The problem spelled I R A N

[acushla]

Put this in a new thread. Here is the text of a report from Israel which I think addresses the seriousness of the current situation.

Middle East Features

Iran faces `destruction` - Israel warns
By Martin Walker Jan 21, 2006, 23:07 GMT

HERZLIYA, Israel (UPI) -- Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz warned the Iranian people Saturday that they faced 'destruction' unless they managed to restrain their new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

'Look at the fate of others who sought the destruction of the Jewish people. They only brought havoc and destruction to the own people,' Mofaz said.

'I know that a large part of the people of Iran do not support his policies but his despicable acts could bring destruction to all of you. You understand what must be done to prevent this,' Mofaz added, directly addressing the Iranian people.

It was the toughest statement of Israel`s determination to block Iran`s nuclear ambitions since the stroke that felled Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon two weeks ago, and it came just two days before the next scheduled international inspection of Iran`s nuclear research facilities.

Mofaz`s speech to an international conference of security experts in Herzliya, an exclusive resort just north of Tel Aviv, contained a clear warning that Israel if the United Nations and the international community failed to act, Israel would do so.

'Israel has to be able to defend itself,' Mofaz said. 'This we can do, and we are working on it now.'

The Mofaz speech was intended not only for Iran and an international audience but also for Israeli voters, who go to the polls in March in a general election that seems likely to elect a new government led by the new Kadima party, founded by Sharon, to which Mofaz has rallied along with the acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. With the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran looming heavily over the Israeli elections, Mofaz`s speech was aimed to reassure the voters that Israel`s security would be safe in Kadima`s hands.

Iran`s nuclear development program is 'an existential risk to the entire world, not just Israel,' Mofaz went on, and said that Ahmadinejad led 'an extremist regime that denies the existence of Israel and calls for its obliteration.'

'I believe everyone present here understands the extent to which the combination of an extremist regime with long-range ballistic capability, ongoing effort to obtain nuclear weapons and support in terror constitutes a danger not only to Israel, but to the entire world,' Mofaz added.

Mofaz, formerly chief of staff of Israeli defense forces, told the annual Herzliya Conference on the Israel`s national security that in addition to Tehran`s nuclear ambitions, Iran was directly sponsoring the Hizbollah terrorist organization to the tune of $100 million a year.

'Money is the fuel for terror,' Mofaz said. 'The financial assistance Iran transfers to Hizbollah totals some 100 million dollars each year. Some of these funds are funneled from Hizbollah to Palestinian terror groups. In addition, Iran is the main sponsor of the Islamic Jihad, which carried out most suicide attacks in Israel last year, including the attack in Tel Aviv`s central bus station.'

He added that Islamic Jihad cells in the West Bank received about 10 million dollars from Hizbullah in 2005, compared to just 5 million dollars in 2004.

In his combative speech, Mofaz described last week`s Damascus meeting between Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar Assad as 'the summit of terror,' and called the two leaders 'representatives of the past.'

But Mofaz made it clear that while Israel could act alone of it had to, the Jewish state was also wary of being isolated diplomatically, and would work hard to build regional alliances and cooperate with the international community.

'In the coming years we need to boost the strategic coordination with the U.S. and Europe, as well as with the peaceful countries Egypt and Jordan. Jihad draws near to us, and so we must combine efforts with the countries of the West,' the defense minister said.

'Syria is under international pressure, while we have peace agreements with Arab states and the reality does not allow for the formation of an Arab coalition against Israel. The strength of the peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt contributes to stability in the region, which is why they must continue to be nurtured,' Mofaz concluded.

[Paul]

Another column on the subject:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis12.html

[acushla]

Another column on the subject:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis12.html

It is a good article written by an intellectual who only understands reason.

The current situation with regards to Iran, under 'normal' circumstances, invites a wide diversity of approaches, reason, compromises and possible solutions which can be accepted by all sides.

Unfortunately Iran has precluded any idea of 'normal' with statements of 'wiping Israel off the map'.

It was the US who supported the beginning of the Iranian nuclear program during the reign of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi in the 1970's. At the time there was no real reason to begin a nuclear program in Iran. Since the 1970s, India, South Africa, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan have joined the nuclear club. South Africa subsequently dismantled its bombs under the democratic government of Nelson Mandela. Nobody perceives India, the world's largest democracy, as a threat to the world. Until now Israel was not likely to be the first nation in the Middle East to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

The driving force behind Iranian's nuclear program are hard-liners who currently control the Parliament and the presidency through rigged elections. They fiercely oppose Iran's democratic movement and will use any threat of military attack as an excuse to crush the democratic movement. Taking Iran to the UN Security Council and imposing sanctions on it would prompt the hard-liners to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its Additional Protocol.

It is said that the hard-liners cannot operate independently as Iran needs continued commerce with the European Union, however, Iran, threatened with referral to the Security Council for possible punitive measures, announced Friday it began moving its foreign assets.

"We transfer foreign reserves to wherever we see as expedient. On this issue, we have started transferring. We are doing that," Ebrahim Sheibani told the ISNA students' news agency when asked about the need to shift Iran's holdings.

Sheibani's remarks indicated how seriously the Islamic republic is taking the threat of UN sanctions.

However, on Sunday the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, denied that such transfers were taking place.

"So far we have not moved any hard currency; we have not transferred it," he told reporters at a news conference.

There are many scenarios that can be written and advice given to all sides to sort through this complex situation...I personally think that things have progressed too far for that to happen. Israel in particular have been dreading this day for sometime and on Saturday Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz warned the Iranian people that they faced 'destruction' unless they managed to restrain their new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

'Look at the fate of others who sought the destruction of the Jewish people. They only brought havoc and destruction to the own people,' Mofaz said.

'I know that a large part of the people of Iran do not support his policies but his despicable acts could bring destruction to all of you. You understand what must be done to prevent this,' Mofaz added, directly addressing the Iranian people.

'Israel has to be able to defend itself,' Mofaz said. 'This we can do, and we are working on it now.'

Iran`s nuclear development program is 'an existential risk to the entire world, not just Israel,' Mofaz went on, and said that Ahmadinejad led 'an extremist regime that denies the existence of Israel and calls for its obliteration.'

'I believe everyone present here understands the extent to which the combination of an extremist regime with long-range ballistic capability, ongoing effort to obtain nuclear weapons and support in terror constitutes a danger not only to Israel, but to the entire world,' Mofaz added.

There is a reason that the US prefers that only those countries who are reliable allies have nuclear weapons...in part it is called control. Agree with it or not...countries who share your values and goals are preferable to those countries who are ideology opposed to you and openly talk about your destruction.

It is popular in Western culture to talk about 'one world', and yes, it is one world, one world with many different economic levels of existence; one world with deep chasms of ideological differences which allows for no compromise; one world that has never known peace.

The only question you need to ask yourself is: which side are you on?

Iran has proposed that China participate in its uranium enrichment project, according to a report by the German weekly Der Spiegel to be published Monday.

The plot thickens.

[Willow of Oz]

Wow.
Paul posts on a forum regarding one of politics/religion (very interesting link btw!)
And Acushla manages to get volumes 1 and 2 of his life's investigations into the middle east published on these here forums. I fully expect volume 3 to be several pages of bibliography...

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

I think it's perfectly alright if Iran uses nuclear energy and builds nuclear reactors, but if Russia (and China) propose to refine the Uranium for Iran, then Iran should agree and not decide it has the right to refine Uranium on its own. We all know that Atomic bombs can be build with that stuff... The last thing we want is Iran to become a nation with A-bombs.

[WHAT?]

I think it's perfectly alright if Iran uses nuclear energy and builds nuclear reactors, but if Russia (and China) propose to refine the Uranium for Iran, then Iran should agree and not decide it has the right to refine Uranium on its own. We all know that Atomic bombs can be build with that stuff... The last thing we want is Iran to become a nation with A-bombs.
Sure Why not...?? We can trust their word!:bandit:

Willow of Oz Wow.
Paul posts on a forum regarding one of politics/religion (very interesting link btw!)
And Acushla manages to get volumes 1 and 2 of his life's investigations into the middle east published on these here forums. I fully expect volume 3 to be several pages of bibliography...
hehehe! http://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/post/silly.gif
Alan they are worthy though, he's just ribbin" ya!
It just hit me as funny!http://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif
This subject is to be continued, that's for sure! Eventually most nations wanting to, will have the capability to have them. Even the ones today, that do, we don't know who will be in charge 20, 40, 100 years from now. And that person could be a loonie! Is there a clear cut answer?

[acushla]

Wow.
Paul posts on a forum regarding one of politics/religion (very interesting link btw!)
And Acushla manages to get volumes 1 and 2 of his life's investigations into the middle east published on these here forums. I fully expect volume 3 to be several pages of bibliography...

I think it was Paul who responded to my opening this thread.

I do not quite understand how a lenthly commentary on such a complex subject as the Middle East is to be regarded as a fault.

Unless of course you're not really interested in the subject.

[Willow of Oz]

blink.
I was merely referring to the fact that Paul tends to refrain from entering things like political threads, so I was merely commenting on the unusualness of the event.
And I certainly wasn't complaining about your posts, Acushla - as What pointed out, I was merely ribbing you :rolleyes:

The topic of who has arms, who does what with them and the treaties that are put in place to restrict other countries is certainly an interesting one.

[acushla]

blink.
I was merely referring to the fact that Paul tends to refrain from entering things like political threads, so I was merely commenting on the unusualness of the event.
And I certainly wasn't complaining about your posts, Acushla - as What pointed out, I was merely ribbing you :rolleyes:

The topic of who has arms, who does what with them and the treaties that are put in place to restrict other countries is certainly an interesting one.

My sincere apologies...I misunderstood. :paranoid:

I read Whats post after I responded...and thought he was just being kind by telling me that my comments were welcome.

One question...where was the smiley?;) :o

[Willow of Oz]

One question...where was the smiley?;) :o

You know, I'm not sure I even considered a smiley. I think because I didn't really see how it could come across negatively. Just as a droll comment. Ah, perspective.

Perhaps not as bad as the other day when I sent a 'humourous' reply to an email that was going to make a decision "based on the numbers", and went out to about a dozen people, where I subtly worked in references to perfect numbers, primes, abundant numbers and factors ... I slightly missed the mark there too.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

♫ Give me ... the freedom to destroy, ♫ ♪ ♫ give me ... radioactive toy... ♪ (Coma Divine, 1999, Porcupine Tree).

[acushla]

How do we spell that?

[WHAT?]

That does hit a cord with me! Not angrily or anything. - just right on target actually.
I'm certainly not a war mongrel. But looking at this in a strategically publicity angle only! It pushes the administration in a no win corner it would seem. By that I mean... how can one attempt justification to stop a country (by force) if they were up to something evil, when you stuck your neck out once by using the same reasoning? And that reasoning was "suspect" in the eyes of many! I think it was the right thing, but for the wrong reasons given.

This time it may be the real deal!! But with the winds of current events, SAID country could get off-the-hook because of the previous (current) events in another country.

There are those who say "You got to do what you think is best for your country, or foreign policy" at any given time when the issues present them-selves.
There are those that say "No War--- No Matter What".
Then there are many who say "No, no war because of what just happened the last time!". (In other words...Influenced by how the political wind is blowing).

If I can time warp y'all back to the 1930s. No one really wanted to stop Hitler because of the recovery from WWI, emotionally, and everything! And hey, it wasn't America's direct problem anyway right???
Let's just say the political climate in America and most of the world at that time wasn't good to get into any conflicts! The US many say entered vary late, and almost blew it by doing so. It took an attack on Hawaii, by another country no less, to change the minds and hearts of the American people.
So what will it take to do THAT today, for the rest of the world to get onboard against these countries with bad intent?
A lot probably!

[WHAT?]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ooops, just a mistake post window pane here XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[acushla]

... looking at this in a strategically publicity angle only! It pushes the administration in a no win corner it would seem. By that I mean... how can one attempt justification to stop a country (by force) if they were up to something evil, when you stuck your neck out once by using the same reasoning? And that reasoning was "suspect" in the eyes of many! I think it was the right thing, but for the wrong reasons given.

First of all, the administration is never in a no win situation. Trust me on this.

This time it may be the real deal!! But with the winds of current events, SAID country could get off-the-hook because of the previous (current) events in another country.

Whatever the situation was in Iraq people seem to forget that all the voting nations that make up the security council in the UN voted unanimously that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Nobody doubted for a moment that he wouldn't use them as he had already proved he would by employing them on the Kurds. As John McCain has stated...nobody doubts that Iraq are well on their way to acquiring nuclear weapons. Nobody.

Personally I believe that a scenario will emerge that when Israel 'takes care of the problem' most of the world will applaud. Most.

There are those who say "You got to do what you think is best for your country, or foreign policy" at any given time when the issues present them-selves.
There are those that say "No War--- No Matter What".
Then there are many who say "No, no war because of what just happened the last time!". (In other words...Influenced by how the political wind is blowing).

Fortunately those who say 'No war...' are never the ones in power.

If I can time warp y'all back to the 1930s. No one really wanted to stop Hitler because of the recovery from WWI, emotionally, and everything! And hey, it wasn't America's direct problem anyway right???
Let's just say the political climate in America and most of the world at that time wasn't good to get into any conflicts! The US many say entered vary late, and almost blew it by doing so. It took an attack on Hawaii, by another country no less, to change the minds and hearts of the American people.
So what will it take to do THAT today, for the rest of the world to get on board against these countries with bad intent?
A lot probably!

Hopefully we have learnt some lessons from how we responded to Hitler. The analogy is weak though...there is considerably more at stake for the US in this situation...in fact we probably wouldn't have this situation without the US.

Last night I was in a restaurant which featured a fireplace with a mantle on top. As part of their Christmas decorations (not taken down yet) they had the word PEACE in big gold letters. It made we wonder if in the Islamic nations they had WAR or SUICIDE written in bright RED letters.:)

[WHAT?]

True as you say. However, Public opinion is what I mean of course.
That strip, is of a liberal angle no doubt! But even looking at it from a conservative angle, it makes sense that now it's tougher on the administration to woo public opinion.
Remember the saying... Briefly mentioned in that smoking Banned, #71, the other week....

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

This Iraqi mess isn't quite exact like the Hitler mess. But the Jew part ultimately IS in this whole region. Of, course Terrorism effects all of us. Some people just don't get it, or feel Bush isn't going about it right. Whatever the case... My point is people do forget that Bush mentioned that it's not going to be quick. It will take years! So since the war, they(the liberals) are picking apart all the reasons that we went in, in the fist place. Twisting it into there own political agenda.
So we'll all just sit on our ass, as the world get more dangerous? At least that's my fear. Leaders like Bush don't seem to change just because of the winds of political change! That's a sign of a good leader usually! (Or just stubborn? hehehe.)

[Inthewoods]

... My point is people do forget that Bush mentioned that it's not going to be quick. That is totally untrue. The whole thing we were sold (or at least were attempted to be sold, most Americans didn't buy it) was the so called "Shock and Awe", a show of power that would end any resistance in a few weeks if not days. Bush only changed his position when it became obvious that "shock and awe" had failed.

[jkrzok]

Not only did Bush et. al. promise a quick war but they promised that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the occupation/rebuilding.

My, it's almost enough to make be believe everything the Republicans say comes straight out of their asses.

[WHAT?]

Guys Guys Guys....
We're talking about terrorism, and the other reasoning stated for the Iraqi war. Not just the WMDs.
The fight on terrorism is what won't be an over night victory! Prepare for a Loooong war on terrorism Bush stated right after the WTC bombardment.
Stated over and over... way before the war! Lest we not forget ~:ermm: Or do we?
Hell... Iraq is nothin' compared to whats up ahead...~
This war is only big 'cause of what it will or won't bring to the table for the future there among the Arab nations... AND because it's backed mainly by the big bad US of A. There are bigger wars in the world going on right now, but you don't hear much about them.
Iraq is the biggest news though, mainly because it was condoned by the mutitude of nations of the free world, which means free press!
The only true point I was trying to get across {ref. cartoon} is that WITH ALL THE NEGATIVE PRESS (rightly or wrongly so). Speaking stickly from moderate thinking (non-Biased for those of you in Buffalo), It will be an uphill battle to convince anybody now for the continuation of the war on terror if it has to do with actually taking on a State... not just individuals (e.g. Bin Laden).

[rorythedog]

When does the "war on terrorism" start then? Prior to the US invasion and occupation there were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ!

Why can't you see that?

[Inthewoods]

When does the "war on terrorism" start then? Prior to the US invasion and occupation there were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ!

Why can't you see that?Oh, then I suppose those thousands of Iraqi citizens murdered each other over the last 75 years? Or maybe they all just committed suicide? No terrorists in Iraq before the occupation??? Puleeeeze.....

A good place to start checking the facts might be sometime in the 1920s or 1930s, or for that matter you could just Google it: http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimeline.htm

[rorythedog]

Oh, then I suppose those thousands of Iraqi citizens murdered each other over the last 75 years? Or maybe they all just committed suicide? No terrorists in Iraq before the occupation??? Puleeeeze.....

A good place to start checking the facts might be sometime in the 1920s or 1930s, or for that matter you could just Google it: http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimeline.htm


OK, fair enough, but these aren't the terrorists involved with the WTC are they? Or are all terrorists the same? If so, please explain your governments continued appeasement of the IRA for decades?

Anyway, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

After all, the British once considered you guys the terrorists.

[Todd The Kiwi]

After all, the British once considered you guys the terrorists.steady on there mate :puzzled:

[acushla]

That is totally untrue. The whole thing we were sold (or at least were attempted to be sold, most Americans didn't buy it) was the so called "Shock and Awe", a show of power that would end any resistance in a few weeks if not days. Bush only changed his position when it became obvious that "shock and awe" had failed.

Not to be confrontational Inthewoods...but I believe if you watch/read a transcript of Bush's address to the Houses after the 9/11 attack you will see that he repeatedly clarifies the point that it would NOT be quick...

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/

Excerpts: Our nation will continue to be steadfast, and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice. And second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month -- over $30 million a day -- and we must be prepared for future operations.

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

This is, I believe, not necessarily the essence of the speech..but one aspect of the speech. If I had come across anything that indicated victory would be quick...I would have shown that as well. As it is...I saw no indication of that view.

Bush built upon the awareness that it (global war on terrorism) is a war that might never be 'won'...but a war that must always be fought.

[acushla]

steady on there mate :puzzled:

Steady on what...rorythedog is simply stating a fact of History.

[rorythedog]

steady on there mate :puzzled:

I'm referring to the time when the people of what's now called the USA finally rose up against British Imperial rule. You should understand that too.

Remember, history is written by the victors.

[Inthewoods]

Not to be confrontational Inthewoods...but I believe if you watch/read a transcript of Bush's address to the Houses after the 9/11 attack you will see that he repeatedly clarifies the point that it would NOT be quick...

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/

Excerpts: Our nation will continue to be steadfast, and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice. And second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month -- over $30 million a day -- and we must be prepared for future operations.

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

This is, I believe, not necessarily the essence of the speech..but one aspect of the speech. If I had come across anything that indicated victory would be quick...I would have shown that as well. As it is...I saw no indication of that view.

Bush built upon the awareness that it (global war on terrorism) is a war that might never be 'won'...but a war that must always be fought.You are talking about something completely different. I was responding to What?'s statement about the invasion of Iraq. The speech you reference was the State of the Union address made by Bush in January of 2002, more than a year before the US invasion of Iraq. Bush was referring to the general war on terrorism not being quickly over, not the invasion of Iraq. Here's what was said:

Feb. 7, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

March 16, 2003: Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

March 20, 2003: President Bush, in an Oval Office speech to the nation: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict."

March 27, 2003: Bush, at a news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when asked how long the war would take: "However long it takes. That's the answer to your question and that's what you've got to know. It isn't a matter of timetable, it's a matter of victory."

March 30, 2003: Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, on Meet the Press: "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war, a tough slog yet, and no responsible official I know has ever said anything different once this war has started."


Soooooo..... I guess General Myers either doesn't know Rumsfeld and Cheney (which is ludicrous), or he doesn't consider either of them to be "responsible officials". (more likely)

BTW: In the above quotes, I guess it's true that Bush himself did say "However long it takes" and "longer and more difficult than some predict."
I guess by "some" he meant the rest of his administration, cuz he certainly had no control over what they said.

Edit: no content changes, just a couple typos

[Willow of Oz]

The speech you reference was the State of the Union address made by Bush in January of 2002, more than a year before the US invasion of Iraq. Bush was referring to the general war on terrorism not being quickly over, not the invasion of Iraq.

Woods vs Acushla
15 - love

[WHAT?]

When does the "war on terrorism" start then? Prior to the US invasion and occupation there were NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ!

Why can't you see that?
Who?

[WHAT?]

That is totally untrue. The whole thing we were sold (or at least were attempted to be sold, most Americans didn't buy it) was the so called "Shock and Awe", a show of power that would end any resistance in a few weeks if not days. Bush only changed his position when it became obvious that "shock and awe" had failed.
I'm sorry to have to go this far back and comment on.

It just isn't so...as you say here.

The shock and awe WAS quick, and ended the fight with the soldiers of Iraq in nearly no time at all. It now is the terrorist, Sunni diehards with nothing to live for and the freedom clowns. Clowns because they are fed with lies more so then some of you think Bush is selling.
So please, if you think we shouldn't be there because of our young boys being subjected to the horrors of war, then fine I respect that. But if you think Hussein and his cronies were wronged by the invasion, then I think you are totally wrong.

We must not lead in with conversation only based on our emotions, and biased opinions, if we are to have an intellectual verbal intercourse with one another.

[acushla]

You are talking about something completely different.

I stand corrected...once again!

Obviously I thought we were talking about the war on terrorism...as you point out.

Yes...I agree..we were told the war in Iraq would be quick.

Let's hope a lesson has been learned and the war in Iran will be quick! :confused:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Let's hope a lesson has been learned and the war in Iran will be quick! :confused:

Who says there'll be a war? Russia and China arent so keen... I'd prefer if a war can be avoided too.

[rorythedog]

Who says there'll be a war? Russia and China arent so keen... I'd prefer if a war can be avoided too.


Almost the entire rest of the world was against the Iraq invasion but that didn't stop that invasion. The US do precisely what they want, I'm afraid.

[rorythedog]

I'm sorry to have to go this far back and comment on.

It just isn't so...as you say here.

The shock and awe WAS quick, and ended the fight with the soldiers of Iraq in nearly no time at all. It now is the terrorist, Sunni diehards with nothing to live for and the freedom clowns. Clowns because they are fed with lies more so then some of you think Bush is selling.
So please, if you think we shouldn't be there because of our young boys being subjected to the horrors of war, then fine I respect that. But if you think Hussein and his cronies were wronged by the invasion, then I think you are totally wrong.

We must not lead in with conversation only based on our emotions, and biased opinions, if we are to have an intellectual verbal intercourse with one another.

Ten years of sanctions ended the fight against Iraqi soldiers, "Shock & Awe" was strictly for us.

I like the way everyone who doesn't support you is "emotional" & "biased". You're having a laugh.

[Inthewoods]

I'm sorry to have to go this far back and comment on.

It just isn't so...as you say here.

The shock and awe WAS quick, and ended the fight with the soldiers of Iraq in nearly no time at all. It now is the terrorist, Sunni diehards with nothing to live for and the freedom clowns. Clowns because they are fed with lies more so then some of you think Bush is selling.
So please, if you think we shouldn't be there because of our young boys being subjected to the horrors of war, then fine I respect that. But if you think Hussein and his cronies were wronged by the invasion, then I think you are totally wrong.

We must not lead in with conversation only based on our emotions, and biased opinions, if we are to have an intellectual verbal intercourse with one another. Speak for yourself! Where in the HELL did I say "Hussein and his cronies were wronged by the invasion"???? That has nothing to do with anything I said anywhere in this thread. You're calling me "totally wrong" for something you made up. Do not misquote me please. I never said anything even suggesting anything of the sort.

As to our young boys being subjected to the horrors of war, that's exactly my point. If the "The shock and awe WAS quick" as you say, they wouldn't be there 3 years later. Again to quote Cheney: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

Who do you think "significant elements of the the Republican Guard" is? "Terrorist Sunni diehards" as you called them, that's who. So if they haven't "stepped aside" after 3 years, tell me again, what part of "shock and awe" is was quick?

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they are biased. What is biased is trying to prove your point with misquotes and inflammatory statement. I have backed up everything I've said with factual quotes and historical data. That is not biased and emotional. Do not preach to me about
"intellectual verbal intercourse", just practice what you preach.

[rorythedog]

Just listened to Bush's "State of the Nation" address and I see he acknowledges the USA is "addicted to oil". Does that mean he also acknowledges both he and his family were the dealers? You couldn't make this shit up. lol

[WHAT?]

Read again... But if you think Hussein and his cronies were wronged by the invasion, then I think you are totally wrong. Never said that you said.
I stand by the last statement in the prior post... We must not lead in with conversation only based on our emotions, and biased opinions, if we are to have an intellectual verbal intercourse with one another. But hey, biased opinions is what makes it fun though!
Oh, and those R-guards! They are acting independently from there old government. Now teamed up with foreign terrorist. Natural bedfellows don't you think?
Rory, I think corp. America, and transportation Are addicted to Oil as a whole! Actually that is the best statement from his address. Doesn't matter if he also is referring to himself, or is a ring leader in the quest for oil. It gets the point across that we do depend on it too much for our own good.
Hey, whatever it takes to cut back right? I for one look forward to a day, that we can pollute less, and have less dependents toward foreign fuel! His ties with BIG oil companies. Also helps the foreign sheiks as well. Some his freinds, some not! Think in 25 to 40 years from now if all of the world cut back to 20% oil used only. Those oil rich countries will have revolts on the hands most likely. Hate to see one with the BOMB!

[Inthewoods]

Read again... But if you think Hussein and his cronies were wronged by the invasion, then I think you are totally wrong. Never said that you said.
I stand by the last statement in the prior post... We must not lead in with conversation only based on our emotions, and biased opinions, if we are to have an intellectual verbal intercourse with one another. But hey, biased opinions is what makes it fun though!
Oh, and those R-guards! They are acting independently from there old government. Now teamed up with foreign terrorist. Natural bedfellows don't you think?
Rory, I think corp. America, and transportation Are addicted to Oil as a whole! Actually that is the best statement from his address. Doesn't matter if he also is referring to himself, or is a ring leader in the quest for oil. It gets the point across that we do depend on it too much for our own good.
Hey, whatever it takes to cut back right? I for one look forward to a day, that we can pollute less, and have less dependents toward foreign fuel! His ties with BIG oil companies. Also helps the foreign sheiks as well. Some his freinds, some not! Think in 25 to 40 years from now if all of the world cut back to 20% oil used only. Those oil rich countries will have revolts on the hands most likely. Hate to see one with the BOMB!

Oh, and those R-guards! They are acting independently from there old government. Now teamed up with foreign terrorist. Natural bedfellows don't you think?The Sunni terrorists are not "foreign", they're Iraqis in Iraq. Sheesh.

I stand by the last statement in the prior post... We must not lead in with conversation only based on our emotions, and biased opinions, if we are to have an intellectual verbal intercourse with one another.?OK

But hey, biased opinions is what makes it fun though!HUH? Which is it?

Oh wait I get it... I disagree with you so you can condescendingly tell me what I "must not" do, but when you do it, then it's "fun". WhateverTen years of sanctions ended the fight against Iraqi soldiers, "Shock & Awe" was strictly for us.

I like the way everyone who doesn't support you is "emotional" & "biased". You're having a laugh.What's this? Rory and I actually agreeing on something? Yep.

[rorythedog]

I noticed that too. If you live long enough...

I think we agree on a lot of things but I don't tend to post as rationally as some others here are capable of. I tend to get a bit hot under the collar.

Nevermind, it's all good...

Stay :cool:

[acushla]

Almost the entire rest of the world was against the Iraq invasion but that didn't stop that invasion. The US do precisely what they want, I'm afraid.

It might well be true that the 'entire rest of the world was against the Iraq invasion' (which, of course it wasn't given those countries who proved to be allies)...but not necessarily for the altruistic reasons you allude to.

[acushla]

I noticed that too. If you live long enough...

I think we agree on a lot of things but I don't tend to post as rationally as some others here are capable of. I tend to get a bit hot under the collar.

Nevermind, it's all good...

Stay :cool:

You? Hot under the collar?

Since when?

(We love you man...keep those angry posts coming...as long as they are accurate or at least defendable...passion is good.):)

[rorythedog]

It might well be true that the 'entire rest of the world was against the Iraq invasion' (which, of course it wasn't given those countries who proved to be allies)...but not necessarily for the altruistic reasons you allude to.

I did say "...almost the entire rest of the world".

[Inthewoods]

I did say "...almost the entire rest of the world".Nope, you didn't. :laugh: But do you guys realize that there is one sure thing that could lay this thread to rest? It's called "B107"..:biggrin:

Cheers!:beer:

[rorythedog]

Nope, you didn't. :laugh: But do you guys realize that there is one sure thing that could lay this thread to rest? It's called "B107"..:biggrin:

Cheers!:beer:

Sorry to be pedantic, but yes, I most certainly did.

"Almost the entire rest of the world was against the Iraq invasion but that didn't stop that invasion. The US do precisely what they want, I'm afraid.".

[acushla]

Sorry to be pedantic, but yes, I most certainly did.

"Almost the entire rest of the world was against the Iraq invasion but that didn't stop that invasion. The US do precisely what they want, I'm afraid.".
I believe Inthewoods was being 'sarcastic' and making a vague (because I cannot think of the word I want to use) reference to an earlier post asking people to only respond to that which was actually written...

[rorythedog]

I believe Inthewoods was being 'sarcastic' and making a vague (because I cannot think of the word I want to use) reference to an earlier post asking people to only respond to that which was actually written...


Motherwell 1 - 2 Celtic

[acushla]

Nope, you didn't. :laugh: But do you guys realize that there is one sure thing that could lay this thread to rest? It's called "B107"..:biggrin:

Cheers!:beer:
Since GOOGLE didn't know what B107 meant neither do I.

[Inthewoods]

I believe Inthewoods was being 'sarcastic' and making a vague (because I cannot think of the word I want to use) reference to an earlier post asking people to only respond to that which was actually written...Rory, he's correct, thus the smilies and beer mug in that reply.

Acushla, if you really don't know what B107 refers too, perhaps you need some caffeine.:coffee: :coffee: :coffee:

[WHAT?]

Hey Woodsy!! I don't know why we are arguing in the first place? :puzzled: Sure we disagree on the reasoning for any war, let alone Iraq, but basically in some of the things I stated have little to do with what YOU said. Sorry if it look liked I implied.
Oh and on just that topic, what I said BTW is R-guards are teaming up with the foreign terrorist, not that they too were foreign. And those guards ARE mainly Sunnis as you correctly stated. But it's merely the old Iraqi Reshime now with little to live for, they lost there power, and now want to attack (there own people no less – That’s real decent like!) just to unsettle the new way, which further takes them away from power! (Thugs with outside help).

I (my opinion) would never compare these guys, or other terrorist to the early American freedom fighters. The two are totally fighting a different battle, for completely different circumstances. The only resemblance would be the hit and run tactics! But the reasoning fro them I feel is bush-league (no pun intended).


It's sometimes appears that you are being defensive to me commenting on what you said wrong or something, and for the most part, I'm find myself defending what I said too, but that isn't the overall solution. We seem to be straying from the original comment about the comic strip. And it's JUST my opinion.... That even that it gets a laugh/agreement from the liberals since it is of a liberal slant. Even the conservative side of me sees it to be hitting the nail on the head from the point of view as ... it provokes thoughts (and now discussion) to what is the best way out of the political corner, for the next problem area in the world - who wants war right?? So now with Iran looming in the sites of the free world, (and the UN is serious about this!!). Will the other nations stand up? Especially (referring the cartoon now) when the people of the world see it as just another US back power hold, or Bush's crusade or something. It's just my thought Rory, and -Woods, not saying anything about what anyone of you two guys said( or didn't say).
Honestly, It seems at times I too get attacked, when I deed I'm just provoking thought, and not bashing anyone!
Also my comparison to WWII and the American will to join in against Hitler, is only similar in that the WILL of the people to join in (or should I say a concern of mine is of the WILL). Not the similarity in the cause behind the war itself!
Most of what I said was generically implied. For those of you who it may offend please take with a grain of salt if you like... God knows I'm not gospel here!!!!
:silly:
Peace out!

[rorythedog]

Hey Woodsy!! I don't know why we are arguing in the first place? :puzzled: Sure we disagree on the reasoning for any war, let alone Iraq, but basically in some of the things I stated have little to do with what YOU said. Sorry if it look liked I implied.
Oh and on just that topic, what I said BTW is R-guards are teaming up with the foreign terrorist, not that they too were foreign. And those guards ARE mainly Sunnis as you correctly stated. But it's merely the old Iraqi Reshime now with little to live for, they lost there power, and now want to attack (there own people no less – That’s real decent like!) just to unsettle the new way, which further takes them away from power! (Thugs with outside help).

I (my opinion) would never compare these guys, or other terrorist to the early American freedom fighters. The two are totally fighting a different battle, for completely different circumstances. The only resemblance would be the hit and run tactics! But the reasoning fro them I feel is bush-league (no pun intended).


It's sometimes appears that you are being defensive to me commenting on what you said wrong or something, and for the most part, I'm find myself defending what I said too, but that isn't the overall solution. We seem to be straying from the original comment about the comic strip. And it's JUST my opinion.... That even that it gets a laugh/agreement from the liberals since it is of a liberal slant. Even the conservative side of me sees it to be hitting the nail on the head from the point of view as ... it provokes thoughts (and now discussion) to what is the best way out of the political corner, for the next problem area in the world - who wants war right?? So now with Iran looming in the sites of the free world, (and the UN is serious about this!!). Will the other nations stand up? Especially (referring the cartoon now) when the people of the world see it as just another US back power hold, or Bush's crusade or something. It's just my thought Rory, and -Woods, not saying anything about what anyone of you two guys said( or didn't say).
Honestly, It seems at times I too get attacked, when I deed I'm just provoking thought, and not bashing anyone!
Also my comparison to WWII and the American will to join in against Hitler, is only similar in that the WILL of the people to join in (or should I say a concern of mine is of the WILL). Not the similarity in the cause behind the war itself!
Most of what I said was generically implied. For those of you who it may offend please take with a grain of salt if you like... God knows I'm not gospel here!!!!
:silly:
Peace out!

Listen mate, I'm not going on the attack here but your post is pretty handy for pointing some things out.

You say these soldiers are attacking their own people - They don't see it that way. The nation of Iraq is a construct of the West. These guys didn't mix beforehand and they have no desire to mix now. That's just the way it is. So they don't see it as an attack on their own people.

You say there's a big difference in what the early inhabitants of your land were fighting for and what Iraqis are fighting for. It doesn't matter what YOU think these guys are fighting for - THEY percieve it to be a just cause. That's all that really matters. Until the West accepts this we'll repeat ad infinitum.


You said - "So now with Iran looming in the sites of the free world...". Get it straight man. Iran IS a democratic country. It IS ostensibly a free country. As is Palestine who have just voted for Hamas. Which also seems to be creating problems for the West, (though I can't see why as the stated aim of these conflicts from our point of view is always to bring democracy). It would seem that Hamas will only be welcomed as long as it gives up it's armed struggle. No room for the ballot box and the bullet, or some other crap! Israel occupies (with bullets) Palestine, it's not the other way around. Well, they have democracy and still that's not enough. What the West really wants is puppet governments who have no backbone and are only too happy to meekly turn over their assets to us. Well that ain't happening.

Finally, yes I realise and appreciate you're not trying to "bash" anyone. But you're coming at this with so many preconceived ideas of what's right that it actually stifles rational debate. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here. I often make the same mistake myself.

[Inthewoods]

Hey Woodsy!! I don't know why we are arguing in the first place? :puzzled: Sure we disagree on the reasoning for any war, let alone Iraq, but basically in some of the things I stated have little to do with what YOU said. Sorry if it look liked I implied.
Oh and on just that topic, what I said BTW is R-guards are teaming up with the foreign terrorist, not that they too were foreign. And those guards ARE mainly Sunnis as you correctly stated. But it's merely the old Iraqi Reshime now with little to live for, they lost there power, and now want to attack (there own people no less – That’s real decent like!) just to unsettle the new way, which further takes them away from power! (Thugs with outside help).

I (my opinion) would never compare these guys, or other terrorist to the early American freedom fighters. The two are totally fighting a different battle, for completely different circumstances. The only resemblance would be the hit and run tactics! But the reasoning fro them I feel is bush-league (no pun intended).


It's sometimes appears that you are being defensive to me commenting on what you said wrong or something, and for the most part, I'm find myself defending what I said too, but that isn't the overall solution. We seem to be straying from the original comment about the comic strip. And it's JUST my opinion.... That even that it gets a laugh/agreement from the liberals since it is of a liberal slant. Even the conservative side of me sees it to be hitting the nail on the head from the point of view as ... it provokes thoughts (and now discussion) to what is the best way out of the political corner, for the next problem area in the world - who wants war right?? So now with Iran looming in the sites of the free world, (and the UN is serious about this!!). Will the other nations stand up? Especially (referring the cartoon now) when the people of the world see it as just another US back power hold, or Bush's crusade or something. It's just my thought Rory, and -Woods, not saying anything about what anyone of you two guys said( or didn't say).
Honestly, It seems at times I too get attacked, when I deed I'm just provoking thought, and not bashing anyone!
Also my comparison to WWII and the American will to join in against Hitler, is only similar in that the WILL of the people to join in (or should I say a concern of mine is of the WILL). Not the similarity in the cause behind the war itself!
Most of what I said was generically implied. For those of you who it may offend please take with a grain of salt if you like... God knows I'm not gospel here!!!!
:silly:
Peace out!I find myself grinning and nodding my head because I cannot disagree with anything in your post. I particularly agree with your second paragraph about the American freedom fighters.

One more point I'd like to make. It seems that when America comes to the defense of a nation or nations that are being attacked, such as the European conflict in WWII, we are considered heros. But when our own homeland is attacked, we Americans tend to get a little touchy (and trigger happy). Although this aggressiveness is more than a little "wrong" in the eyes of some people, and some entire nations, until it happens to your country, I can't blame you or anyone else for your point of view.

Agressive? yep. Trigger happy? definitely (at least with the current administration). Wrong and Evil? The jury is still out on that one. We may never know for sure.

My point is, I think most Americans can see (and feel) a real parallel between the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attack on the World Trade towers. Both were attacks on our turf, both were followed by extremely aggressive reactions. When things like that happen, Americans tend to unite, almost like family. You mess with my family, you can expect me to mess with you. I'm not defending anything that has happend, just trying to lend some perspective.

In short, however, I do think you are right, we have very little to argue about, our basic values are similar, though we diagree about the current state of events. I'm not gospel either, heck I'm not even an expert on foreign affairs, I'm just a guy trying to contribute my thoughts to the forum.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

It's becoming evident that the USA is trying to become less dependent on oil from the middle east. I saw on the news last time that biofuel is becoming a more and more attractive source for petrol. Funny though because at the end was shown one of these car show rooms where many american cars were on display for future use and they all suck petrol by the gallons. There is however an important concern with biofuel which is that it may compete with the food market. Bio fuel can be obtained in large quantities from eg corn. The idea is that biofuel should instead be taken from the leftovers like corn leaves. That way one good thing doesnt adversely affect another. I prefer to see hydrogen fuel becoming a viable option but that is even more costly unfortunately. Anyway, at this point, war with Iran would most likely mean another and quite possibly a severe oil crisis for all developed and less developed countries in the world. Iran is in a stronger position that one might think. I believe this one needs to be solved via diplomacy and diplomatic mistakes from the past should at best be avoided.

[Inthewoods]

It's becoming evident that the USA is trying to become less dependent on oil from the middle east. I saw on the news last time that biofuel is becoming a more and more attractive source for petrol. Funny though because at the end was shown one of these car show rooms where many american cars were on display for future use and they all suck petrol by the gallons. There is however an important concern with biofuel which is that it may compete with the food market. Bio fuel can be obtained in large quantities from eg corn. The idea is that biofuel should instead be taken from the leftovers like corn leaves. That way one good thing doesnt adversely affect another. I prefer to see hydrogen fuel becoming a viable option but that is even more costly unfortunately. Anyway, at this point, war with Iran would most likely mean another and quite possibly a severe oil crisis for all developed and less developed countries in the world. Iran is in a stronger position that one might think. I believe this one needs to be solved via diplomacy and diplomatic mistakes from the past should at best be avoided.What he said.

[BALTY]

Now hopefully y'all can argue about the same thing now at least. Early confusion had you guys fighting about Iraq, then terrorists. Not that individually you are confused, no no!, but just seeing how you guys miss understood what one another meant when referring to one or the other, got me dizzy... Oh I have a headache.

I think WE all agree diplomacy first and hopefully last! All resolutions should always be this way, but it doesn't always go that way.... So ...Then what?
That's the real question!


And Rory. You are a caring and intelligent individual. We don't carry the same ideology card I'm sure, but ... Those soldiers not seeing it that way as you put it!! That is one of the most fundamental differences between the West and mid-east. Craziness! That is absolute craziness to kill others, whether "your own people" or not. They are fellow innocent Arabs. A child walks out of a hotel, or store, and gets bombed from a so called freedom fighter? You don't see the stupidity in that? Early Americans did that? I confused... tell me more! Most of the time anymore in Iraq, they are targeting the locals, not Americans directly... Am I close to being right? Are they doing this because they are at war with those people directly?
What? said, another nation other than Germany is what it took to jump start America into WWII. So I'm just currious as to why was that brought back into the fold? The real comparison here is the point of delay of going after Hitler of and by itself. And how now the thought that it might be similar today, with a lot of nations weary of worldly war, not just because of the obvious hells of it, but especially because of the fact it would be somehow part of a Bush campaign. Yeah, I can see that!
I was waiting for someone to bring up the puppet theory. And you didn't disapoint! Right on queue. America can't win I guess! We give the most money to the people of the world e.g.- Palestine. Now those who damn Israel (Hamas), proclaim to want them wiped off the map!!! then take office by election. And just because it's a democracy we should continue along like nothing has changed??? What are we smokin' over were you are? ;) By not giving money anymore that helps the poor nations, because they are evil in the eyes of the giver is the giver's prerogative! Why fund evil people? I just had to laugh when I read that comment! Puppet ...Really!... the great USA holds others hostage by NOT giving money? I heard it all! Essentially that's what you are saying. hehehe! OH man!


Sounds like we all have facts. But are reading to much into each others posts, and are overlooking some of the obvious.:biggrin: :grin:
Most all... what set this off was... opinions disguised in the premise that disputes facts right or wrong. In other words, we all shouldn't sound mad like our manhood is at stake somehow just because of "a thought" brought forward! Oh I know, I know (whoever is reading this) you didn't fly off any handle, you are just trying to get the fact right. Am I correct?


Well it appears somebody was upset a few times here, for what appeared to me, for no apparent reason really:silly: ~

[rorythedog]

It's just as well there's clever guys like you around to sort it all out for us eh? I can sleep easy tonight. :rolleyes:

Tell me this though - If, as you say, it's "absolute craziness" to kill people, why does your lot start so many wars? Seems rather counter-productive to me.

And once again - Neither Iraq, nor any of her citizens, had anything to do with 11/9! Get it?

[WHAT?]

- Neither Iraq, nor any of her citizens, had anything to do with 11/9! Get it?
Nor did anyone here just say it did.
Matter of fact were trying to say how silly :silly: it is to argue that type of fact, when pointing something else out as an opinion, I mean. Then having to defend ones comments off of the main comment posted.;) Sure at that point it goes back and forth, right or wrong, fact or opinion, Iraqi, or foreign. Freedom fighter or terrorist.
Don't get me wrong, we all have the right to discuss this here. It's what it's all about RIGHT?. And I commend you for being forthcoming in these type subjects. It's fun, and interesting!;)
It’s just the “sounding mad” about it that we’re trying to temper between one another, me included.
Oh, and unfortunately, war has been productive for the US in the past. The ones in the '50s and '60s not so much.

[rorythedog]

- Neither Iraq, nor any of her citizens, had anything to do with 11/9! Get it?
Nor did anyone here just say it did.
Matter of fact were trying to say how silly :silly: it is to argue that type of fact, when pointing something else out as an opinion, I mean. Then having to defend ones comments off of the main comment posted.;) Sure at that point it goes back and forth, right or wrong, fact or opinion, Iraqi, or foreign. Freedom fighter or terrorist.
Don't get me wrong, we all have the right to discuss this here. It's what it's all about RIGHT?. And I commend you for being forthcoming in these type subjects. It's fun, and interesting!;)
It’s just the “sounding mad” about it that we’re trying to temper between one another, me included.


I'm not "mad" mate, bloody perplexed is more like it. The invasion of Iraq was illegal and is therefore a really bad starting point, don't you think? Of course it's important, and it's not a matter of opinion. It sets a precedent that's frightening. By invading a sovereign nation illegally we opened the floodgates for all these loonies. And your countrymen continue to do nothing about the guys who put us all in this position. That's what infuriates me. Bush and his cronies didn't just accidentally start all this. It's part of a plan. As such, I firmly believe Bush, Blair at all should be appearing at The Hague. That's not going to happen though, is it?

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

This kinda ties in with the Dutch mission to Afghanistan. The american mission in Afghanistan; 'enduring freedom' is not a mission we dutch see as peaceful. Hence we've had a bit of government crisis under NATO pressure whether we should send 1200 dutch solders to a dangerous place in Afghanistan . In the end the majority of parties in the cabinet have agreed to go forward with the mission but only under guarantees that this will not be a war to be fought but a sincere attempt to rebuild Afghanistan and aid the local population and secure their safety. Read about the Dutch mission here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4673026.stm).

[WHAT?]

I'm not "mad" mate, bloody perplexed is more like it. The invasion of Iraq was illegal and is therefore a really bad starting point, don't you think? Of course it's important, and it's not a matter of opinion. It sets a precedent that's frightening. By invading a sovereign nation illegally we opened the floodgates for all these loonies. And your countrymen continue to do nothing about the guys who put us all in this position. That's what infuriates me. Bush and his cronies didn't just accidentally start all this. It's part of a plan. As such, I firmly believe Bush, Blair at all should be appearing at The Hague. That's not going to happen though, is it?
It's all been said before.;) All I wondered is what's going to happen with Iran?
And the feeling of the world on this matter.:paranoid: The UN is now told to leave Iran... Sound familiar? Stay tuned! They hate the west enough noe this political cartoon... I know, that is a minor thing in the scale of things>:cheeky:

[idefiXX]

EDIT : just read your comment about this - sorry for my interruption

[acushla]

As such, I firmly believe Bush, Blair at all should be appearing at The Hague. That's not going to happen though, is it?

Let's hope not.

You don't want to be a part of the series of events which would bring this to pass.

As far as 'innocent civilians' being killed...wars are not begun by 'the people'. These are political events set in motion by the few to ensure the survival of the values and culture those few represent. Those who are caught in the crossfire are simply the unfortunate 'cost of war'.

Please be clear, I am not condoning any this...but stating it simply as I see it.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

UN nuclear agency said no, Iran says "that's it were doing it." To which i am referring to the enrichment of Uranium. A process that does take at least 5 years, but still. In other news Iran is still open for negotiation. There's a BBC article on that here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4682536.stm). Frankly im not surprised about these developments.

Still hard to believe Iran only wants to get nuclear energy. That country is full of fossil fuels. What do they need nuclear energy for?

[Willow of Oz]

Still hard to believe Iran only wants to get nuclear energy. That country is full of fossil fuels. What do they need nuclear energy for?

They're very passionate about Mother Earth and the environment? They feel the auras of the trees weakening as they pollute their beloved land?

[rorythedog]

UN nuclear agency said no, Iran says "that's it were doing it." To which i am referring to the enrichment of Uranium. A process that does take at least 5 years, but still. In other news Iran is still open for negotiation. There's a BBC article on that here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4682536.stm). Frankly im not surprised about these developments.

Still hard to believe Iran only wants to get nuclear energy. That country is full of fossil fuels. What do they need nuclear energy for?


My country is rich in fossil fuels and would be bountiful as regards wind or wave power. What does my Government want? More nuclear power stations. I think it might be fair to judge Iran by our own standards.

[acushla]

Still hard to believe Iran only wants to get nuclear energy. That country is full of fossil fuels. What do they need nuclear energy for?
They need a nuclear energy program in order to develop nuclear warheads to wipe Israel off the map.:foureyes:

Next question...

[rorythedog]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place but there are so many connected threads and this is the most recent.

Here's the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4697896.stm

Anyone believe this story? I don't.

[madjo]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place but there are so many connected threads and this is the most recent.

Here's the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4697896.stm

Anyone believe this story? I don't.
Bush: "Look, ya see, ar security measures really helps against terr. We haven't lost the war on terr. in yer face terrists"

indeed... pretty unbelievable to me..

[WHAT?]

Bush: "Look, ya see, ar security measures really helps against terr. We haven't lost the war on terr. in yer face terrists"

indeed... pretty unbelievable to me..
No disrespect!!! seriously none!! Actually I'm quite impressed! I think.
I'm sitting back analyzing your post Madjo, but can quite tell if you are sarcastically saying this, because of the article in the link listed there, but that doesn't make sense to me, or misspelling words in haste( I know you are French), :biggrin: or in some sarcastic spin towards Bush? :ponder:
:cheerful: Or simply honestly speaking against terrorist?
And Bush is doing a fine job!;)
Please clarify for me if you would.
Thanks Guy!
EDIT: did I mention ... this is a question for MADJO?

Rory, you are right about the crosslinks, this thread, that thread, this post, that post on basically the same subject. Ahg Veigh!! So many!

[idefiXX]

EDIT : Since i am not madjo ignore this post.

[acushla]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place but there are so many connected threads and this is the most recent.

Here's the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4697896.stm

Anyone believe this story? I don't.
Timing is definately suspect in my book.

The fact is it means nothing wheather you or I believe it or not...I don't even think it is told with the hope we will believe it or not. The people who 'create' these stories feel that since it is revealed and then reported on in the press... that process makes it real...and you are then free to believe it or not. The very fact you are deciding if it is real or not makes it real...and another day passes.

[rorythedog]

Timing is definately suspect in my book.

The fact is it means nothing wheather you or I believe it or not...I don't even think it is told with the hope we will believe it or not. The people who 'create' these stories feel that since it is revealed and then reported on in the press... that process makes it real...and you are then free to believe it or not. The very fact you are deciding if it is real or not makes it real...and another day passes.

Glad you cleared that up for me.

[acushla]

Bush: "Look, ya see, ar security measures really helps against terr. We haven't lost the war on terr. in yer face terrists"

indeed... pretty unbelievable to me..







President Bush.

Great President...or the Greatest President?

[madjo]

No disrespect!!! seriously none!! Actually I'm quite impressed! I think.
I'm sitting back analyzing your post Madjo, but can quite tell if you are sarcastically saying this, because of the article in the link listed there, but that doesn't make sense to me, or misspelling words in haste( I know you are French), :biggrin: or in some sarcastic spin towards Bush? :ponder:
:cheerful: Or simply honestly speaking against terrorist?
And Bush is doing a fine job!;)
Please clarify for me if you would.
Thanks Guy!
EDIT: did I mention ... this is a question for MADJO?

Rory, you are right about the crosslinks, this thread, that thread, this post, that post on basically the same subject. Ahg Veigh!! So many!
1) I'm Dutch, not French
2) the language I used was to reflect the accent that Pres. Bush seems to have. (ie. terr instead of terror)
3) it was sarcasm towards Bush' foreign politics, and his lies to cover stuff up.
4) I don't think that Bush is doing a fine job. He botches up national politics ("what d'ya mean? Social welfare? Them poor people should find a job"), meanwhile he polutes the rest of the world with wars (War on Terror eased rather too easily into War in Iraq for bogus reasons (but that is a whole other discussion all together)... and I suspect that Syria is next).

[acushla]

... and I suspect that Syria is next).

Your on.

5 - 1 says it's Iran.

[idefiXX]

Why should he start any war?
If Bush started another war i think americans would standup and the republicans would definetly lose next elections. *DREAM*
GO HILLARY GO !!!

[rorythedog]

1) I'm Dutch, not French
2) the language I used was to reflect the accent that Pres. Bush seems to have. (ie. terr instead of terror)
3) it was sarcasm towards Bush' foreign politics, and his lies to cover stuff up.
4) I don't think that Bush is doing a fine job. He botches up national politics ("what d'ya mean? Social welfare? Them poor people should find a job"), meanwhile he polutes the rest of the world with wars (War on Terror eased rather too easily into War in Iraq for bogus reasons (but that is a whole other discussion all together)... and I suspect that Syria is next).

You might not welcome this but I'm with you matey. Syria will be next.

[madjo]

Your on.

5 - 1 says it's Iran.
did you hear Condi speak about Syria this week?

You might not welcome this but I'm with you matey. Syria will be next.I only hope we are incorrect...

[WHAT?]

1) I'm Dutch, not French
2) the language I used was to reflect the accent that Pres. Bush seems to have. (ie. terr instead of terror)
3) it was sarcasm towards Bush' foreign politics, and his lies to cover stuff up.
4) I don't think that Bush is doing a fine job. He botches up national politics ("what d'ya mean? Social welfare? Them poor people should find a job"), meanwhile he polutes the rest of the world with wars (War on Terror eased rather too easily into War in Iraq for bogus reasons (but that is a whole other discussion all together)... and I suspect that Syria is next).
Sorry Dutchman, I thought you flew the French flag... My bad!
Some may say Syria. The UN may say Iran. But if the UN does do this, I'm sure some here will say Bush was behind it, of course. It's the M.O. around here.
And thanks IDE, for ansering my question asked by me days ago. It was that question about the Cartoon Acushla had shown. Where were you then?;) Better late than never! Of course, it's only the American side of the question. What about the worlds view??
You Go IDE~

[madjo]

I'm sure some here will say Bush was behind it, of course. It's the M.O. around here. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were plotted and started by the Bush administration.

[acushla]

You might not welcome this but I'm with you matey. Syria will be next.
I'll concede it will be one or the other.

Actually, I was preoccupied with the 'who's next' aspect of an attack, which I do believe will be Iran. More likely the attack will come from Israel though, not the U.S.

I withdraw my wager.:ermm:

[Neo]

I hope it's Syria and Iran at the same time!! I'm glad we have Bush at this point in history, if we had a democrat as President, they would allow the terrorists of the world to further walk all over us.

Since this forum seems to be a user majority of liberal/democrats, they will think I am a terrible person cause I want action taken. Most countries sit back and cater to these terrorists, we need someone to stand up against these people. Thank God for G.W.B.

These extremists in Syria and Iran can not be bargained with or be talked to nicely. Do they want PEACE? Hell no... and it's quite obvious. They only understand violence, it's sickening... so they want violence, they will get it and go down in flames!!

I stand up for FREEDOM, I do not have any tolerance for TERRORIST unlike some countries and their terrorist lovin' policies.

[rorythedog]

These "terrorists", as you call them, would say they are defending their lands from 'Western Imperialism'. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. Why not stay the hell out of their countries and see what happens? Then, if attacks continue in your country, nuke them. Until the playing field is levelled, your opinions are invalid.

[madjo]

I hope it's Syria and Iran at the same time!! I'm glad we have Bush at this point in history, if we had a democrat as President, they would allow the terrorists of the world to further walk all over us.

Since this forum seems to be a user majority of liberal/democrats, they will think I am a terrible person cause I want action taken. Most countries sit back and cater to these terrorists, we need someone to stand up against these people. Thank God for G.W.B.

These extremists in Syria and Iran can not be bargained with or be talked to nicely. Do they want PEACE? Hell no... and it's quite obvious. They only understand violence, it's sickening... so they want violence, they will get it and go down in flames!!

I stand up for FREEDOM, I do not have any tolerance for TERRORIST unlike some countries and their terrorist lovin' policies.

I hope it is neither.. You know how much pain and anger a war causes?
Do you think that fighting a war with either of the two countries will solve the problem of terrorism? If so, than you couldn't have been wrong more. It angers the population, making them side with the supposed terrorists much sooner... thus making that party stronger.
Didn't you wonder why Hamas in Palestina got such a strong vote for them, during the last election there? Hamas, known for "terrorist" deeds... Just FYI.

Wars are NEVER EVER EVER EVER the solution, they are the CAUSE of the problems!
Just remember that terrorist respond to something that was done to them, they did not start the fight... though they do not stop it either.
You do not fight evil with evil, that will just lead to more evil.
Terrorist do nothing unless provoked.

One's terrorist is another one's freedomfighter!

[acushla]

Invalid: Falsely based or reasoned; faulty: an invalid argument.

[Willow of Oz]

It's interesting to note from a western perspective (US, Aus, UK, etc) that today war means sending your troops off to some far off country. "Should we send our troops?" "Do I think we should fight?" "Do I think we should stop the war?"
Things and thoughts are a little different when a war means klaxons going off in your hometown at midnight, with people fighting in towns around you, and foreign armies holding parts of your country.
You aren't sending off your troops; you don't get to decide to go fight a war, and you certainly can't 'choose' to stop the war.

[WHAT?]

In this argument, there are many separate things here.

* Terrorists
* Harboring Countries of terrorism
* Unstable Countries that promote a complete annihilation of it's people, or race of people within (Genocide), or another country and it's people.

I hate just blanketly saying NO WAR! NO WAR NEVER EVER EVER! Sure I may wish that! Sorry Mo don't mean to single you out. I'm just saying...

It's been known for quite sometime PUBLICLY, that certain terrorist, and separately, leaders of state, that would like nothing less than the complete annihilation of the Israel, and the WEST, and it's ways period!
Are these rational people? Are they justified?

Upset with the WEST and/or Israel? Sure I'll by that! But to never negotiate, and never stop at killing all Americans no matter where they are, and the like, Jews, and all Infidels (self defined of course, by them as to what a infidel is...and proclaim it to be backed by their religion).

Ahhh???
I don't think that sounds like something we can settle out of court (so to speak).

Now negotiate with a country that's harboring, or at odds with, and threaten with the rest of the world? Maybe!
But not the non-Negociatable morons! How do you do that? They themselves don't want to settle!

Now...
Which of the above three do you want to talk about? I still say we are mixing things around here. This is also why I say the liberals here are coming at this issue Prejudiciously, and with head in the sand blanket statements.
Sure principlely, I too don't go for war, (I shutter the thought of it)
But, I must say, some here are realist to understand it will always be an option (regrettably) to have wars, and at times necessary! To sit back in "dream world", and rant Anti-war slogans at this forum ain't gonna do it for me. I can read previous posts about this forever and a day. Somehow saying it over and over will make it clearer?
Yeah, think again! :cross-eye

I admire the backbone in standing up for your beliefs. But let's get real. Let's break down the specifics here! We all can say NEVER NEVER! Never WAR! Then sit back, break off a chocolate bon bon from the yum yum tree, here in candyland, and feel good about ourselves for making a differencs! :foureyes: :cyclops:
I think your alarm clock is ringing! wake up now~

[rorythedog]

You're right about one thing. continual repition of a stance at odds with yours is pointless. I agree. The "war" your country is currently engaged in is a farce, and a disgrace. You'd have thought you'd have learned that lesson decades ago. Seems not. Shame. :(

[Inthewoods]

These "terrorists", as you call them, would say they are defending their lands from 'Western Imperialism'. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. Why not stay the hell out of their countries and see what happens? Then, if attacks continue in your country, nuke them. Until the playing field is levelled, your opinions are invalid.If attacks CONTINUE??????????????????? Nearly 3000 Americns dead on their home soil isn't enough? Oh that's right, you wouldn't know, since the bastards didn't attack your country. It's fine to sit there and give advice when it doesnt directly (or even indirectly for that matter) affect you. Just how many friends and family did you lose in the attack on 9/11? I lost 3. If you don't get it, I can't blame you for that. But as an American who attended THREE miserable funerals due to 9/11, I do not appreciate your condescending, self rightious "holier than thou" attitude. Please get this straight once and for all. I (and most Americans) are not warmongers. But if anybody thinks they can tell us to sit back until we see "if attacks continue in you country" (your quote, not mine), you're out of line. Oh and another thing, your quote "Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong." shows just how far. There was NOTHING even remotely "right" about their attack on this country. And as to "defending" their lands, here's a clue: Knocking down buildings in someone else's country with commercial airliners is NOT "defending" anything....except maybe an insane ideology.

[acushla]

Please get this straight once and for all. I (and most Americans) are not warmongers. But if anybody thinks they can tell us to sit back until we see "if attacks continue in you country" (your quote, not mine), you're out of line. Oh and another thing, your quote "Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong." shows just how far. There was NOTHING even remotely "right" about their attack on this country. And as to "defending" their lands, here's a clue: Knocking down buildings in someone else's country with commercial airliners is NOT "defending" anything....except maybe an insane ideology.
Articulated concisely and directly to the point. I concur...it is an undertaking beyond the compression of many when one country recognizes the need and accepts the responsibility to undertake the task of reshaping the world with the ultimate goal of better relationships in 20 - 50 years. A task that when successful helps every country.

[acushla]

Sure principally, I too don't go for war, (I shutter the thought of it)
But, I must say, some here are realist to understand it will always be an option (regrettably) to have wars, and at times necessary! To sit back in "dream world", and rant Anti-war slogans at this forum ain't gonna do it for me. I can read previous posts about this forever and a day. Somehow saying it over and over will make it clearer?
Yeah, think again! :cross-eye

I admire the backbone in standing up for your beliefs. But let's get real. Let's break down the specifics here! We all can say NEVER NEVER! Never WAR! Then sit back, break off a chocolate bon bon from the yum yum tree, here in candyland, and feel good about ourselves for making a differencs! :foureyes: :cyclops:
I think your alarm clock is ringing! wake up now~
I sincerely regard this as the best post I have read in all the time I have been a member...and I didn't even write it.;) Though I wish I had.

Kudos to you WHAT...and thank you.:)

[rorythedog]

If attacks CONTINUE??????????????????? Nearly 3000 Americns dead on their home soil isn't enough? Oh that's right, you wouldn't know, since the bastards didn't attack your country. It's fine to sit there and give advice when it doesnt directly (or even indirectly for that matter) affect you. Just how many friends and family did you lose in the attack on 9/11? I lost 3. If you don't get it, I can't blame you for that. But as an American who attended THREE miserable funerals due to 9/11, I do not appreciate your condescending, self rightious "holier than thou" attitude. Please get this straight once and for all. I (and most Americans) are not warmongers. But if anybody thinks they can tell us to sit back until we see "if attacks continue in you country" (your quote, not mine), you're out of line. Oh and another thing, your quote "Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong." shows just how far. There was NOTHING even remotely "right" about their attack on this country. And as to "defending" their lands, here's a clue: Knocking down buildings in someone else's country with commercial airliners is NOT "defending" anything....except maybe an insane ideology.

Are you on acid or something? IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK YOUR COUNTRY!

How many times does it need to be said? What's the connection between Iraq and 11/9?

For the record, while I don't consider England to be my country, the attacks there last year were close enough to frighten me. That could quite easily have affected my family. You lot don't have a monopoly on suffering, you know.

[Qaz]

But if anybody thinks they can tell us to sit back until we see "if attacks continue in you country" (your quote, not mine), you're out of line. Oh and another thing, your quote "Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong." shows just how far.
So why do you think they attacked America back then? Surely they just didn't pick some country randomly.

[Inthewoods]

Are you on acid or something? IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK YOUR COUNTRY!

How many times does it need to be said? What's the connection between Iraq and 11/9?

For the record, while I don't consider England to be my country, the attacks there last year were close enough to frighten me. That could quite easily have affected my family. You lot don't have a monopoly on suffering, you know.Did I say Iraq? NO! And neither did you. You said (and this is an EXACT quote):These "terrorists", as you call them, would say they are defending their lands from 'Western Imperialism'. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. Why not stay the hell out of their countries and see what happens? Then, if attacks continue in your country, nuke them. Until the playing field is levelled, your opinions are invalid.That's right, you said "These Terrorists" and "their lands". YOU did not mention any country or government, YOU said the terrorists may be right. And cruel comment about not having a monopoly on suffering, you were blowing off deaths in my family, goddammit. Just shows your double standard. You can be all so self rightious and anti-war as long as your sorry ass is safe, but when somebody else is a victim of war, and violence, that's fine with you.

You have this habit of repeately talking down to Americans in a condescending way, saying things like "How many times does it need to be said?", so I'll return the favor:

How many times do you need to be told: "These Terrorists" (who you said "may be right") instigated an act of war on MY country and killed members of my family in the name of fanaticism. So learn to live with our anger and outrage, and stop living in a fantasy land that sees America as some humungous "war machine" and everybody else, including the murderous f*cking terrorists (you know, the ones you said may be right) of the middle east, as "victims".

CLUE for you: Yes, yes, yes, I (and most Americans) are totally aware that Iraq itself did not attack our country. You keep repeating that back to us, so I'll repeat this for you: We get it, we get it, we get it,
we get it, we get it, WE GET IT already!!!!!!!!!!

Here's what you don't seem to get:

You call yourself a pacifist (in so many words), but then you defend murder by terrorism, if you can't see that that is totally convoluted logic, I really pity you.

[WHAT?]

You're right about one thing. continual repition of a stance at odds with yours is pointless. I agree. The "war" your country is currently engaged in is a farce, and a disgrace. You'd have thought you'd have learned that lesson decades ago. Seems not. Shame. :(
Oh! to be safe in the arms of Great Britain, so as to not worry about direct attacks on your country.
But as to the US...
Hey, when in power! You take good with bad. But definitely you need take charge. At least Bush is doing that, amongst, short-minded criticizing libs.
Stiff upper lip mate, and all that!
;)

[rorythedog]

Where did I say I was a pacifist? Not me. Try invading my country and you'll find out. You have a point though. I'll admit that. I don't know the answers and if it seems I think I do then I'm sorry. I do know that the way we're going about this is all wrong. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what either of us think though, does it? It's what "the terrorists" believe that matters. That's what I've referred to many times throughout this whole discussion. That's what I meant when I said they may be right or they may be wrong.

As to 11/9, you know I don't think that was justified, in no way could something like that ever be justified. But that's not to say that it couldn't have been foreseen. If it went down the way they said it did, and the jury's still out on that one.

I think I've made it abundantly clear that it's your Government I hold responsible for all these recent events, not your average Joe. I'm one of those too and my Government never asks my opinion on anything. I expect it's the same for you.

Once again though, why are you illegally occupying a Sovereign state?

What? - If you consider my country to be the UK then there was a direct attack on it last summer. What's your point? No pun intended.

[Inthewoods]

So why do you think they attacked America back then? Surely they just didn't pick some country randomly.Attacked America BACK? Excuse me? No Americans hijacked planes and ran them into buildings. Can you say "First strike"? Very good. I knew you could.

And of course they didn't pick a country at random. America represents the west, and democracy, two things they have repeately said they will destroy.

[Qaz]

Attacked America BACK? Excuse me? No Americans hijacked planes and ran them into buildings. Can you say "First strike". Very good. I knew you could.
"Back then", not "America back".

[rorythedog]

Attacked America BACK? Excuse me? No Americans hijacked planes and ran them into buildings. Can you say "First strike"? Very good. I knew you could.

And of course they didn't pick a country at random. America represents the west, and democracy, two things they have repeately said they will destroy.


That's not what Qaz is saying.

And the US is no more a democracy than the UK is. Did even 50% of your population vote? The US has been meddling in the Middle East for decades. It was only a matter of time before some lunatic tried something like 11/9. And what about 11/9? What about all the inconsistencies in your Governments response? Smells of fish to me.

Didn't you have a homegrown lunatic try to destroy the World Trade Centre previously? What was his reasoning?

EDiT - Why DID they attack the WORLD Trade Centre? You seem so sure it was an attack on the USA. Could it not have been an attack on Global Capitalism? That is what the World Trade Centre is, isn't it?

[Inthewoods]

That's not what Qaz is saying.

And the US is no more a democracy than the UK is. Did even 50% of your population vote?Yes, in fact 64% did, Source:http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html The US has been meddling in the Middle East for decades. It was only a matter of time before some lunatic tried something like 11/9. And what about 11/9? What about all the inconsistencies in your Governments response? Smells of fish to me.As does all your hypocritical, NON FACTUAL nonsense. The FACTS are that the middle east fanatics have been killing Americans (and other westerners) for decades as well. Murder is the ultimate "meddling". I'm absolutely amazed that, seeing as where you're from, you have conveniently avoided the FACT of the plane bombing at Lockerbie.

Here are the FACTS about "meddling" as applies to the mideast meddling with the US:

1979 Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

1982–1991 Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.

Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1985

April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.

June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.

Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986

April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.

April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988

Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993

Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995

Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996

June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-TERRORISM5), were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998

Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-TERROR-QAEDA) camps inside Afghanistan (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0107264), were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-OSAMABINLADEN), who remained at large.

2000

Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-OSAMABINLADEN), or members of al-Qaeda (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-TERROR-QAEDA) terrorist network.

2001

Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-SEPT11FEATURES) hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism (http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/SPOT-SEPT112001).)

2002

June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003

May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004

May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.

June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.

Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005

Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt and Days Inn, in Amman Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

These acts were caused by the terrorists about whom you stated "Maybe they're right" More hippocracy
Didn't you have a homegrown lunatic try to destroy the World Trade Centre previously? What was his reasoning?Get your facts straight, he was an Islamic terrorist, not "home grown". His name was Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and he had several co conspirators. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

If you're going to spew hate toward the US, at least make things factual, instead of more hippocracy and BS.
EDiT - Why DID they attack the WORLD Trade Centre? You seem so sure it was an attack on the USA. Could it not have been an attack on Global Capitalism? That is what the World Trade Centre is, isn't it?Did you forget that they hit the Pentagon too? And how about the 40 dead in Shanksville?? And regardless of the terrorists' "reasoning" (I find it really hard to use the word "reasoning" as applied to terrorists), the WTC was on American soil.

Get this, once and for all: AMERICA WAS ATTACKED. plain and simple. Stop trying to dodge, or even worse, deny that fact.

[WHAT?]

Thems the facts alright.
Rory, I wish you wouldn't use the term meddling.
Not say that there hasn't been some along the way. And for that matter, most any country will do some of that everywhere they operate. That is, going way back, into any giving country, we, they, them ,us, you, try to do business through trading with another country. I don't find that to be meddling! You?

That's the heart of it!

Now sure Americans, British, French, Germans, etc. businesses setup shop mainly for the oil there in the MEastern states. But under agreements. You'll find any source that will twist around the details of any individual circumstance, for an individual country there. But in a nutshell... it's trade!

For the most part they invited these companies in, since that is there expertise (oil drilling), and so on and so forth. Like I said along the way there is bound to be a bad guy or two, misrepresenting the WEST. But hey, if you think ,overall that's meddling, then all I can say ... It's your disposition to politics that is getting in the way.

THAT's What's (I've) been saying! -all PUNs intended! :laugh:

Oh, and I hear it's called PROGRESSIVISM now! Not LIBERALISM /... sorry to offend you progressive's like that!:evolved:

[rorythedog]

That's an impressive list man. You're typing has improved. I notice you don't list the things your country has done. As for me "...spewing hate". That's a bit strong don't you think? I certainly don't feel hate towards you or your countrymen. I do have a major problem with your current leaders and I've always tried to make the distinction clear. Obviously not clear enough.

I was confusing the WTC with the Oklahoma bombing. My bad.

You're right. I deliberately didn't mention Libya. For good reason. I don't see the connection with the crusade we're on now. The UK is best buddies with Libya now, haven't you heard? Why didn't you guys take out Gaddafi? There's one I wouldn't have a problem with.

Clearly it doesn't matter to you, but you still haven't told us why you're in Iraq illegally.

[Inthewoods]

That's an impressive list man. You're typing has improved. I notice you don't list the things your country has done. As for me "...spewing hate". That's a bit strong don't you think? I certainly don't feel hate towards you or your countrymen. I do have a major problem with your current leaders and I've always tried to make the distinction clear. Obviously not clear enough.

I was confusing the WTC with the Oklahoma bombing. My bad.

You're right. I deliberately didn't mention Libya. For good reason. I don't see the connection with the crusade we're on now. The UK is best buddies with Libya now, haven't you heard? Why didn't you guys take out Gaddafi? There's one I wouldn't have a problem with.

Clearly it doesn't matter to you, but you still haven't told us why you're in Iraq illegally.
I think you and I will never agree, and that's OK. But I know what you said, because everything said here by you, me, or anybody, is a matter of public record. In answer to your question, no, I don't think my statement is "a bit strong", though I'm sure others do. However, our government, however misguided and screwed up the current administration may be, is not evil, we citizens are not to blame, nor did America "deserve" the attacks.

As to me explaining why we are there "illegally", I cannot explain anything that I don't believe to be the truth, nor will I make an attempt.

I know there is a PM waiting for me, I haven't read it yet because I'm too riled up at the moment, but no matter what it says, I still think we have to just agree to disagree.

In any case, I'll leave you with some food for thought. In WWII, Germany never even attacked American territory, nor were we "invited" by anyone in Germany to invade. Would Europe be better or worse off today if we had NOT invaded? And...were we there "illegally"?

Neither one of us is totally objective about all of this (no, not even me:shocked: ). Just know that I believe strongly in what I've stated here, just as you do.

[madjo]

In any case, I'll leave you with some food for thought. In WWII, Germany never even attacked American territory, nor were we "invited" by anyone in Germany to invade. Would Europe be better or worse off today if we had NOT invaded? And...were we there "illegally"?
Indeed, it were the Japanese to do that.. by attacking Pearl Harbor...
And only after that did the US decide to help Europe. Not before... The war had already been raging for 2 years, when that attack happened.

Large parts of Europe were liberated by the Canadians... I know many Canadian veterans are revered as heroes in The Netherlands and Belgium at least. Sure there were American troops there also, and perhaps also quite a large contingent... but I only know of my country, and that of our southern neighbours, and I know of no American troops saving my grandparents from the terrible attacks made by Germany. Though I believe the battle for Arhem ("A bridge too far") was a co-operation with troops from many different nations among which the Americans. So you are right in that America did its best..
And of course we, Europeans, are very grateful for the Marshall Pact after the war.

===

Let's think about a few things.
Who started WW2?
And how did it start?

There is a very subtle difference between WW2 and the last war on Iraq. And it was that during WW2, the Germans were the aggressors, and during the war in Iraq, the US (together with the UN, I'm afraid to say) were the aggressors.

WW2: 1939: Hitler invaded Poland, this started the whole mess we now know as World War 2.

Iraq: 2005: US+UN forces invaded Iraq, and this enflamed the hatred many Middle-eastern people towards the Western countries even more than there already was.

[acushla]

You have 'organizations' in countries who are plotting to destroy you...you had better be 'meddling' in their affairs.

It's called, among other things, 'self-preservation'.

Hearing the words 'war' and 'illegal' joined together is almost as funny to me as hearing 'war' and 'rules'.

[Inthewoods]

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were plotted and started by the Bush administration.Bullsh*t. The "war" in Afghanistan was started by the murderous bastards who are members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network under Osama bin Laden It "started" in NYC, USA.

There is a very subtle difference between WW2 and the last war on Iraq. And it was that during WW2, the Germans were the aggressors, and during the war in Iraq, the US (together with the UN, I'm afraid to say) were the aggressors.

WW2: 1939: Hitler invaded Poland, this started the whole mess we now know as World War 2.

Iraq: 2005: US+UN forces invaded Iraq, and this enflamed the hatred many Middle-eastern people towards the Western countries even more than there already was.More Bullsh*t. The al-Qaeda terrorist network under Osama bin Laden invaded the USA, with the help of terrorist organizations all over the mideast, especially Iraq. Anybody who denies any connection between the Hussien regime and al-Qaeda either has their head in the sand, or up their ass. The Sunni terrorists and Hussien have direct ties to al-Qaeda. If you don't believe me, read

this:http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/hughes-saddam-bin-laden-070302.pdf

or this:http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F

What happened in New York City, America will NEVER forget, any more than we will forget Pearl Harbor.Though I believe the battle for Arhem ("A bridge too far") was a co-operation with troops from many different nations among which the Americans. So you are right in that America did its best.. America "did it's best" ????????? Clue:America LED THE FIGHT to liberate Europe from the Nazis and Facists, (with a LOT of help from the allied forces) and basically changed history. America had over 16 MILLION troops on both fronts combined, and over a million casualties. Without US involvement, Europe would be the United States of the Third Reich.

[madjo]

The al-Qaeda terrorist network under Osama bin Laden invaded the USA, with the help of terrorist organizations all over the mideast, especially Iraq.
Please remember, the invasion into Iraq was not about Al-Qaeda, it was supposedly about Weapons of Mass Destruction (of which there weren't any).

A question: What provoked al-Qaeda to do such an attack? You don't kill yourself and hundreds of people just because you had a lousy day, especially not this organised.

What happened in New York City, America will NEVER forget, any more than we will forget Pearl Harbor.
What happened in London on July 7th, 2005, the UK will never forget, I'm sure...

[BALTY]

Read What?s posts~
http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?p=53722#post53722
http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?p=53787#post53787
You Al-qaeda lover!!!!

[Inthewoods]

A question: What provoked al-Qaeda to do such an attack? You don't kill yourself and hundreds of people just because you had a lousy day, especially not this organised.You are incorrect. That is EXACTLY what Islamic Fundamentalists do, it's their freakin' sole purpose, it's what they teach them in their training camps. One of the most dedicated is the Sunni sect called the taliban (remember them?). The jihad or so-called "holy war" and destruction of all western cultures is all that holds meaning to them. These are the same terrorists that were part of Hussien's Republican Guard in Iraq, a lot of them were trained in Afganistan and Syria. They even have a systematic replacement program in place for those who "volunteer" suicide.

[BALTY]

Oh, and this is one mans' observation with some people in that whole region (and somewhat that of some people in here) Those "rock throwing", "childlike-minded" people remind me of some neighbors I had growing up as a child. In order for them to succeed they had to put down those with structure, education, and wealth. If you can't beat them, you kill them!
Sad way of thinking but true!
Most of the people in the region however are of sound mind (thankfully), and are in the understanding of business. Business means an honest living. Living means freedom of worship, workmanship, and relationship!
It's just a few younger high tempered, individuals with hatred in their hearts, then turning/twisting the Quran for evidence to kill the infidels!
You know ... You & Me!
Now go and Grow some
ballshttp://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/character/character0285.gif

[Willow of Oz]

An interesting quote from the article that Paul linked to:

Accordingly, some militants insist Iran must have nuclear weapons for self-defense. They point to nuclear-armed North Korea, which forced Washington to back off threats of invasion when it dug in and threatened to fight to the death. Iraq’s lesson is not lost on Iranians: if Saddam had nuclear weapons, the US would not have invaded his nation.

So of course, you wouldn't want these things proliferated or any government would be free to run their own country the way they see fit.

[Inthewoods]

Oh, and this is one mans' observation with some people in that whole region (and somewhat that of some people in here) Those "rock throwing", "childlike-minded" people remind me of some neighbors I had growing up as a child. In order for them to succeed they had to put down those with structure, education, and wealth. If you can't beat them, you kill them!
Sad way of thinking but true!
Most of the people in the region however are of sound mind (thankfully), and are in the understanding of business. Business means an honest living. Living means freedom of worship, workmanship, and relationship!
It's just a few younger high tempered, individuals with hatred in their hearts, then turning/twisting the Quran for evidence to kill the infidels!
You know ... You & Me!
Now go and Grow some
ballshttp://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/character/character0285.gifYou're right, most of those folks are ordinary people, and have no more tolerance of terrorism than we do. I hope I didn't imply that everyone in that region is a fanatic, that was NOT my intent. But it doesnt take all that many to do major harm, just look what about a dozen of them did on 9/11.:cry:

[acushla]

America LED THE FIGHT to liberate Europe from the Nazis and Fascists, (with a LOT of help from the allied forces) and basically changed history. America had over 16 MILLION troops on both fronts combined, and over a million casualties. Without US involvement, Europe would be the United States of the Third Reich.
Let's not forget the total rebuilding of both Germany and Japan by the US once the war was over...rebuilding that allowed both countries to move to the forefront of both economic and technological development...assuring them a place of leadership in the western world.

In other words...rather than being 'punished' and made 'outsiders'...both countries were made participants and therefore strong allies in order to preserve their new found status which is closely intertwined and dependent on close co-operation with it's new alliances.

[acushla]

So of course, you wouldn't want these things proliferated or any government would be free to run their own country the way they see fit.



Well...you've got it right this time. The key, of course, is '...free to run their own country the way they see fit.' If that meant wiping a country they don't like off the map'...well, according to you...so be it. Whatever else you want to say about the U.S...I do not recall them EVER wiping a country of the map...even though there is no country in the world that could 'better' them if the U.S. decided to do so.

While we're here...let's establish something once and for all. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq, it takes nothing away from the fact that all voting members in the UN voted unanimously not once, not twice but 3 times (4 if the U.S. hadn't said enough is enough) that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. The fact that it is later determined the intelligence was faulty has no bearing on the original decision...what is important is all nations believed there were and the U.S. was the one country willing to undertake a leadership role and take the necessarily action to deal with it.

Let's leave that aside for a moment and talk about militarily 'strategy'. I am certainly no expert in this...but I've watched enough TV movies to know it exists.

Perhaps the Generals sit around and decide of all the nations in the area which would provide the most likely to be invaded and overthrown...was Iraq. After this happened and Democracy had taken roots...just like Japan and Germany, the country would be totally rebuild and resemble nothing of it's former self. The rest of the area sees the benefits and one by one become contributing members of a world community.

I've purposely over over over simplified this...but the essence is there.

[Willow of Oz]

In other words...rather than being 'punished' and made 'outsiders'...both countries were made participants and therefore strong allies in order to preserve their new found status which is closely intertwined and dependent on close co-operation with it's new alliances.

True that.
But note that Japan still is excluded from the inner circle of the world's security council. Hmmmm, why is that?

[Willow of Oz]

Well...you've got it right this time. The key, of course, is '...free to run their own country the way they see fit.' If that meant wiping a country they don't like off the map'...well, according to you...so be it.

ah. correction:
the key, of course, is that you don't get your country invaded.
I'm sure a lot of countries have issues with some of China's policies (running over people with tanks, the issue of >1 child per couple, censorship, other human rights issues), but noone talks about invading it. Is the country strengthening or weakening? And as an economic superpower? China is China's country.

[acushla]

ah. correction:
the key, of course, is that you don't get your country invaded.
I'm sure a lot of countries have issues with some of China's policies (running over people with tanks, the issue of >1 child per couple, censorship, other human rights issues), but noone talks about invading it. Is the country strengthening or weakening? And as an economic superpower? China is China's country.

I am NOT anywhere near being an 'expert' in foreign affairs. But you knew that, didn't you?

One good aspect of these discussions is the ability to look things up on Google which, at the very least, guarantees more facts than opinions.

What would you conclude about your own question after reading this:

Buying Chinese goods saves Americans $100 bln a year

by Liao Xiaoqi, Vice Commerce Minister of China

The Sino-US economic and trade relations are among the most important bilateral economic relations in the world. Over the 26 years since China and the United States of America established formal diplomatic relations, bilateral economic relations have developed rapidly with cooperation having expended to various areas of economy. The Sino-US trade volume has grown from the $2.5 billion at the beginning to $169.4 billion in 2004. By the end of 2004 the US has invested in 45,000 projects in China, increasing in-place investment to $48 billion. From January to October this year trade between China and the US reached $127.3 billion, up by 26.2 percent year on year. The US is currently the second largest trade partner of China while China is the US' third. (Click for full article) Nov. 30, 2005

My guess is that the more interdependency there is between two countries the more likely every avenue will be explored to resolve differences of opinions.

As for Japan...here is an excerpt...the full link is given at the end. It is not to long an article and well worth the read.

Current U.S. position advocates a permanent seat in the council for Japan. Ambassador Bolton said last week, there is the fear of domestic implications from Japan’s exclusion from the council as a permanent member. What would that do to the support for Japan’s funding levels? Japan’s contributions to the United Nations roughly amounted to $ 1 billion in 2004 and Japan still owes about $700 million to the peacekeeping budget. Would having the second largest financial contributor really make the council more effective? If Japan, was a permanent member of the Security Council, could the council have acted to stop the genocide in Darfur?

Let’s also not forget the China factor. If the United States continues to support a permanent seat for Japan, it will eventually push Beijing into confrontation with Tokyo. Concerned over Beijing’s rising power, some analysts, such as Vance Serchuk of the American Enterprise Institute advocated this as a policy option for the United States. But there is too much to lose if U.S. allows the enlargement debate to turn into a ruthless realpolitik chess game. The debate over the expansion of the Security Council is a geopolitical contest for power and influence, but it is also about sharing the cost of international security. The United States wants a smaller council, with not more than 20 or so members and thus can allow only one or two more permanent seats to be allocated to a developing country. Delhi, by voting in line with the United States in September at IAEA in Vienna against Iran, earned some points from Washington. But U.S. alone is not the decision maker at the United Nations. Who would represent the developing world in the Security Council anyway? The chances of Group of 77, the largest Third World coalition in the United Nations, which now has 132 members, reaching an agreement on one or two permanent seats, are very slim.

http://www.centerforunreform.org/textpages/unreformwatch4.htm

[acushla]

ah. correction:
the key, of course, is that [COLOR=Navy]you don't get your country invaded.[COLOR=Black]
I'm sure a lot of countries have issues with some of China's policies (running over people with tanks, the issue of >1 child per couple, censorship, other human rights issues), but noone talks about invading it. Is the country strengthening or weakening? And as an economic superpower? China is China's country.


I bet a lot of people do not have problems with the issue of 1 child per couple, or censorship of a certain persuasion. Fundamentalist Christians for the later...responsible parenting for the former.. As for tanks running over people...well...remember Kent State...or lynchings?

We all know these are not official (or even unofficial) positions of the state..but usually isolated acts by over zealous (at best) individuals who are usually reprimanded by the same officials they are representing.

I always despair when the whole is labeled by the wrongful actions of the few.

[Willow of Oz]

A mod might want to snip Acushla's "not an expert" post to the UN thread...


http://quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?p=53836#post53836

[Willow of Oz]

I always despair when the whole is labeled by the wrongful actions of the few.

Mmmm. So you are saying western governments, in general, have no problems with the PRC's human rights record?

[acushla]

True that.
But note that Japan still is excluded from the inner circle of the world's security council. Hmmmm, why is that?

Hmmmm, why is that?

I'm curious now...did you have an answer to this yourself?

[acushla]

Mmmm. So you are saying western governments, in general, have no problems with the PRC's human rights record?

Overall, western governments don't have too great a problem with PRC's human rights record. I mean, think about it...even if 'mild protests' are voiced every once in a while...it's business full speed ahead.

Further to that:

Hypocrisy is a hallmark of politics, but the recent round of vitriol spewed at tech companies has provided some particularly egregious examples. If members of Congress are "sickened" by business between China and the likes of Google, Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft, then they should be taking a similarly hard line on the thousands of retail companies that import merchandise from the country.

The fact is that U.S. politicians are loath to take any action that would disrupt the steady stream of inexpensively priced goods made in China that American consumers now take for granted, despite perennial complaints of sweatshop labor and other human rights abuses among the masses that manufacture those products.

[madjo]

Read What?s posts~
http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?p=53722#post53722
http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?p=53787#post53787
You Al-qaeda lover!!!!
If you meant me, than this post very much offends me.

No I do not condone the actions taken by Al-qaeda, but that does not mean that I condone the actions taken by the US and UN...

And I truly despise the attitude "If you are not with us, you are against us" The world is FAR from black and white.. Get this into your heads, before it is too late, before the whole world is destroyed.

I will not respond in this thread anymore... I've said what I wanted to say...

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

A question: What provoked al-Qaeda to do such an attack? You don't kill yourself and hundreds of people just because you had a lousy day, especially not this organised.

Al Qaeda recruits martyrs. To die in the name of their religion for, 'in their eyes' , a just cause grands them virgins and rewards in 'heaven'. Sure muslims are provoked by the western world, but lets not forget that they are just as trigger happy as America and co. If we back off our armies now, then these arabic nations will surely taste victory and will do just about anything to remove every westerner from their soil. In the netherlands we have a multicultural society and people have all their freedoms. I give it that im not talking about an utopia here but on the other hand try to fit in, as a westerner, in an arabic country and people will just walk over you telling you what is and what isnt allowed. It may seem that countries such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia are achieving western standards of living, but that's a lie. Below a small change in dress code, these people still live in the middle ages. So they are frustrated, maybe jealous of our living standards...? Maybe another incentive to revolt?

It's important to distinguish the commoner Muslim from extremists. Ask any Muslim you know if Al Qaeda acts in the name of the Islam and they'll deny it stating that the Koran would never teach such violence. The problem is that the Koran can be interpreted in many ways.

[acushla]

Al Qaeda recruits martyrs. To die in the name of their religion for, 'in their eyes' , a just cause grands them virgins and rewards in 'heaven'.
If we somehow could convince them it's ONE virgin who is 72...

[Willow of Oz]

The problem is that the Koran can be interpreted in many ways.

The same applies to the Judeo-Christian Bible. In fact, almost *anything* can be interpreted in many ways - people read what they want to believe, and use it to justify their actions.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

The same applies to the Judeo-Christian Bible. In fact, almost *anything* can be interpreted in many ways - people read what they want to believe, and use it to justify their actions.

Hmmm, i wonder if evolution hasnt given us a too over-reactive imagination...ha ha. Humans are the only species on the planet who have the ability to imagine things or situations. Lucky us :biggrin:

[Inthewoods]

Al Qaeda recruits martyrs. To die in the name of their religion for, 'in their eyes' , a just cause grands them virgins and rewards in 'heaven'. Sure muslims are provoked by the western world, but lets not forget that they are just as trigger happy as America and co. If we back off our armies now, then these arabic nations will surely taste victory and will do just about anything to remove every westerner from their soil. In the netherlands we have a multicultural society and people have all their freedoms. I give it that im not talking about an utopia here but on the other hand try to fit in, as a westerner, in an arabic country and people will just walk over you telling you what is and what isnt allowed. It may seem that countries such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia are achieving western standards of living, but that's a lie. Below a small change in dress code, these people still live in the middle ages. So they are frustrated, maybe jealous of our living standards...? Maybe another incentive to revolt?

It's important to distinguish the commoner Muslim from extremists. Ask any Muslim you know if Al Qaeda acts in the name of the Islam and they'll deny it stating that the Koran would never teach such violence. The problem is that the Koran can be interpreted in many ways.I agree 100%. This pretty much clarifies my somewhat vague reply on the same subjest a few replies back.

[Inthewoods]

If you meant me, than this post very much offends me.

No I do not condone the actions taken by Al-qaeda, but that does not mean that I condone the actions taken by the US and UN...

And I truly despise the attitude "If you are not with us, you are against us" The world is FAR from black and white.. Get this into your heads, before it is too late, before the whole world is destroyed.

I will not respond in this thread anymore... I've said what I wanted to say...You said you won't respond anymore, and I don't care whether you do or not. Your second sentence basically you don't condone either side's action, and I have no problem with that.

As to your third paragraph, you're right, most things in this world can be viewed in shades of gray, but this situation unlike most, definitely is black and white. You either want to end terrorism or you want it to flourish. It's not going to diminish unless outside forces crush it at the source. Period. To despise actions and attitudes which are designed to obliterate terrorism from the face of the earth is nothing less than condoning it.

The difference is this: your second sentence says you are neutral, your third paragraph says you despise those who have chosen to take a stand. That is awfully narrow minded and judgemental.

Terrorism is on the rise, so you either want to fight it, or you're pro- terrorism. End of story.

[acushla]

...most things in this world can be viewed in shades of gray, but this situation unlike most, definitely is black and white. You either want to end terrorism or you want it to flourish. I
I agree with this...most things are various shades of gray...but there are definitely those issues which have their roots in black and white. This is one of those issues.

I respectfully suggest if anybody doesn't recognize this. then you simply haven't dug deep enough.

[Willow of Oz]

I respectfully suggest if anybody doesn't recognize this. then you simply haven't dug deep enough.

Sorry Acushla, I think you'll find that most issues are black and white when you don't think about them.
This issue is so not black and white it's a virtual kaleidoscope of colour.
The End.

[acushla]

Sorry Acushla, I think you'll find that most issues are black and white when you don't think about them.
This issue is so not black and white it's a virtual kaleidoscope of colour.
The End.
I don't deny this...but if you go back and re-read my post what I said was...'...but there are definitely those issues which have their roots in black and white'.

As in a flower...the root looks nothing like the flower it produces...yet without the root there is no 'flower'.

Sometimes you have to take a position...and not taking a position results in taking a position...whether you like it or not.

The beginning.

[WHAT?]

I guess the term "You must stand for something, or you will fall!" may be true. We all don't necessarily stand for the same things, I guess!
Oh well!... Off to the next subect then!!!!!
Acushla?? Got another thread brewing?
:cyclops: :carrot:

[Willow of Oz]

I don't deny this...but if you go back and re-read my post what I said was...'...but there are definitely those issues which have their roots in black and white'.

As in a flower...the root looks nothing like the flower it produces...yet without the root there is no 'flower'.

Sometimes you have to take a position...and not taking a position results in taking a position...whether you like it or not.

The beginning.

Okay, I was a little confused about your post.
And I'm not saying that grey = no position. Stuff's complex. And there are generally more than two outcomes.

[acushla]

Mmmm. So you are saying western governments, in general, have no problems with the PRC's human rights record?

Overall, western governments don't have too great a problem with PRC's human rights record. I mean, think about it...even if 'mild protests' are voiced every once in a while...it's business full speed ahead.

Further to that:

Hypocrisy is a hallmark of politics, but the recent round of vitriol spewed at tech companies has provided some particularly egregious examples. If members of Congress are "sickened" by business between China and the likes of Google, Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft, then they should be taking a similarly hard line on the thousands of retail companies that import merchandise from the country.

The fact is that U.S. politicians are loath to take any action that would disrupt the steady stream of inexpensively priced goods made in China that American consumers now take for granted, despite perennial complaints of sweatshop labor and other human rights abuses among the masses that manufacture those products.

[rorythedog]

BBC NEWS ARTICLE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5045604.stm)

[acushla]

BBC NEWS ARTICLE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5045604.stm)Interesting article, although really doesn't offer any 'new' information. The US have been aware of this possibly for some time now and analysts say that 'should Iran act on its threat to unleash its "oil weapon," oil prices could skyrocket to $100 a barrel, or about $4 a gallon at the pumps.'

While that is clearly not an appealing prospect, neither is the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, say U.S. officials and lawmakers. On the CBS political talk show Face the Nation, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) ((who many believe is the front runner to be the next leader of the Republican Party) put it plainly: "If the price of oil has to go up, then it's a consequence we would have to suffer."

For a broader and more comprehensive perspective of the Iranian situation here is a very good article culled from The New York Times entitled 'Very Bad and Worse — the Options With Iran '

http://select.nytimes.com/iht/2006/05/03/world/IHT-03globalist.html?fta=y

[fatal error]

build a wall around the entire area and fill it with water. problem solved.

[acushla]

Some might know by now that Iran have taken 15 British soldiers under gunpoint and escorted them into Iran. The initial speculation is that Iran will claim the sailors were in Iranian waters and therefore spies and will be treated as spies.

My feelings are that unless Iran release them yesterday this will get very ugly. If Britain decides to go in I suspect the US will support them.

By the way...anybody know what day we're at in the 60 I mentioned?:foureyes:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879157242&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[acushla]

I find it somewhat disturbing that 34 hours ago I made the previous post and there has been no comment made.

Perhaps I am just mistakened to think that the seizure of 15 British sailers by Iran is in any way 'important' or news worthy.:dead:

NERO 6 not compatible with VISTA…now that’s news. (sarc)

[rorythedog]

I find it somewhat disturbing that 34 hours ago I made the previous post and there has been no comment made.

Perhaps I am just mistakened to think that the seizure of 15 British bailers by Iran is in any way 'important' or news worthy.:dead:

NERO 6 not compatible with VISTA…now that’s news. (sarc)

I haven't noticed this thread highlighted until now actually. To the point - what if they were in Iranian waters?

[acushla]

I haven't noticed this thread highlighted until now actually. To the point - what if they were in Iranian waters?
Given everything I've read and listened to it seems highly unlikely to the extreme...unless of course the plan is to create an International incident which will be used as an excuse to wipe Iran 'of the face of the world'! For that one we will have to wait and see.

No...I think, again, after much reading and listening, that it is highly unlikely they were in Iranian waters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6491581.stm). Everything is monitored using GPS. Once a position is established as to where the line is...a wide berth is given just to be certain. Part of the confusion might lie in the fact that, although Iraq and Iran had a signed treaty as to where the line was, Saddam Hussein canceled that treaty in 1980 when he invaded Iran. Iran and the new Iraqi government have not signed a new treaty on their sovereignty over the waterway.

The commander of HMS Cornwall said the sailors had just completed the inspection of a commercial vessel as part of "routine boarding operations in Iraqi territorial waters". A job they've done everyday. A vessel that was anchored.

The seized sailors, from the British frigate HMS Cornwall, are part of a task force that maintains security in Iraqi waters under authority of the U.N. Security Council.

It has been suggested that this act was in retaliation for the capture of 5 Iranians in Iraq by US forces

Several conservative student groups urged the Iranian government not to release the sailors until the five Iranians detained by U.S. forces earlier this year are freed and U.N.'s new sanctions against Iran are canceled.

It has also been suggested that the ambush and capture of 15 British servicemen was carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who acted indepentantly from the government in Tehran.

What is worth noting is that the US now have 2 aircraft carriers in the region...which would be more than enough to do some serious damage.

[acushla]

Rumors of War (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1560787.ece)

[rorythedog]

Given everything I've read and listened to it seems highly unlikely to the extreme...unless of course the plan is to create an International incident which will be used as an excuse to wipe Iran 'of the face of the world'! For that one we will have to wait and see.

No...I think, again, after much reading and listening, that it is highly unlikely they were in Iranian waters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6491581.stm). Everything is monitored using GPS. Once a position is established as to where the line is...a wide berth is given just to be certain. Part of the confusion might lie in the fact that, although Iraq and Iran had a signed treaty as to where the line was, Saddam Hussein canceled that treaty in 1980 when he invaded Iran. Iran and the new Iraqi government have not signed a new treaty on their sovereignty over the waterway.

The commander of HMS Cornwall said the sailors had just completed the inspection of a commercial vessel as part of "routine boarding operations in Iraqi territorial waters". A job they've done everyday. A vessel that was anchored.

The seized sailors, from the British frigate HMS Cornwall, are part of a task force that maintains security in Iraqi waters under authority of the U.N. Security Council.

It has been suggested that this act was in retaliation for the capture of 5 Iranians in Iraq by US forces

Several conservative student groups urged the Iranian government not to release the sailors until the five Iranians detained by U.S. forces earlier this year are freed and U.N.'s new sanctions against Iran are canceled.

It has also been suggested that the ambush and capture of 15 British servicemen was carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who acted indepentantly from the government in Tehran.

What is worth noting is that the US now have 2 aircraft carriers in the region...which would be more than enough to do some serious damage.

I think you may well be right but given that it's acknowledged Naval ships would give a "wide berth" of the contested territory then wouldn't it be strange timing on the part of the Iranians? I mean it's not as if they're running high in the popularity polls right now is it? I think it's more likely that the ship's Commander has blown it. Possibly through his adoption of the West's general arrogance and disregard for sovereign territories. Of course, I may be wrong.

For the record, I have a lot of ex-Navy family members and they all think it's likey the British made this mistake. As for Iran's response, well, what is there to say. It seems heavy-handed to me . I'll say this though. Nice to know all the millions I and my fellow tax-payers put out on a strong military presence can just be arrested. It beggars belief.

[acushla]

Nice to know all the millions I and my fellow tax-payers put out on a strong military presence can just be arrested. It beggars belief.
I could be wrong (not likely...but could be:) ) but I don't believe that being a sailor in and of itself means you are 'military'.

These people sound to be more like 'custom inspectors'. I seem to recall reading that they have no training on what to do when 'captured' because nobody would 'capture' them.

I bet that policy is changed on Monday.

[acushla]

Five Iranians arrested in the Kurdish city of Irbil are accused of being senior members of the Revolutionary Guards.

Opponents of the Islamic regime in Iran claimed that the capture of the sailors was linked to the nuclear crisis.

Hossain Abedini, of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said: "By seizing British Marines, the dictatorship is, in an act of desperation, trying to put pressure on Western nations to prevent the adoption of a second Security Council resolution.

"Through such hollow shows of force, the mullahs are trying to cover up the increasing levels of internal turmoil they are facing. and the wave of public discontent which has arisen in Iran in recent months."

- National Council of Resistance of Iran - Foreign Affairs Committee

[rorythedog]

All the more reason for the US and UK to STFU then. Let Iranians deal with their own problems internally.

[idefiXX]

To my mind this is media-compatible staged.

Read this news (http://www.itv.com/news/e2ba27fa1a62e7fecd08b0721905aea7.html).

[acushla]

All the more reason for the US and UK to STFU then. Let Iranians deal with their own problems internally.
As long as Iran holds the 15 captured sailors that is no longer an option .

Being sympathetic to the needs of Israel, I strongly believe that the US and Briton needs to be speaking up with regards to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Seems the majority of the world agrees, including a lot of Iran's Arab neighbours...although they may not all state it publicly.

[acushla]

To my mind this is media-compatible staged.

With all due respect idefiXX, I fail to make a connection between your statement and the news article you linked to.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you infer with 'media-compatible staged news' and those events that actually happened which the press then report.

Had you said 'governement(s) staged' then I would have understood perfectly.

[rorythedog]

As long as Iran holds the 15 captured sailors that is no longer an option .

Being sympathetic to the needs of Israel, I strongly believe that the US and Briton needs to be speaking up with regards to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Seems the majority of the world agrees, including a lot of Iran's Arab neighbours...although they may not all state it publicly.

I don't know why you don't just come right out with it. Every time something like this comes up we get this "now is not the time" crap. Now has always been the time. It seems to me that if the ship was in Iranian waters then it's crew were stupid. If it wasn't then they were still stupid for allowing themselves to be captured. I mean, it's a damn warship! What's the bloody point of it?

If you have your way with your steadfast defence of Israel then we're all fugazi. Israel will not be allowed to exist as it is now. That much is certain. And no amount of Western sabre rattling is going to stop it changing. You underestimate your 'enemy', my friend.

[acushla]

I don't know why you don't just come right out with it. Every time something like this comes up we get this "now is not the time" crap. Now has always been the time. It seems to me that if the ship was in Iranian waters then it's crew were stupid. If it wasn't then they were still stupid for allowing themselves to be captured. I mean, it's a damn warship! What's the bloody point of it?

If you have your way with your steadfast defence of Israel then we're all fugazi. Israel will not be allowed to exist as it is now. That much is certain. And no amount of Western sabre rattling is going to stop it changing. You underestimate your 'enemy', my friend.
I do not know what you refer to when you say: 'Every time something like this comes up we get this "now is not the time" crap. I can only speculate that you mean a 'crisis' and the UN says 'now is not the time' to take some real action. I am nowhere near 100% certain this is what you really mean, though.

Stupid for allowing themselves to be captured? I don't know if I agree with that. Warship or inner tube...any firing of guns by the British might have been even stupider. (Caught between stupid and stupider!:))

As for Israel...it doesn't necessarily matter to me whether it is allowed to exist as it is now...as much as it matters to me that it is allowed to exist.

[rorythedog]

Excellent! Consensus very nearly breaks out. Stop the press.

As to your not understanding what I mean - as I recall 4 years ago the UN's opinion counted for nowt. Immediate action was necessary to eliminate an "imminent threat". Remember? Well I remember too, and a lot of other folks too. You tore up the UN when you illegally invaded a Soverign Nation. That is hard fact. Forgive me if I treat your kind's opinions with a modicum of contempt this time around. If the US and UK continue to harangue the shaky Iranian leadership and continue to pile sanctions on a people who have little support for their current regime then the inevitable will happen, again. These bully boy tactics do nothing but polarize opinion in the enemy state and so make violence more likely, not less.

Come on man, you're old enough to have seen all this crap before. Have you been living in a bubble the past 40 years?

[idefiXX]

With all due respect idefiXX, I fail to make a connection between your statement and the news article you linked to.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you infer with 'media-compatible staged news' and those events that actually happened which the press then report.

Had you said 'governement(s) staged' then I would have understood perfectly.
In this article it is said that the "...15 British sailors captured in the Gulf have confessed to entering Iranian waters illegally, according to the country's military."
Okay, you will have to decide whether you believe this or not, since Britain is still denying they entered Iranian waters.

But what happens if you believe this ? One could easily think they acted on orders. And if they acted on orders, one could easily think of a crisis staged by political powers in the UK and the US.

Just a thought, they could have made a dumb mistake of course.

[acushla]

In this article it is said that the "...15 British sailors captured in the Gulf have confessed to entering Iranian waters illegally, according to the country's military."
Okay, you will have to decide whether you believe this or not, since Britain is still denying they entered Iranian waters.

But what happens if you believe this ? One could easily think they acted on orders. And if they acted on orders, one could easily think of a crisis staged by political powers in the UK and the US.

Just a thought, they could have made a dumb mistake of course.

Capture of British sailors is all too familiar (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-brits25mar25,0,6343531.story?track=mostviewed-homepage)

All British Military are instructed to say or agree with anything their capturs want them to say.

Reasons should be obvious.

“If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.” Punishable by death.

The Iranians cannot try the men for espionage if they captured the sailors in uniform. Article 46 of the Geneva Convention states this clearly:

2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces.

"The indictment of British sailors in uniform as spies will violate the GC. Can we expect the same level of outrage over this explicit violation as the supposed violations of the US government?"

No of course not. As currently interpreted the Geneva Conventions only apply to individuals bent on destroying America. Individuals who blow up elementary schools, kidnap children, attack churches and mosques, kill invalids in wheelchairs, plan attacks on skyscrapers in New York, behead journalists, detonate car bombs with children to camouflage their crime, or board jetliners with explosive shoes -- all while wearing mufti or even women's clothing -- these are all considered "freedom fighters" of the most principled kind. They and they alone enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention. As to Americans like Tucker and Menchaca or Israeli Gilad Shalit -- or these fifteen British sailors for that matter, it is a case of "what Geneva Convention?" We don't need no steenkin' Geneva Convention to try these guys as spies. That's the way the Human Rights racket works. Don't go looking for any Geneva Convention in Somalia, Darfur, Basilan or Iran. Try Guantanamo Bay. (The Belmont Club)

[rorythedog]

Time for a long nap man, lol.

[acushla]

Time for a long nap man, lol.
I second that emotion.

Here's a blog you might find interesting...especially the part about Britain sinking one or two Iranian subs.

The Belmont Club
History and History in the Making (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/)

[Neo]

Iran sucks, that's all that needs to be said. :biggrin:

[acushla]

Aussie troops 'Iran target' (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21447369-5001021,00.html)

Iran will find a way to begin a war...and thus fulfilll their purpose.

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.'”

The Ayatollah Khomeini

[Todd The Kiwi]

words of wisdom from neo...

[Willow of Oz]

Aussie troops 'Iran target' (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21447369-5001021,00.html)

Iran will find a way to begin a war...and thus fulfilll their purpose.

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.'”

The Ayatollah Khomeini

Yes, convert or die. Most religions stick this in the middle of their texts as part of a standard disclaimer / waiver and carry it out as part of a feasibility study as to whether they can crush the competition and obtain a monopoly on the market. It's all about mindshare really, and brand awareness. The key to ensuring customer selection of your product is to remove the option of choice. Common business practice really.

[Neo]

words of wisdom from neo...
...of course. I can sum things up in one simple sentence. I'm done with this thread. I don't have the need to debate a..hole countries and those that support them. :biggrin:

[BALTY]

No of course not. As currently interpreted the Geneva Conventions only apply to individuals bent on destroying America. Individuals who blow up elementary schools, kidnap children, attack churches and mosques, kill invalids in wheelchairs, plan attacks on skyscrapers in New York, behead journalists, detonate car bombs with children to camouflage their crime, or board jetliners with explosive shoes -- all while wearing mufti or even women's clothing -- these are all considered "freedom fighters" of the most principled kind. They and they alone enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention. As to Americans like Tucker and Menchaca or Israeli Gilad Shalit -- or these fifteen British sailors for that matter, it is a case of "what Geneva Convention?" We don't need no steenkin' Geneva Convention to try these guys as spies. That's the way the Human Rights racket works. Don't go looking for any Geneva Convention in Somalia, Darfur, Basilan or Iran. Try Guantanamo Bay. (The Belmont Club)

And of course, the conviction in their minds to destroy the Free West so to rid the world of it's tyranny, capitalism, and sins against Allah.

[BALTY]

words of wisdom from neo...
Words I've seen in here describing, America, The West, Bush, from the opposition as well. I thought it was fitting here to say it back in the same manner, as it gets dish out towards him. I guess you didn't get it.
I laughed.

Aussie troops 'Iran target' (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21447369-5001021,00.html)

Iran will find a way to begin a war...and thus fulfilll their purpose.

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.'”

The Ayatollah Khomeini
Oops Sorry I didn't read far enough I suppose.

[Todd The Kiwi]

I guess you didn't get it.
I laughed.that's nice, good for you.

[rorythedog]

I just finished watching The Trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series)). This was quite breathtaking and a real eye-opener. I'd strongly reccommend it to anyone interested in the human world. The filmwork and the archive clip nature of it is simply stunning, and the narration - by the writer and director Richard Curtis - tied it all up beautifully. I haven't checked yet but I expect it'll be available at all the usual 'outlets'. I'm up for a discussion if anyone's willing to watch it. Acushla? :carrot:

Just checked and indeed it is available.

[BALTY]

that's nice, good for you.

Why... Thank you my good chap!
I try to take the fun side to every situation. To be liberal with my conservatism. See the lighter side of what others see as darkness.:bulb: :beer:
Now, go take on the day!http://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

[idefiXX]

I just finished watching The Trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series)). This was quite breathtaking and a real eye-opener. I'd strongly reccommend it to anyone interested in the human world. The filmwork and the archive clip nature of it is simply stunning, and the narration - by the writer and director Richard Curtis - tied it all up beautifully. I haven't checked yet but I expect it'll be available at all the usual 'outlets'. I'm up for a discussion if anyone's willing to watch it. Acushla? :carrot:

Just checked and indeed it is available.
Just watched the first episode.
If I get it right Curtis says that the freedom we "enjoy" today is the new way of controlling/illiberating people.
Very interesting, going to watch the remaining episodes tomorrow and then write more about it. Gn8. :dead:

[acushla]

This is what Tony Blair has as his options to launch a attack on Iran.

http://m1.freeshare.us/129fs4322069_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?129fs4322069.jpg)

http://m1.freeshare.us/129fs4322238_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?129fs4322238.jpg)

http://m1.freeshare.us/129fs4322354_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?129fs4322354.jpg)

http://m1.freeshare.us/129fs4322519_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?129fs4322519.jpg)

http://m1.freeshare.us/129fs4322649_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?129fs4322649.jpg)

[idefiXX]

This is what Tony Blair has as his options to launch a attack on Iran.
Seems almost as if you yearn for a war. :ermm:

[rorythedog]

Seems almost as if you yearn for a war. :ermm:


This is, and always has been, my reading of Acushla's mindset. I find this distinctly worrying. Bliar has NO options to attack Iraq. Over here the judiciary are just waiting for a chance to hang him out to dry and military action will provide this to them. He may still be going to The Hague.

[acushla]

Seems almost as if you yearn for a war. :ermm:
I know what you mean but it is not how I approach it.

One has to understand that we have created a very dangerous situation and I was curious as to the sophistication of England's air power.

I do not believe for a moment that it is a question of 'if' but a question of 'when'...for I feel it is inevitable.

Bin Laden believes that 1500 years ago Muhammed commanded: "Behold! God sent me [the Prophet Muhammad] with a sword, just before the Hour [of Judgment], and placed my daily sustenance beneath the shadow of my spear, and humiliation and contempt upon those who oppose me."

This time the battle is not merely conquest, but annihilation of the enemy. This is the apocalyptic world of "convert to the true faith or die."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like to be leader when this comes to past. At the core is Israel and the Jews who are despised as 'swine and apes'. This can be regarded as the 'engine that drives the train'. Everything else only serves to fuel that engine. The destruction of Israel is central to what it means to be a Muslim…it is promised in the Quarm and this victory represents the greatest achievement.

There are forces that act upon and propel the world that are beyond all of our reasoning and calculations…all of History can be seen in this light. Which is why I say it is inevitable…things have gone way beyond the point of no return…if we learn nothing from 9/11 we should learn that. There is no more dialogue to be had…you cannot talk with people who not only despise you and all you represent , but who are the very people who their Holy Book says they will have victory over.

It is hard, if not impossible, for me to offer any conclusion as to what war will achieve. The cynic in me is increasingly beginning to believe that wars are nothing but a business for those who supply the hardware.

Ask yourself…’What is Victory?’

Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path! -Surah 5:60 (Yusuf Ali) (http://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/ch13_islams_ancient_hatred.htm)

[acushla]

This is, and always has been, my reading of Acushla's mindset. I find this distinctly worrying. Bliar has NO options to attack Iraq. Over here the judiciary are just waiting for a chance to hang him out to dry and military action will provide this to them. He may still be going to The Hague.
I think we already attacked Iraq (that went very well)...so I think (know) you meant Iran.

I find it worrisome that you consider standing back and doing nothing to be an option.

Remember stupid/stupider? Seems to be a lot of such choices in life.

[acushla]

This is what Tony Blair has as his options to launch a attack on Iran.

http://m1.freeshare.us/129fs4322069_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?129fs4322069.jpg)

http://m1.freeshare.us/129fs4322238_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?129fs4322238.jpg)

http://m1.freeshare.us/129fs4322354_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?129fs4322354.jpg)

http://m1.freeshare.us/129fs4322519_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?129fs4322519.jpg)

http://m1.freeshare.us/129fs4322649_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?129fs4322649.jpg)

THEY DON'T BUILD 'EM FOR FUN!

[rorythedog]

I think we already attacked Iraq (that went very well)...so I think (know) you meant Iran.

I find it worrisome that you consider standing back and doing nothing to be an option.

Remember stupid/stupider? Seems to be a lot of such choices in life.

I see no point in perpetuating the violence. It's not difficult. Nothing is inevitable. You see, we've been here before. Remember Iraq? Yeah I noticed my error in my post above but I thought I'd leave it because it hardly makes any difference what the country is. It's always broken down to a "them or us", or a "kill or be killed" debate. That's madness. Don't keep quoting mad muslims who interpret the Koran one way because a far larger amount of Muslims think differently. Your way means this "silent majority" never speaks up fo itself.

[acushla]

I see no point in perpetuating the violence. It's not difficult. Nothing is inevitable. You see, we've been here before. Remember Iraq? Yeah I noticed my error in my post above but I thought I'd leave it because it hardly makes any difference what the country is. It's always broken down to a "them or us", or a "kill or be killed" debate. That's madness. Don't keep quoting mad muslims who interpret the Koran one way because a far larger amount of Muslims think differently. Your way means this "silent majority" never speaks up fo itself.

I'll stop quoting scholars of Islam when it is no longer relevant to current events.

Your 'silent majority' are a non starter and count for nothing. It is the actions of the 'mad Muslims' that we need to worry about...you know...the ones who are flying planes into our buildings and blowing up trains and double decker buses and just generally plotting our destruction.

As I titled my last post...CNN in breaking news have just announced that Iran has agreed to release the sailors.

Satellite pictures proved that the British were well within Iraqi waters.

[Willow of Oz]

Yeah I noticed my error in my post above but I thought I'd leave it because it hardly makes any difference what the country is.
Eurasia, Eastasia, Oceania ... it's all the same :ponder:

Lord of War anyone?

[acushla]

Gee...I'm viewing Currently Active Users and I'm wondering what would happen if you all finished your replys at the same time and clicked 'submit reply' at exactly the same time.

Maybe this site would 'freeze'...or 'crash'...?

[Heigar]

As I titled my last post...CNN in breaking news have just announced that Iran has agreed to release the sailors.

I heard they were only releasing the female hostage.

[acushla]

I heard they were only releasing the female hostage.
I just went to CNN web page...and you're right...it reports that just the female sailor will be released. (Whatever happened to equal rights?)

Curious...I will be interested as to when CNN TV corrects it's story.

So...nothing has really happened...Iran stalling for more time...for what?

Interesting to note that the original border was set in 1936 by...drum roll...the British. The 'border' extended to the shore line of Iran...which means they effectively had no water rights.

It was suggested that Iran took the British sailors partly out of resentment for their actions in 1936 and their perceived dominance in these same waters now.

[rorythedog]

I think the fact that the UK and the US think they have any right to tell Iran where it's borders are while at the same time occupying (after illegal invasion) her closest neighbour hypocritical to the extreme. Can you smell it?

[Heigar]

I also heard that with satellite images and coordinates of the ship that they were not in Iranian waters, but as you have mentioned about "borders" then it would be correct that they weren't due to Iran not having any water rights.

[idefiXX]

Well, who trusts satellite images any longer after Colin Powells WMD evidence...:cheeky:

[Heigar]

Well, who trusts satellite images any longer after Colin Powells WMD evidence...:cheeky:

Probably not to many, but then again that was Colin Powell!

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

Well, who trusts satellite images any longer after Colin Powells WMD evidence...:cheeky:

You would have posted the same if satellite images showed the British in Iranian waters. (statement not a question)

smells good

[idefiXX]

You would have posted the same if satellite images showed the British in Iranian waters. (statement not a question)
Aye, you're probably right, so many things are possible with Photoshop these days ;) This just emphasizes that satellite images are no longer to be regarded as evidence.

EDIT : smells good ?

[Willow of Oz]

EDIT : smells good ?

ref: rory.

[acushla]

I think the fact that the UK and the US think they have any right to tell Iran where it's borders are while at the same time occupying (after illegal invasion) her closest neighbour hypocritical to the extreme. Can you smell it?
I don't know where you come up with these statements. Perhaps you would like to share with all of us where you found that the U.S. and the UK are telling Iran today where it's borders are...I'd be interested in reading that.

The fact is that Iran and Iraq signed a treaty on the borders in 1976. In 1980 Hussein broke that treaty when he invaded Iran. Since that time there has been no signed agreement between Iran and Iraq as to where that border is. Generally everybody is following the 1976 guidelines.

As to 'illegal' invasion...isn't hindsight great?

[rorythedog]

I don't know where you come up with these statements. Perhaps you would like to share with all of us where you found that the U.S. and the UK are telling Iran today where it's borders are...I'd be interested in reading that.

The fact is that Iran and Iraq signed a treaty on the borders in 1976. In 1980 Hussein broke that treaty when he invaded Iran. Since that time there has been no signed agreement between Iran and Iraq as to where that border is. Generally everybody is following the 1976 guidelines.

As to 'illegal' invasion...isn't hindsight great?


Hindsight my arse! People were saying at the time how illegal it was. I believed them and your lot didn't. I was right, you were wrong. You are still wrong. I do expect your empty-headed thinking to win out of course. Much easier to just start wars eh? To the victor the spoils. It's all bullshit, and you just lap it up.

Have you watched that documentary I linked to?

Carry on argueing without me. There are far bigger things happening tonight (http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?p=81667#post81667).

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

So the woman has been shown on television. She says that her captors have been "hospitable". Well isn't that nice, they were hospitable enough to loan her a black scarf to where on her head.

[BALTY]

Well after all, they did give her a smoke:ditsy:

[acushla]

Iran demands British confession (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3C72B04E-AAA9-474F-9249-343F5D1371DD.htm)

[acushla]

Well after all, they did give her a smoke:ditsy:

We will let the female go. Maybe today. Maybe tomorrow.

Oh...did you think I said she would be freed? No, no, no...I must have been, er...how you say?... misquoted.

On Wednesday, Mottaki had said on the sidelines of an Arab summit in Saudi Arabia: "Today or tomorrow, the lady will be released.":ditsy:

We will look into freeing her as soon as possible.:puzzled:

First though, you have to confess that you were in our waters.

These are the games that Iran plays...and plays...and plays.

Who thinks England will cop to a lie in order to get the sailors back (like coping to the lie is any guarantee they would be released. More likely that court proceedings would commence armed with England's 'confession'.)

[Willow of Oz]

As to 'illegal' invasion...isn't hindsight great?

????

[acushla]

????

Let's be straightforward about this: It is a highly complex issue which the best law firms in the world today are making legal issues for one position or the other.

'Legal' is and can be somewhat misleading as it applies to the events being discussed. My understanding is that Iraq had more than fulfilled all of the qualifications for it to be 'legally' invaded under the UN rules of engagement...and the main thrust of my post rests on that point. The fact that this position is now being second guessed does not, in my opinion, make the first assessment 'wrong'. That would be for courts to decide...and I am not holding my breath on that one.

Attorney general: war is legal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,916078,00.html)

I stated that 'legal' is and can be misleading as it applies to the events being discussed...'legally' there currently is no 'border' in effect which both countries are in signed agreement.

Iran's Border Muddles Captivity Issue (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6512742,00.html)


I've said it before...think of what a 'hero' Bush would have been had the Americians acted exactly as they did but instead of finding no wmd they in fact found wmd.

[rorythedog]

We will let the female go. Maybe today. Maybe tomorrow.

Oh...did you think I said she would be freed? No, no, no...I must have been, er...how you say?... misquoted.

On Wednesday, Mottaki had said on the sidelines of an Arab summit in Saudi Arabia: "Today or tomorrow, the lady will be released.":ditsy:

We will look into freeing her as soon as possible.:puzzled:

First though, you have to confess that you were in our waters.

These are the games that Iran plays...and plays...and plays.

Who thinks England will cop to a lie in order to get the sailors back (like coping to the lie is any guarantee they would be released. More likely that court proceedings would commence armed with England's 'confession'.)

England????

[acushla]

England????

England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England)

OK...we've been through this before:)...you wrote Iraq meaning Iran and didn't change it as you felt they were interchangeable...given the context.

Ditto.:beer:

[acushla]

Faced with Iranian blackmail, Europe must show real solidarity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2045069,00.html)

[Todd The Kiwi]

England????Hadrians wall seems to be working... :cheeky:

[acushla]

I have been informed that, as a result of my 'England' post that:

'Your contempt for other peoples feelings is noted and I will therefore not contribute any further to any political threads you are involved in.'

I confess that this came as a total surprise to me as (in this instance) I did not realize that my post would be interpreted as my having 'contempt for other people's feelings.'

The truth is that, even though I have been informed that my post 'offended'...I have no idea why someone would find it offensive.

I would like to gently and respectfully suggest that perhaps it would be better served to point out why the post offended...at least it would give me pause for thought the next time I was about to post a similar response.

I assure you...there was no contempt...no confrontation...simply sharing.

[idefiXX]

Good to have it reopened again.

So, we have a propaganda war going on right now, eh ?

[Willow of Oz]

I've said it before...think of what a 'hero' Bush would have been had the Americians acted exactly as they did but instead of finding no wmd they in fact found wmd.

I'll concede some ground on the legal issue; enough to at least leave a question mark vaguely in its vicinity.
But I really think that's an utter load of tosh regarding the findings affecting whether Bush is a hero or not.
If you force your way into Israel, for example, to see if they have nukes and start blowing things up and killing people and then, aha, they have wmps then it doesn't actually make things all right. And Israel would probably complain.
You can argue that there was benefit for you (the country) since you don't want to be attacked. Never mind the fact that you just (preemptively) attacked them. If you're going to wage war, then you declare war and move in. Anything else is pretending you're not waging a war when you really are.

[rorythedog]

Good point Willow and it maybe needs pointing out yet again that the US was not under threat from Iraq.

[WHAT?]

I'll concede some ground on the legal issue; enough to at least leave a question mark vaguely in its vicinity.
But I really think that's an utter load of tosh regarding the findings affecting whether Bush is a hero or not.
If you force your way into Israel, for example, to see if they have nukes and start blowing things up and killing people and then, aha, they have wmps then it doesn't actually make things all right. And Israel would probably complain.
You can argue that there was benefit for you (the country) since you don't want to be attacked. Never mind the fact that you just (preemptively) attacked them. If you're going to wage war, then you declare war and move in. Anything else is pretending you're not waging a war when you really are.
Willo...
What's your meaning of "(preemptively)"? Are you referring to Iraq here, or in general? Hopefully you're not ignoring the recent history of Iraq, prior to all this mess.
And saying blowing things up and killing people isn't doing justice to the targeted strikes orchestrated in today’s battles. Besides, isn't that what armies are supposed to do? Blows things up, and kill people? Not that it's ever a good thing in general, but that IS what a good army should do.
I am not picking you out here totally...
I'm just saying that I feel as though that is a given, and by saying it this way makes it sound worse than what it is... and it is War! Is there anything worse?
Well, maybe Hell itself. But War is Hell they say.

The actual battles of the Iraq war were quick and swift. It's all the internal struggling that continues today. Not a total surprise I guess, but the suicides are somewhat.
I still say we'd be all but out of there by now, if it were for the unstableness. The question should be "what do we do from here?"! (and it has been this question for some time now, I know). But to saying "get out, and get out now" as so many say; is so irresponsible, I can't stand it. Just because it's Bush, America, and the West, people just want them out.
All the "I told you so(s)" in the world wouldn't make "pulling out soon" the right thing for the Iraqis, or the world.

No, I'm not saying you in particular are saying these things.

Moving back to IRAN, and it's spelling. I still contend THEY are the biggest source of the insurgents, outside of the Sunnis and their outside connections. They both have a common goal. However IRAN's is to keep us occupied so they can make a nuke. They aren't even being coy about it!
Do we just let them do it? See what happens? See if talks will work? See if an internal rebellion works? See if war works? What?
I just hope our grand kids don't say one day as they burn from radiation, "Why didn't somebody do something back then?", " Our forefathers were too soft, and stupid!".

I do wish we all could be as liberal towards war as the European nations. Similar to a lot of countries were like 2500 years ago. But hey, there is always somebody that doesn't see it your way (i.e. Romans), and create an empire, as we slave for them, assuming we didn't die first.

We need to think hard about being passé to fighting for our belief's, and way of living.

[rorythedog]

Iraq was never a war. It was an invasion, there's a difference. Perhaps if the US or UK government actually conceded it was a mistake there might be less "I told you so's"? Who knows. A bit of humility from either government would be a refreshing change.

As for current and recent developments.

Isn't it strange that Iran should choose the time they did to arrest these alleged transgressors? Strikes me that doing so at the same time as the UN were debating further sanctions was a bit of an own goal. These UK patrols are by their very nature liable to some flexibility as regards precise positioning. That's the seas for you. The likelihood is that UK ships have crossed the line many times previous to this particular incident and so it's more than a bit strange that the Iranians should pick this occasion to take action.

I think they've been baited to fall for this. As far as I can see the only countries likely to benefit from confrontation with Iran are...well, you know who.

Some reports say Iran is maybe 15 years from developing a nuclear device capable of targetting either the UK or US, so why the rush? It would be a miracle if the current leader of Iran is still in power by that time. Actually, I'll be very surprised if he lasts more than a couple of years. Of course it is possible they could have a weapon capable of targetting their neighbours before then but then isn't that their neighbours problem?

Why can't you just stop interfering in the affairs of other countries? It's not as if we're in uncharted territory here. The US alone has invaded so many countries you'd think, by now, they'd have figured out how things are likely to turn out. They even invaded (admittedly some time ago)...Canada!

[Willow of Oz]

Willo...


I don't know why people fail to read the W on the end. It's becoming pandemic.:cheeky:


What's your meaning of "(preemptively)"? Are you referring to Iraq here, or in general? Hopefully you're not ignoring the recent history of Iraq, prior to all this mess.

This is a vague analogy - (do not draw firm parallels!): Dude is standing in bar, some guy says, are you eying off my girlfriend? Dude punches the other guy in the face, figuring it was going to end up in a fight anyway. Preemptive.
It gets dangerous to assume that things will escalate and turn out bad for you so you best get the first blow in. The same things will be thought by, for example, the US against communist countries (USSR, China) and no doubt have been thought by those countries with regard to the US.
Note, I'm not saying stand by and let your country get nuked. But if you cut a blokes gonads off and tell the police 'but he was thinking about raping my daughter, what the hell was I supposed to do, wait and let it happen?' I doubt the police will reward your forethought and measures. Even if you reach inside the bloke's pants and yank out his (now severed) penis, exclaiming "see! proof!".


And saying blowing things up and killing people isn't doing justice to the targeted strikes orchestrated in today’s battles. Besides, isn't that what armies are supposed to do? Blows things up, and kill people? Not that it's ever a good thing in general, but that IS what a good army should do.
I am not picking you out here totally...
I'm just saying that I feel as though that is a given, and by saying it this way makes it sound worse than what it is... and it is War! Is there anything worse?
Well, maybe Hell itself. But War is Hell they say.

Yes yes, I'm certainly not going to say that war must by necessity be something honourable and refined: a duel between gentlemen. If you destroy a warehouse in a war, you destroy a warehouse. If you destroy a bunker, you destroy a bunker. And if you destroy a pizza shop, you destroy a pizza shop. I don't care, it's a war, and things get destroyed in a war. Once you move to total war, the whole nation becomes the war machine anyway, but we're a hell of a long way away from that, so let's not go there discussion-wise yet.
My point, which I failed to make spectacularly, revolved around the fact that I didn't really see it as a formal war. It just seemed to sprout up and next thing you know there are battles and fighting. Maybe I didn't really pay attention to the way things panned out in the beginning. It just seemed to be a war in consequence, rather than by formal declaration. Shrug. It probably doesn't really make any actual difference so I'm happy to concede any points on this one.


Do we just let them do it? See what happens? See if talks will work? See if an internal rebellion works? See if war works? What?
I just hope our grand kids don't say one day as they burn from radiation, "Why didn't somebody do something back then?", " Our forefathers were too soft, and stupid!".

So the US goes over and nukes/bombs North Korea. Or Iran. And the children of 2020 in those countries ask their parents, "Why didn't somebody do something back then? Our forefathers were too soft, and stupid!"
And much the same arguments that you'll use to defend any attack made against them could be made by them also.
It's a matter of perspective.
Because just as you would believe that the US could be right to bomb another country in order to ensure it's own survival, so I would argue that the citizens of that country would believe that something needs to be done to ensure their own survival.

Hands up all the countries that have nuked another country.

:beer:
In closing, I really find it difficult to locate that beer icon. Every single damn time.

[rorythedog]

The beer always eludes me too :beer: :beer: :beer:

[acushla]

Hands up all the countries that have nuked another country.

...and let us keep it at that number.:foureyes:

[acushla]

Hands up all the countries that have nuked another country.


As is often noted...war is a reality unto itself.

Any merit to the claims made by historians (looking on the bright side) that Truman's decision to use of nuclear bombs over Japan actually saved more lives than it destroyed?

As, in many respects, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on those two historical days in August represented 'final phase testing'...nobody was certain as to exactly what would transpire, should the US be commended for never having reached into it's arsenal to repeat those two days in August?

Your point about my contention that Bush would now be viewed as a hero is even more strengthen in my mind. Iraq was a 'loose cannon' that played all sorts of games with the UN in regards to their we have/we have not a nuclear weapons program going on. Not to mention the myriad of other issues going on with Hussein. Let us not forget, virtually all Arab Nations were relieved to see him gone...just as many Arab Nations today would like to see the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad removed from power. The actions of these individuals threatens all in the region...

Had Bush found WMD very few would give any thought as to how he found them...they would be too busy cheering his success to really give a damn.

Ends can justify the means in those cases that suit our purposes.

[Willow of Oz]

Any merit to the claims made by historians (looking on the bright side) that Truman's decision to use of nuclear bombs over Japan actually saved more lives than it destroyed?


I'm not going to say the use of nuclear weapons was not necessary then, nor am I going to say that one was enough, nor that they were wrong to do so even if it were not necessary.
Just pointing out that you have a small number of countries with nuclear weapons, none of which want other countries to also join their club, and only one of which has used those weapons in anger.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty says that all the countries with nukes should get rid of them. All of them. "general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control". Can't see that happening.

[acushla]

Just pointing out that you have a small number of countries with nuclear weapons, none of which want other countries to also join their club, and only one of which has used those weapons in anger.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty says that all the countries with nukes should get rid of them. All of them. "general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control". Can't see that happening.

I am not an expert (in anything) on Nuclear weapons...but I do question your assertion that no countries who own nuclear weapons do not want others to have them. If that was true then no other countries would acquire them. I am specifically thinking of India and Pakistan acquiring weapons.

Had you said that all the countries with nukes didn't want countries who have indicated they would use them as first strike weapons to have Nuclear weapons...well, you wouldn't have any argument from me.

The only 'noise' we seem to hear in regards to Nuclear weapons is when insane people are developing them...ie North Korea and Iran.

As a side note...I think it over simplistic and generally unfair to characterize America's use of 'The Bomb' in 1945 as 'in anger'.

As to your final statement...really? You are such a realist, er, I mean pessimist.:rolleyes:

[acushla]

Things are getting rough for Iran...what with sanctions and frozen bank accounts and with Russia withholding enriched uranium because Iran hasn't paid them since January...and did I mention additional sanctions from the UN?

What to do...what to do?

You know...their are those British sailors inspecting ships under UN rules...let's take them. We'll bring them to Tehran, parade them in front of journalists once in a while, make some popcorn and sit down in front of our Big Screen Television and have ourselves a jolly good giggle while we watch Blair squirm running here and there like a chicken with it's head cut off...trying to get the world to share in his 'outrage'. Meanwhile it's day 3...day 5....day 8.…

It’s no problem really…because as soon as things start to go awry…hey…we can release them and look like ‘good guys’.

We've seen this before...most notably with the American Hostages.

Take a look at Iranian history from the day that the Shah declared martial law in Iran and the subsequent seizing of the American Hostages. Held for 444 days...and released the day Reagan took over the Presidency. Obviously Iran were intelligent enough to know that Reagan was a hard liner who would not have the patience that Carter did.

Iran is an avowed enemy of the United Sates and a major state sponsor of terrorism. It finances, trains, shelters and equips terrorists from organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Iran is currently waging a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and killing American soldiers by the dozens.

Once Iran gets hold of nuclear weapons, the United States will be an easy target for blackmail and a likely target for mass destruction.

If I wrote that last sentence in regards to virtually any other country wishing to develop a Nuclear program…such as New Zealand…you would all dismiss it out of hand as ridicioulus.

If I write that same sentence using Iran…at the very least it gives you pause for thought.

Ask yourselves…why the pause?

I rest my case!:beer: :)

[Willow of Oz]

I am not an expert (in anything) on Nuclear weapons...but I do question your assertion that no countries who own nuclear weapons do not want others to have them. If that was true then no other countries would acquire them. I am specifically thinking of India and Pakistan acquiring weapons.

The NPT explicitly says:
signatories who have nuclear weapons will completely disarm.
signatories who do not have nuclear weapons will not attempt to gain them.
That seems pretty explicit to me.
wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
text of the treaty: http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm


Had you said that all the countries with nukes didn't want countries who have indicated they would use them as first strike weapons to have Nuclear weapons...well, you wouldn't have any argument from me.

As far as I am aware, the only country with a no-first-strike policy is India.


As a side note...I think it over simplistic and generally unfair to characterize America's use of 'The Bomb' in 1945 as 'in anger'.


I stand by my statement :cyclops:
I wish I could find a good definition of the phrase 'in anger'.
We could be quibbling here over mere definitions of phrase.

[Willow of Oz]

Iran is an avowed enemy of the United Sates and a major state sponsor of terrorism. It finances, trains, shelters and equips terrorists from organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Iran is currently waging a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and killing American soldiers by the dozens.


The US is an avowed enemy of Iran and a major state sponsor of global law enforcement. It finances, trains, shelters and equips men of standing from righteous organisations such as the US Army, the CIA, and the Special Forces. The US is currently waging a just war against Iran by imposing sanctions and ensuring they have no place in the global playground.

It's all words Acushla. :cheeky:

It's well known that Western nations have spies and missions throughout the world, as do all countries. And sometimes they get caught. I'm not saying the current sailors who are captured are spies, or they were there for information gathering purposes. But others have been. And they have been caught. And naturally such nations get pretty ticked.
The US has had spy satellites spying on China, a whole group of agents in Europe somewhere - imagine the reverse: that say Iran had spy satellites over the US and dozens of spies on missions within New York, Washington, Los Angeles.
Shrug. It's the modern world.

Perspective and perspective :cheeky:

[acushla]

As far as I am aware, the only country with a no-first-strike policy is India.



Russia. India and China.

I looked it up.:)

Seems to me there is 'first strike' and then there is 'first strike'.

If your 'neighbours' repeatedly run around saying 'as soon as we get a gun we're going over to the Silversteins and put them out of their misery so our relatives can live in their house...well...what are you going to do?

Whatever the answer the result should be the same...you stop them.

Unless, of course, you too don't particularly care for the Silversteins (only an illustration), in which case whatever it is you don't do...amounts to helping them.

[acushla]

Perspective and perspective :cheeky:

Very well expressed...and my immediate response was...well...let's decide whose side we are on.

Which led to...

values and values.

Returning to 'whose side are you on' (and I fully recognize that having been born into Western culture pretty well eliminates my siding with Iran...just as if I had been born in Iran pretty well negates my choosing the West) raises the question as to 'are some values of greater merit than others?'

The treatment and opportunities for women between the two cultures would seem to be an obvious place to begin...

I'll be candid with you

...400 deaths through bombings in Iraq over the past 3 days...Shiite militants and some Shiite policemen going on a rampage in the northern Turkmen city of Tal Afar on Wednesday, killing 70 Sunnis indiscriminately, injuring another 30, and kidnapping 40 others. All in revenge for a Sunni truck bombing of Shiites on Tuesday that killed 80 persons and wounded 185.

I read this and I think, fuck it, why don't we just leave and let them kill each other the way they have been doing for centuries. Why should we care?

We care for the same reason that surrounding Arab nations care...they see Iran with ambitions of uniting their majority sect from the Persian Gulf to Africa and beyond.

Say what you want about words (and it was more than cleaver) but the US have had the Bomb since the day the first bomb existed and they have used it exactly twice in that time for which many would argue had more to do with scientific study than 'war'.

We're talking about Iran, a nation who will employ it the moment they acquire it...by their own admission. There is no pretense about the why…only a ‘official’ pretense about the purpose.

I have said this before...it is difficult being the world's one 'super' power and even more difficult if that is the position you wish to maintain.

I do not view the US as an 'evil' power. Far from it. I think if one was to look at the 'total' picture of America's contributions to the world it would prove that the positive deeds far out-way the negative ones. What positive acts have Iran contributed?

As far as Iran is concerned...they are the enemy (enemies do exist), even if that statement is borne out of the fact I am of the West...and like any enemy, they must be engaged.

Everything we think or feel is the direct result of whatever core values and principals we hold at the moment of decision.

[Willow of Oz]

Russia. India and China.

I looked it up.:)


I read the quote regarding India and looked no further. I was going to assume that you were correct and then decided I should go look see myself.
:ditsy:

This pledge was later abandoned by post-Soviet Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia).
India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) and China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) are now the only nuclear powers that have declared a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons

[Willow of Oz]

the US have had the Bomb since the day the first bomb existed and they have used it exactly twice in that time for which many would argue had more to do with scientific study than 'war'.

We're talking about Iran, a nation who will employ it the moment they acquire it.

Note: As did the US.
Yes, the circumstances were different, but it's still worth noting.

And no, I don't think they will use it the moment they get it.
The best result they would get out of that would be mutually assured destruction. They would use it as a deterrent; a bargaining chip. Other countries are not going to attack them if the result is MAD.


I have said this before...it is difficult being the world's one 'super' power and even more difficult if that is the position you wish to maintain.

Yes, true. It's almost like being a parent. You can smack your kids around and discipline them to some degree 'for their own good', but you can be wrong and there's a breaking point. And kids grow up. And at some point you just have to accept that they are going to live their own lives, and they will share some values with you, and some values they will hold in opposition to you. And you just have to learn to get along. Group hug. Mind that knife.


I do not view the US as an 'evil' power.
...and like any enemy, they must be engaged.

In brief,
I do not view the US as an evil power;
the head of a country, regardless of how it may appear, does not unilaterally decide a country's fate;
an enemy does not have to be engaged.

[Willow of Oz]

Everything we think or feel is the direct result of whatever core values and principals we hold at the moment of decision.

Oh how true. And somewhat sucky. I'm a big fan of Universal Truths. They're just a little difficult to find. :foureyes:

[acushla]

[QUOTE=Willow of Oz;81850]I read the quote regarding India and looked no further. I was going to assume that you were correct and then decided I should go look see myself.
:ditsy:

QUOTE]
No first use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use) You figure it out.:)

Given the fact it is Politicians who are making these promises...:evil:

[acushla]

Yes, true. It's almost like being a parent. You can smack your kids around and discipline them to some degree 'for their own good', but you can be wrong and there's a breaking point. And kids grow up. And at some point you just have to accept that they are going to live their own lives, and they will share some values with you, and some values they will hold in opposition to you. And you just have to learn to get along. Group hug. Mind that knife.
I can tell...you've never had a Jewish mother!:confused: :silly: :)


...an enemy does not have to be engaged.Willow of Oz...Willow of Oz. Report to the Principal's office immediately .


This is the most interesting comment I have read all year. I was somewhat dumbfounded and taken aback at the same time.

You do not understand, I thought...THEY ARE AN ENEMY who would give their left nut to have us vanquished from the face of the earth.

OF COURSE WE HAVE TO ENGAGE THEM (my mind screams, incredulous that there could be any other way. I mean...how do you sit down and negotiate with people who despise you...I think I'm having a deja-vu moment...when your elimination is the fulfillment of their greatest victory as set out in their Holy Text?)

OF COURSE WE HAVE TO ENGAGE THEM. The alternative just seems so gay.:confused:

[rorythedog]

There's a lot to comment on here but it's Saturday morning and I'm hung over so I'll be brief.

Acushla, you're wrong to suggest most middle-east countries were pleased to see the downfall of Hussein. It would be more accurate to state "most middle-east governments were happy to see his demise. Under Hussein Iraq was that beacon in the desert. It was secular, democratic (by the strict definition of the word) and even sexually equal too. Women were just as capable of reaching high positions in Iraq as in the west. Ironically, a lot of this happened because the US backed the Iraqi leadership. There was very little sectarian violence in Iran. Of course we've fixed that, haven't we?

As regards Iran, maybe it would be wise to remember that not too many years ago Iran suffered losses of up to a million souls in a war against Iraq which was directly funded and orchestrated by the US. These people have memories. Perhaps they can be excused a certain cynicism in regards to the US.

The US, you'll note, is always in the thick of it. Why? No other country on this planet feels the need to so directly shape this planet in the way the US do. You're kidding yourself if you think everybody wants to live like an American. I sure as hell don't. It would spoil my figure for one.

Here's a list...

[rorythedog]

OK, here's half a list...

SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos..............

[rorythedog]

OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. Clashes on border with Syria.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines land after rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, covert operation CIA airstrikes on Al Qaeda refuge villages kill civilians

Impressive eh?

God Bless America

[acushla]

Well, of those 128 I think it safe to say that 126 of them can be easily explained.

They were simply 'errors'.:bulb:

The other two...well...the verdict is still out on those.:foureyes: :silly: :)

Wow...that's all you got? 128? Come on...I need proof.

Seriously...many others might have been born with this ability or knowledge...but I have arrived at it only very recently...and that is this:

On any given subject you can find 10 people with sterling credentials , five of which will write scholarly essays proving left and the other 5 equally accredited individuals who will write scholarly essays proving right.

I find it perplexing and liberating at the same time.

I am glad you posted the list...I will read it again and again and see if I am able to gain some of the insight this has given you.

I confess that, if I forget for a moment what I consider the core issues to be, it is increasingly difficult to defend Bush and his actions. But then I return to what I consider to be the core issues and I am awed by his steadfastness and certainty in that what he is doing is the right course.

I have a good friend living in San Francisco who was almost fanatical in his belief that there was absolutely no way the US should go to war in Iraq.

Today he is just as fanatical about his belief that under no circumstances should the US troops be deployed home until the Iraqi Government and army are in a position to maintain law and order.

I asked him if that meant he had changed his mind about the troops going in the first place. 'Absolutely not...they never should have gone.' was his reply. 'Now that they have...they need to finish the job they were sent to do. The consequences of the troops leaving now will have far graver consequences than those suffered when they came in.':foureyes:

[rorythedog]

Nor am I saying troops should be withdrawn. I'm merely suggesting that a modicum of forethought, and a view to our history, might have prevented this shit in the first place.

C'est la Vie.

[rorythedog]

I mentioned Canada earlier without any supporting dialogue...

Much earlier the U.S. invaded Canada in 1812 - to "liberate" the colonials - fortunately for Canada the attack was poorly conceived. U.S. leaders had assumed that Canada could be easily overrun. Former President Jefferson optimistically referred to the conquest of Canada as "a matter of marching."

American Brigadier General William Hull invaded Canada on July 12, 1812, from Detroit with an army mainly composed of militiamen. Once on Canadian soil, Hull issued a proclamation ordering all British subjects to surrender, or "the horrors, and calamities of war will stalk before you." He also threatened to kill any British prisoner caught fighting alongside an Indian. The proclamation helped stiffen resistance to the American attacks.

A final attempt in 1812 by American General Henry Dearborn to advance north from Lake Champlain failed when his militia refused to advance beyond American territory. In contrast to the American militia, the Canadian militia performed well. French-Canadians, who found the anti-Catholic stance of most of the United States troublesome, and United Empire Loyalists, who had fought for the Crown during the American Revolutionary War, strongly opposed the American invasion. However, a large segment of Upper Canada's population was recent settlers from the United States who had no obvious loyalties to the Crown. Nevertheless, while there were some who sympathized with the invaders, the American forces found strong opposition from men loyal to the Empire.

At the end of the day Canadians returned the favour of being invaded by burning the original capitol building in Washington.

[fatal error]

hmmmm

i wonder how big a list i could come up with for the british empire....

[rorythedog]

hmmmm

i wonder how big a list i could come up with for the british empire....

Quite right! I'm no defender of the British Empire, as some here have figured out, but you raise a valid point. Why are we not looking to the past in an effort to avoid these situations in the future? There's nothing new in this world.

[BALTY]

There's a lot to comment on here but it's Saturday morning and I'm hung over so I'll be brief.

...
Now you ARE one of the funny ones!:laugh: I didn't read any of it yet, but at a glance of what was ahead, I had to laugh~

[BALTY]

I mentioned Canada earlier without any supporting dialogue...

At the end of the day Canadians returned the favour of being invaded by burning the original capitol building in Washington....
...but the British counteroffensive was turned back at Lake Champlain, Baltimore, and New Orleans. The Treaty of Ghent (ratified in 1815) restored the status quo ante bellum between the combatants.

SO what's this all about?? You think we invaded Canada? Or was it to settle the reneging from the British?
The United States had grievances against Great Britain for sovereignty violations in three different areas:
I ain't gonna go into them.
One was reinvoked by the British. But only after the war had already began.
But invading Canada, had nothing to do with it's land, or the settled people there. It was the British all the way, and to settle what was promised after the American victory in it's revolution. So in a sense .. to finish the initial war.
Oh well, who cares now?
The Problem spelled REVOLUTIONARY WARS

[Willow of Oz]

I read the quote regarding India and looked no further. I was going to assume that you were correct and then decided I should go look see myself.
:ditsy:


No first use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use) You figure it out.:)

Given the fact it is Politicians who are making these promises...:evil:

My wiki beats your wiki. Note that your wiki statement has a big "needs citation" :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike#Soviet_Union

[Willow of Oz]

hmmmm

i wonder how big a list i could come up with for the british empire....

In looking back to such historical periods, I'm left thinking that most countries performed injustices/wars etc for the purpose of expansion. But we've pretty much reached the stage, I think, where nobody is looking to expand. Seems kinda radical given that there are a couple of nations with more than a billion people each, and many other countries where the population is increasing. But nevertheless, I would contend that no country today has plans on increasing the size of its country by (bloody) mergers and acquisitions.

So where does that leave us now? Well, I think that most countries want some form of safety. No country wants other countries affecting its 'life', and further, protecting their own interests. For most countries, there's not a whole lot they can do about it, short of defending themselves if they are invaded.
But then you have, I would venture to say, a second tier of countries higher up which have spheres of influence, which they attempt to increase. This enables them to be more proactive and less reactive, and therefore protect themselves from undue influence. This can be having a seat in something like G8, or being on the security council of nato, whereby you have the opportunity to ensure that the privileges and the perks that your country enjoys today are at least available tomorrow, if not better. You want the best for the people of your country.

Then you have, essentially, tier 1 superpowers. We're pretty much just left with the US at the moment. And really we're just talking greater influence to smooth out even minor wrinkles in the world that could eventually turn into bigger problems.

So tier 3 defends itself from invaders and asks tier2 / tier1 for help (oz, nz).
Tier 2 imposes sanctions and affects countries at a more diplomatic level, as well as stepping in with (considerable) military action where necessary, in global hotspots, and otherwise working within its region (france, germany, china, japan)
Tier 1 works to prevent hotspots from occurring, removing people and governments where necessary, and spreading itself over as much of the globe as possible (USA)

[Willow of Oz]

The US, you'll note, is always in the thick of it. Why? No other country on this planet feels the need to so directly shape this planet in the way the US do.

I think my latest post has addressed this, but basically I would say more that no other country on this planet current has the ability to so directly shape the planet.
I see no reason why Russia would not have done the same had the USA fallen and the Soviets reigned supreme, nor if China's star eclipses the USA's.
Why would they not? It's about ensuring that their position remains unassailable.
The US does not want to be relegated to the ranks of the France's of the world. Would any country wish for its importance to be diminished?

[Willow of Oz]

This is the most interesting comment I have read all year. I was somewhat dumbfounded and taken aback at the same time.

You do not understand, I thought...THEY ARE AN ENEMY who would give their left nut to have us vanquished from the face of the earth.

OF COURSE WE HAVE TO ENGAGE THEM

Well, I have to admit it's not a topic I've thought hard and long on.
But I did recently come across an article which gives us historical context:

Regarding the USSR during the cold war:

Although neither side was actively pursuing a first-strike policy (since the time of Khrushchev, the leaders of orthodox communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) believed that "peaceful coexistence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_coexistence)" with the "imperialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialist)" powers was possible) both sides relied on military strategies that could have still caused a general nuclear war

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

Note that when I say: "an enemy does not have to be engaged", I am speaking generally.

[rorythedog]

Somebody take this moron (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6514567.stm) out, please.

"Hostages"! What a bloody imbecile. Anything just to ramp up the tension eh? Complete f****n' idiot.

[acushla]

Iran, in 1997, elected Mohammand Khatami. He won on a platform of supporting rule and law and civil society.

When he was elected Iran enjoyed a flourishing independent press and was well supported by Iranians. Beginning in the year of 2000 new laws were introduced whose effect was to almost completely destroy and silence the growing dissent in the newspapers. As a result the indendent press in Iran virtually vanished. Journalists, writers and intellectuals were constantly being arrested and thrown into prison. As laws were changed to suit the regime the treatment of detainees worsened. It is now estimated that there are 1000,000 ‘Political’ prisoners in Iranian prisons.

In Iran the Evin prison is notorious as a ‘Hell Hole’. For instance, the hanging of children as young as nine has been reported. The practice of hanging minors is a controversial issue in Iran (you think?) which is why it is done in secret.. These hangings and executions happen as a consequence of the Iranian constitution having a clause that allows Shari’a law to be placed above any parliamentary law. (Shari'a is often referred to as Islamic law, but this is wrong, as only a small part is irrefutably based upon the core Islamic text, the Koran. A correct designation is "Muslim Law" (i.e. the law system of the Muslims), or "Islam-inspired", "Islam-derived," or even "the law system of Muslims." This is well known to most Muslims, yet Shari'a is always referred to as "based upon the Koran", hence it is the "will of God.") Reformist legislation can be ignored at any time by any judge. Under this law a girl of nine is tried and sentenced the same as if she was 40.

The same law sanctions all types of torture. Being placed in cells too small to sit or lie down…for months. Constant beatings involving anywhere from 4 – 8 SAVAK Secret Police (who number 20,000 with a network of 185,000 paid informants) who place you on your knees and then surround you…so you do not know where the blows are going to come from (as if it makes a difference.) All the while a large sharp knife is held at your neck and you are told your throat will be slit if you do not ‘confess’.

Being held in solitary confinement with no food, no pan…nothing…sometimes until death. Tongues being ripped out…women being stoned to death.. Electric shock, insertion of broken bottles being shoved up your rectum, hanging weights from your testicles, rape…and an apparatus called the haK met that is thrust over the head of the victim, magnifying his own screams.

If you are a homosexual in Iran you can receive 100 lashes or being stoned to death.

It’s late and I am tired.:) :sleeping:

As with my synopsis of Iran as a ‘terror state’ and the subsequent rebuttal by Willow of Oz…placing US where I had Iran…I am very curious as to how you will respond to these truths..

Sources: Guardian Unlimited, Washington Post, China View, Human Rights News, Human Watch News, Time, The International Lesbian and Gay Association, Encyclopaedia of the Orient

[acushla]

Somebody take this moron (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6514567.stm) out, please.

"Hostages"! What a bloody imbecile. Anything just to ramp up the tension eh? Complete f****n' idiot.
So am I to understand that as a result of 'His calls were echoed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel'...that we take her out as well?

Does this apply to anybody who agrees with Bush...or am I missing the point?

I'm going back through this thread to determine what day out of 60 we're at.:)

[acushla]

Could this be correct: fatal error posts #137 06 04 2006 and then acushla
posts #138 03 23 2007?

Found my post in the IRAQ thread...posted 02 02 2007. Since today is 03 02 2007 I figure 28 days have passed.

Which gives them 32 more days.

I read a report from 'unamed sources' saying that there is a plan in place for an attack on Iran on April 9th.

Telling the enemy when we're leaving is one bad thing...telling them when we're going to attack...is...inviting trouble on April 8th.

I give no credence to the report at all.

[rorythedog]

So am I to understand that as a result of 'His calls were echoed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel'...that we take her out as well?

Does this apply to anybody who agrees with Bush...or am I missing the point?

I'm going back through this thread to determine what day out of 60 we're at.:)

It's the language he chooses mate. Over here the media, politicians, everyone was horrified at his rant. People are presumably working hard behind the scenes to maybe sort this out diplomatically and in comes your boss, the class moron, telling these people what's right and wrong when he occupies Iran's two immediate neighbours. His hypocrisy knows no bounds. As for Merkel, yeah, take her out too. She's no good for Germany and likely to not be good for Europe as a whole.

[acushla]

It's the language he chooses mate. Over here the media, politicians, everyone was horrified at his rant. People are presumably working hard behind the scenes to maybe sort this out diplomatically and in comes your boss, the class moron, telling these people what's right and wrong when he occupies Iran's two immediate neighbours. His hypocrisy knows no bounds. As for Merkel, yeah, take her out too. She's no good for Germany and likely to not be good for Europe as a whole.
I'll be truthful rorythedog...I've been watching this story very carefully and I can honestly say, from what you are describing, we in Canada have not seen the video of that rant. All we saw was Bush stating that Iran's actions, taking the 15 British sailors captive, was unaceptale behaviour...and that they should release them. That was it. I fail to understand where there is fault in that observation whether stated from a serial rapist or the Dali Lama. I'm curious if any of the US members of the forum saw more than this...perhaps others could chime in.

Understand this clearly...I am not suggesting for one moment that you are wrong...simply that it is not something that we in Canada were shown.

Just out of curiously...if the sailors are not, at this time, Hostages...then what are they?

[rorythedog]

No, I haven't seen anything different to you. But surely it's down to the British to decide when arrest becomes hostage-taking? It's not Bush's right to make that call. So why do you think he is saying it? Because the US can't stop themselves from f*****g everything up?

Do you know the UK government has now banned our own TV stations from showing the latest videos from the Iranians? Why would they do that? Oh yes, it's to protect the families of the arrested Marines & sailors. Bollocks! Could it be that these people really were in Iranian waters?

Terry Waite, the former Iranian hostage, was on the news the other day talking a lot of sense -

Terry Waite (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1258517,00.html?f=rss)

I also saw footage of General Michael Rose, the British Commander in Bosnia, stating how in his opinion this was never the way to deal with this situation. Dialogue should have been opened immediately and if required a full apology should be offered, whoever was in the right. I honestly can't find a link to this piece after trawling for ages, but he doesn't like to be told to shut it so I guess he'll be around again sometime soon.

Instead our glorious leaders have turned these arrestees (?) into political footballs. And it begs the question, if they're prepared to take that line now isn't it possible this whole thing is a setup? Believe me, I don't want to think that but I sense an onward rush to conflict and I just cannot see what the rush is. Not if their interests in "democracy" are genuine anyway.

My government has a duty of care to it's electors, including servicemen and women. As such it should have taken a far more diplomatic tack than immediately brandishing evidence showing how "We Wuz Right!".

Incidentally, anyone here know anything about GPS systems? Is it possible to prove this case one way or the other after the event?

[Willow of Oz]

Iran, in 1997, elected Mohammand Khatami. He won on a platform of supporting rule and law and civil society.

When he was elected Iran enjoyed a flourishing independent press and was well supported by Iranians. Beginning in the year of 2000 new laws were introduced whose effect was to almost completely destroy and silence the growing dissent in the newspapers. As a result the indendent press in Iran virtually vanished. Journalists, writers and intellectuals were constantly being arrested and thrown into prison. As laws were changed to suit the regime the treatment of detainees worsened. It is now estimated that there are 1000,000 ‘Political’ prisoners in Iranian prisons.

In Iran the Evin prison is notorious as a ‘Hell Hole’. For instance, the hanging of children as young as nine has been reported. The practice of hanging minors is a controversial issue in Iran (you think?) which is why it is done in secret.. These hangings and executions happen as a consequence of the Iranian constitution having a clause that allows Shari’a law to be placed above any parliamentary law. (Shari'a is often referred to as Islamic law, but this is wrong, as only a small part is irrefutably based upon the core Islamic text, the Koran. A correct designation is "Muslim Law" (i.e. the law system of the Muslims), or "Islam-inspired", "Islam-derived," or even "the law system of Muslims." This is well known to most Muslims, yet Shari'a is always referred to as "based upon the Koran", hence it is the "will of God.") Reformist legislation can be ignored at any time by any judge. Under this law a girl of nine is tried and sentenced the same as if she was 40.

The same law sanctions all types of torture. Being placed in cells too small to sit or lie down…for months. Constant beatings involving anywhere from 4 – 8 SAVAK Secret Police (who number 20,000 with a network of 185,000 paid informants) who place you on your knees and then surround you…so you do not know where the blows are going to come from (as if it makes a difference.) All the while a large sharp knife is held at your neck and you are told your throat will be slit if you do not ‘confess’.

Being held in solitary confinement with no food, no pan…nothing…sometimes until death. Tongues being ripped out…women being stoned to death.. Electric shock, insertion of broken bottles being shoved up your rectum, hanging weights from your testicles, rape…and an apparatus called the haK met that is thrust over the head of the victim, magnifying his own screams.

If you are a homosexual in Iran you can receive 100 lashes or being stoned to death.

It’s late and I am tired.:) :sleeping:

As with my synopsis of Iran as a ‘terror state’ and the subsequent rebuttal by Willow of Oz…placing US where I had Iran…I am very curious as to how you will respond to these truths..

Sources: Guardian Unlimited, Washington Post, China View, Human Rights News, Human Watch News, Time, The International Lesbian and Gay Association, Encyclopaedia of the Orient

Well, that was an interesting write up. I was tempted to snip it in my quote for brevity, but you do raise a lot of good points. Now, there was some material that was new to me, but for the most part, really, there was little that was surprising.
I'm not trying to paint Iran as a Utopia that I'm trying to emigrate to.
And I'm not trying to change ordering or anything here: if I had a choice of moving to the USA or Iran, I'd go the USA.
But a lesser evil is still an evil, and evils that are not publicly and viciously portrayed are merely insidious and subtle.
If a country murders a million children, is this worse than ensuring that food and supplies is deliberately not sent to those children, and hence they die? This is not a parallel to a real world scenario, though you may draw such parallels where you will; this is merely a thought exercise.

As I stated above, there are degrees of evil. Let us rather say, there are degrees of morally questionable actions and events, as framed chronologically, geographically and culturally.
Now, I know some of you will be a little incensed at my summation above, but I'm going to leave it for the time being. A lot of it mostly rests on perception, standards, ideals and norms.

So let's look back at history in the western world. No, I'm not going to go back all that far. Let's look at Alan Turing. Wonderful chap, the 'father of modern computer science' and played a critical role in the war effort with his work on the Enigma machine for breaking Nazi cyphers. The man was a genius. But alas he was somewhat gay, and that wasn't acceptable. So they worked to ungayify him, giving him hormone treatments etc. And so he committed suicide. Terrible thing if you were homosexual. Doesn't matter his contribution to his nation. Now, if we look back to the 1950s when this was found to be quite acceptable practice to homosexuals, should we therefore take your argument that it's okay, as another nation, to come in and force your will on the government and the populace?


Let's take another example. Freedom of the Press. What a wonderful concept. Surely, some groups, such as those composed of journalists perhaps, must consider how free the press is in some countries compared to others. Indeed. Let us look to reporters without borders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders
Wow. The USA is ranked 53. That's pretty poor. Sure you've got Iran way below, pretty much at the bottom. But 53rd in the world isn't exactly something to be proud of. You could be excused for living in a country where the press is somewhat more free, such as Canada, so you might not realise what it's like elsewhere.
I mean surely in western countries - and let's use the USA again here, but really, you can find suitable examples in other countries too - if you're a journalist you're not going to be captured and locked up? Wrong. Of course you can. But aren't there laws against that sort of thing? Well, you can always get around those. They are awfully inconvenient if you *know* someone's bad, but you can't really prove it. Better to lock them up and torture them.

Which of course leads us on to what Acushla refers to as a Hell Hole. I mean, is Iran the only country with a hell hole where atrocities are committed and people tortured?
This sort of thing is a controversial issue (you think?) and so it's often done in secret. Thanks for that sentence Acushla, fits the bill nicely.
I am of course referring to Guantanamo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp
There are other off-shore black sites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site
where much the same sort of torture that you described above goes on, with people who have no convictions or charges laid against them.
Many countries are involved in this, either confined to their nation, or in trysts with other governments (eg EU countries and the US).
The numbers are, of course, a lot smaller than the Iranian numbers. I wasn't aware that it's okay to torture small numbers of people, but once you start talking serious numbers then it's *uncool* and something should be done about it.

Everything you have stated has been done and continues to be done, and sanctioned, by western governments or western groups in positions of power and authority. It's just not done on as large a scale, and it doesn't make the (Western) news. Guess who writes the (western) news?

So to summarise, it's a matter scale, and it's a matter of tastes. Some of what was practiced by western nations in the open is no longer deemed acceptable, nor practiced. And some of what the western nations practice today is more clandestine and small scale than is (currently) occurring in Iran.

But I'm sure that western nations, both then and now, would object to having other nations step in and take control.

[acushla]

No, I haven't seen anything different to you.

I don’t believe Bush said anything that hadn’t already been said by Tony Blair. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Blair has been ‘pleading’ with Bush for some time to ‘say something’. Why do you suppose that it is only now that we hear Bush comment on the situation? Probably because they do not wish to be perceived to be having any involvement. Don’t forget…the US hold 5 Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq. I am certain they want to keep at arms length so as not to become embroiled in a three way conversation.

I am extremely surprised and concerned to hear that the British government has banned TV stations from showing the latest videos from the Iranians. This is something one might expect from a country like Iran…but Briton censoring media from it’s citizens is troubling.

I watched a 15 minute interview with Terry Waite not more than 2 hours ago on the CBC-Television.

My impression is that he is a highly pompous and self-important individual. However, that is not to suggest that his heart isn't in the right place. My conclusion was that he just might be the person each side has agreed to ending this situation and having the sailors released.

I don’t agree with the concept that ‘our glorious leaders have turned these arrestees (?) into political footballs'. I don’t even really understand it. Iran captured 15 British sailors…under dubious circumstances. Briton asks for them to be released. Glorious? I think the ‘We Wuz Right’ parralled a diplomatic approach…the Iranian Ambassador was immediately called to 10 Downing Street…where the situation was discussed for over an hour.

The one thing the Iranians have proved themselves to be best at…it is the taking of hostages. No amount of diplomacy will have any effect at all if Iran wishes to keep them. One only has to consider the US hostages that were held captive for 444 days while Carter did nothing with the exception of one ill conceived and undermanned ‘rescue mission’ dubbed ‘The Desert One Debacle’ (http://iran.theatlantic.com/interactive_article_page_1.html). This article from The Atlantic makes for very interesting reading given the currant situation and more than anything else I have encounterd clearly shows the mode of operation of the Iranians.

It was only when Ronald Regan, a man the Iranians feared, took over as President did the Iranians release the hostages.

Diplomacy does not seem to work with Iran…the threat of force is something they understand. Many sources I read suggest that Iran wants a war. Hard to know what to believe…but it is day 10. How many days of ‘diplomacy’ until you say: ‘No more talk.’?

[acushla]

So to summarise, it's a matter scale, and it's a matter of tastes. Some of what was practiced by western nations in the open is no longer deemed acceptable, nor practiced. And some of what the western nations practice today is more clandestine and small scale than is (currently) occurring in Iran.


It is now official...I only write my posts in order to read your posts.:bulb:

I'd like to meet you.:)

[rorythedog]

The first public mention of "hostages" was indeed Bush's statement. As for Bliar pleading witth Bush to say something. I obviously can't speak for what goes on in his tiny mind but I know the overwhelming media and public opinion was against him even opening his mouth.

[rorythedog]

Hey Willow! Be afraid. Very, very afraid :devil: :biggrin:

[acushla]

The first public mention of "hostages" was indeed Bush's statement. As for Bliar pleading witth Bush to say something. I obviously can't speak for what goes on in his tiny mind but I know the overwhelming media and public opinion was against him even opening his mouth.
Against Blair opening his mouth? To Bush? To Iran? Against Bush opening his mouth?

Please clarify.

[rorythedog]

Against Blair opening his mouth? To Bush? To Iran? Against Bush opening his mouth?

Please clarify.

Against Bush of course! Always against Bush. Take it as read over here.

[acushla]

Against Bush of course! Always against Bush. Take it as read over here.

Whatever the media or people may say I would assume that if push comes to shove the British would feel more comfortable knowing that Bush is standing beside them.

[rorythedog]

Then you would assume wrongly.

I say 'Black'. How say you?