UK is the ruler of my country...so.. she can stop the War.. right? :D

Technically, she has absolute power, but obviously she acts in the restraints of the Constitutional monarch. In Australia and other Commonwealth states, the Governor General acts as her representative, no legislation can become law unless he signs it on the permission of the Queen. Given, she has told the GG to just approve all laws, but the GG has dissolved an Australian Govt in the past.
Oh, wow. Until now I always thought she was just a useless figurehead kept around for some kind of "British Empire" patriotism.

Ah, I stand corrected. But then again *my* definition of a Dictator is one who abuses his people.

Such as sending them to an illegal, unwarranted war and ignores the people's will to end it?

Oh, wow. Until now I always thought she was just a useless figurehead kept around for some kind of "British Empire" patriotism.she is a figure head.. Andaras Prime is just screwing around with you.. with his technicalities.
He is very good at that :D

she is a figure head.. Andaras Prime is just screwing around with you.. with his technicalities.
He is very good at that :D

I know she is just a figure head, I was just putting out the information as asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975

Liberal as in the DEmocratic liberal (like john kerry) SENSE OF THE TERM NOT SO MUCH. ignorant is an understatement. I wanna punch this guy! Kyronika or watever the hell his name is that is.
So you are unable to refute the points made in the previous post. I see.
Kryozerkia, dear God I cannot express how much I hate your comment. The US just wants to spread the American dream, that everyone can have equal oppurtunity, which is why the US frees oppresed countrys. Granted we made a few mistakes, but never that bad or on purpose. If you don't like it get out of the US. I mean you are free to express your opion, but comparing US to a dictatorship thats just wrong. Oh and if you don't live in the US why don't you go live in Iran or North Korea.

PS: I am DEFINATELY not saying that you commited treason. That would be wrong. Ad I don't sopport that torture I think that is being no better than them.

PSS: Treason must have 2 witnesses and is punishable by death. Once again I am NOT saying you commited treason
Oh dear lord, the "Dissent = TREASON!!1!!eleven!!" argument again :rolleyes:

*snip OP
Oh, you really have made my morning.

*Dies of laughter*

Oh, wow. Until now I always thought she was just a useless figurehead kept around for some kind of "British Empire" patriotism.
She is. She may have power, but exercising it would be impossible, mainly because her powers are exercised by other officers of the Crown (such as the Lord Chancellor) by Letters Patent.

Looks like Iran is ready to bring those 15 sailors to trial for "violating International Law"

To put this into perspective, we lost 60,000 servicemen in Vietnam, and we have only lost 3,000 in Iraq and the war there is winding down. That means we can handle crises several times larger than the Iraq war.

If the United States seeks to maintain its supremacy in the world, it must control the Middle East -and to do that, it must remove Iran.

Firstly, in a semantic sense, you are a sensationalist moron, or just ignorant. A crisis implies impending systemic collapse, hence Iraq is no crisis, since it does immediately emperil the US itself.

Secondly, ever heard of politics? I daresay, in purely military and human terms, the US could occupy Iraq, Iran, and the remainder of the middle east. However, politically, Iraq has done for much of the credibility the US holds globally, and an invasion of Iran would intensify said excoriation.

Thirdly, the US does not dominate the world, nor should it attempt to. Empire and colonialism is dead.

Elizabeth II of UK is the ruler of my country, and she was not elected, she isnt even a resident of my country, does that not make her Dictator of my country?

technically she has absolout power, but in fact she has given these powers to parliment and they can't be withdrawn. So she has no power...

technically she has absolout power, but in fact she has given these powers to parliment and they can't be withdrawn. So she has no power...

She has an army of Corgis.

Iran is developing a covert nuclear program.

It has threatened Israel and the United States.

It backs terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and this summer started a proxy war in Lebanon.

It directly funds the Shi'ite insurgency in Iraq, and is directly responsible for the deaths of 178 U.S. servicemen from EFPs (explosively formed projectiles.)

It is attempting to assert its authority in the Middle East and promoting sectarian violence.

Recently, it illegally kidnapped 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters.

All these are just causes for war.

Should we go to war with Iran?

OMFG! You bigot!

Its a covert nuclear program since when?

And can I be the first to say "Fuck Israel and the United states".

Its a covert nuclear program since when?

And can I be the first to say "Fuck Israel and the United states".

Gonna wear out your pecker! :D

She has an army of Corgis.

Damn I'm scared!

Its a covert nuclear program since when?

And can I be the first to say "Fuck Israel and the United states".

Cool, well show the world your hate and be a real man...

Go to Iraq and join a militia, ya twaty twit.

Cool, well show the world your hate and be a real man...

Go to Iraq and join a militia, ya twaty twit.

Hmmm. So considering the interests of the US not to be worth starting another war over = muslim fundamentalist....

Cool, well show the world your hate and be a real man...

Go to Iraq and join a militia, ya twaty twit.

Ah. Disliking Israel and the U.S. must mean that you also support the extremists in Iraq. I see you have really thought this through.