Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on January 17, 2005, 12:15:31 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/index.html
My stance on attacking Iran is clear and well known to most here, but what do you guys think about this?
-
we are at "defactco war" with Iran now... it is only a matter of time before it becomes public.
-
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there.
[/B]
Hmm, WMD's again. I see a patttern emerging.
How much Oil reserves does Iran have?
-
Originally posted by Scaevola
Hmm, WMD's again. I see a patttern emerging.
How much Oil reserves does Iran have?
kind of like the pattern of Eurotrash Ameri-haters....
:rolleyes:
-
Ah, yes... "Lets go to war" sayeth GRUN, sitting on his couch, at home.
-
Muslims Vs christians, when we are done w/ Iraq..... next!
Saintaw... someone can't be a hawk because they are not currently active duty? Get off this kick, it's senseless.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Ah, yes... "Lets go to war" sayeth GRUN, sitting on his couch, at home.
Why do you say that?
-
you guys need another front ?
-
There is already another thread discussing this topic (Look out persian perps, it's on!) but here again:
There is an innerpolitical fighting in Iran against the mullah regime.
These political factions are supported by the iranian people and there are small but continuous successes against the mullah regime.
But if there is an attack against Iran - either simple missile/air strikes against installations or a full scale invasion - these innerpolitical fightings will stop immediately.
Then the Mullahs will get the full support from all iranians because we always fight those who attack Iran.
The same happened when Saddam and his arab hordes tried to invade Iran and steal our province Khusistan, which the arabs define as "Arabistan" because there is a strong arab minority.
With this action Saddam had stabilized Khomeini, becuase all iranian political factions who were fighting for power after the deposal of the Shah - including the communist Tudeh party - unified to fight the aggressors.
Iran is much larger than our small neighbors Iraq or Afghanistan and also not a nice flat desert country like Iraq.
We have a population of 60 millions - most young men and women who are actually not anti-american but will become in the same moment when we are under attack.
Iran is the homecountry of the shiite islam. If these people become fanatics then there is a real problem in the region.
If there is no invasion - but only missile attacks - the Mullahs will make a party. Because then their regime has been stabilized for decades and the damage done to installations could be repaired or replaced easily. Just because there are many countries in the world who will sell everthing to Iran if they just get enough money.
And there is also no iranian opposition outside Iran, which is accepted by the iranian people.
The Royalist are telling nice stories and dreaming about reinstalling the Pahlavi-dynasty. But fact is that the Shah and his terror hasnt been forgotten.
The so called democrats with this creature Radjavi are nothing else than traitors and hated by iranians. Their terrorist-fighters were fighting against Iran during the Iran-Iraq-War side by side with arabs.
The most tragic aspect is, that it is ignored that the iranians of today are not anti-american.
The mullah-propaganda tried to manipulate the iranians by showing the pictures from Iraq day by day. But even the shocking pictures from US-prisons in Iraq where iraquis were forced by US-soldiers to perform homosexual perversities havent had the results the mullahs hoped: The vast majority of the iranians still remain neutral.
An attack against Iran would change this completely.
-
Yep babek...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why do you say that?
Isn't that obvious? Maybe you really should drag your bellybutton to outside and join the army.
Here:
http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp
-
Why do you think what you think staga?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
kind of like the pattern of Eurotrash Ameri-haters....
:rolleyes:
My My we are sensitive aren't we.
I have nothing against Americans and the world would probably be a worse place to live if it wasn't for "Pax Americana".
I don't believe I pointed the finger at any specific country in my last post (the quote just happened to be about the white house) and the U.K. government also went to war on the pretext of WMD.
It's just if governments want to go to war on suspect intel then they should forget the intel and just come out and say we wanna their kick butts.
Please insert name calling below[/U]
All in all though I would rather be "Eurotrash" than "redneck/trailer park-trash".
-
Why do I say this?
Because I think the only ones who would WANT to go to war are the ones that usualy stay back home, sitting on their arses while others get the killing done and get killed.
It's Oh so easy to say "lets go to war".
That goes for Steve as well.
-
Gee saw, you are very eager with what you put into quotes...
So again, I ask, why do you say that?
-
Why starting war is bad idea should not even have to be explained.
There is _never_ an excuse for starting war.
What bothers me most is why so many die-hard christians are so eager to start them and to kill others.
-
Well what I really want saw, and the rest of you who piled on me to explain is why you all automatically assumed that I would support an attack on Iran?
I have clearly stated on many occasions that I am against such a war, yet to man every one of you euros - always so eager to criticize me as a "black/white" absolutist thinker automatically assumed the opposite..
Considering the number of times I clearly stated my opinion about attacking Iran or North Korea I'm surprised about what u guys did in this thread..
Why? Inmstinct? Going after another attempt to be self righteus?
-
Crazy neocons....
Who is going to guard Iraq while you get into Iran? the boy scouts? Can you spell DRAFT?
Even if the Iraqi election somehow works, yeah, attack Iran from Shiite ruled Iraq... great idea, dissolve your already overstretched troops in a bigger country while Al'Sadr has a field day in your back.
And you think China would let you take their main oil source just like that? They won't get directly involved, they will just crash the dollar and send you into hyperinflation... Say hi to the $1000 bread loaf.
Russia won't like it much either... they are selling those reactors to the Iranians.
The most I think we'll see is some dubiously effective air raid, at the risk of making things worse in Iraq.
-Bbbbbut the ayatollahs are eeeeevil!!!!!
-Yawn...
-
i just dont want iran to get nukes.
because if they will have those, i know where they will be pointing at.
-
Err... following your usual "stance" I thought you were all for it, took it for granted, my bad.
-
Like I said in many posts starting way back, one of the reasons we are in Iraq from the get go is not to scout for new locations for Holiday Inns. It the end it will save us millions on jet fuel, etc. :D
The monkies that have been on our back and slinging dung our way in previous years had better find a place to hide. Were cleaning house folks.
I , for one, am damn proud to see this . I think it will prevent a lot of horrific events in the future.
It`s not pretty and it is not going to come cheap. It just has to be done before it is too late.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Ah, yes... "Lets go to war" sayeth GRUN, sitting on his couch, at home.
lol french dude < (I know, just teasing ya)
didn't you mean to say "sitting on his THRONE, at home" ?
;) :D :p
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
i just dont want iran to get nukes.
because if they will have those, i know where they will be pointing at.
Just one story - so maybe you can believe that Iran will never attack Israel:
There is one german journalist who is highly respected by the iranian mullahs, because he was with Ajatollah Khomeini in the Air France plane which brought him to Teheran after the Shah fled from Iran.
So its easy for him to get interviews in Iran. In one occasion - it was shortly before the Kuwait-war between Bush sr. and Saddam - he was in Teheran and sitting with the highest ranking mullahs, making an interview.
And then he asked "What will happen after Israel is destroyed by the arabs or by Iran?".
There was a moment of confusion while the translation was going on - then all of these mullahs break out laughing.
One of them - i think it was Rafsanjani - said that Iran needs Israel.
Israel is keeping the true enemy of Iran busy: The Arabs. And so iranian policy will never allow that Israel will be destroyed, because we know exactly who will be the next target of the arabs.
And about the direction of these missiles: I wouldnt bet that they would be pointed again Israel but surely against the capitals of the arab nations, where their radical sunnite mullahs still consider shiite muslims as heretics who should be killed.
There is a difference between official statements of the iranian mullah regime and their real policy.
One example:
When the Kuwait War started and USA was bringing the iraqui troops one defeat after the other, there were islamic volunteers of Pakistan who wanted to travel through Iran to Iraq in order to join the iraqui troops.
Officially Iran didnt sent them back when they entered iranian territory. But these "guests" were escorted by iranian military. So the convoy was first sent to Northeast Iran, where medical exams had to be made, then to south Iran and so on. This funny convoy was permanently moving through Iran until the war was over.
So - officially Iran allowed islamic volunteers to cross iranian territory - but inofficially they took care that they were not reaching Iraq.
I know iranian policy is complicated but the last thing Iran would do is an attack against Israel. The simply fact is that Iran considers the non-arab nations in the regions - like Turkey or Israel - as useful in the political war against the arabs.
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
i just dont want iran to get nukes.
because if they will have those, i know where they will be pointing at.
So where are your nukes pointing at ?
-
Oh god (head now in hands ) Does this mean the US govt is going to start another war? I hope we don't get sucked in. I'm getting increasingly sick of the worlds super power flexing its millitary might. Sort out the env. If we don't do something about that in the next few years, all these petty squabbles about politics and land will be pointless anyhow as the climate will spiral out of control and we'll all be in big trouble regardless of what we believe in, wear, do etc. We Don't need another bloody war.
Frankly if anyone thinks we do they are a prize idiot!
-
Iraq is bad enough with the amount of lives that have been lost. Iran is bigger than Iraq which means more land has to be covered by the military and more lives are going to be lost because Iran has a bigger population. Especially Iran has nuclear weapons which will kill many people alone. If we keep starting more wars, there is bound to be a draft started in this country. Are we trying to get everyone in the world to hate us?
Canaris
-
Originally posted by Canaris
Iraq is bad enough with the amount of lives that have been lost. Iran is bigger than Iraq which means more land has to be covered by the military and more lives are going to be lost because Iran has a bigger population. Especially Iran has nuclear weapons which will kill many people alone. If we keep starting more wars, there is bound to be a draft started in this country. Are we trying to get everyone in the world to hate us?
Canaris
Here`s a hint. Were not starting wars, were preventing wars on our homeland.
IMHO, the "no nads" policy that has been taken in the past years is why were having to do this to begin with.
The Mr. Nice guy crap just don`t float the boat. There comes a time that you either have to stand up and take the fight to them or you can run around at home knitting and picking flowers while your enemies stock their arsenals, build and train their troops and equipment and bring the fight to your homeland.
So what if we have to reinstate the draft? It worked wonders in situations such as WWII, Korea and Nam. I can tell you one thing it would do. It would stop a lot of BS going on here in the States with the draft age generation.
You would seem to lose interest in gangs and drive by shootings, etc. if you are in a place where other people are heavily armed and trying to cap your ass.
-
That's it! You are all getting "F's" for keeping shoddy notes regarding GRUN's stance on Iran...
Don't let it happen again people! I mean it!
-
hello Saw,
I was looking for a recipe for ratatouille, with you being french I thought maybe you could help me. :D
-
Originally posted by Staga
So where are your nukes pointing at ?
finland??
-
I knew what Grun meant, no really. Because sometimes he's...cough, ahem reasonable cough.
As for the main topic I'll simply repeat what I said in the other thread:
There are two ways of looking at this report. One is that finally Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the rest of the neo cons have finally gone mad and have decided to make an unprovoked attack on a country with a working democracy which will not only upset the entire Islamic world but would be actively opposed by everyone else in the world including all of America's allies and most Americans AND will turn Iraq's Shiite majority from being sullen acceptors of American intervention into active hostility.
OR
It's a disinformation campaign to make Rumsfeld and co look like like a bunch of Fascists.
More like the latter but the problem is that the first scenario is almost believable.
In practical terms it's almost impossible. The US military is overstretched now. It wouldn't surprise me if there were teams in Iran at one stage but their cover is blown now.
I think it's just anti neo con propaganda.
At the same time the idea that there should be a plan in place for a military intervention in Iran is not too crazy an idea. There must be plans in place for military interventions in many countries. North Korea, Russia etc etc. It's only prudent military planning. Every eventuality needs be covered by some form of plan. Even unlikely ones like trouble in Canada or Liechtinstein. It pays to be ready.
-
Originally posted by babek-
Just one story - so maybe you can believe that Iran will never attack Israel:
There is one german journalist who is highly respected by the iranian mullahs, because he was with Ajatollah Khomeini in the Air France plane which brought him to Teheran after the Shah fled from Iran.
So its easy for him to get interviews in Iran. In one occasion - it was shortly before the Kuwait-war between Bush sr. and Saddam - he was in Teheran and sitting with the highest ranking mullahs, making an interview.
And then he asked "What will happen after Israel is destroyed by the arabs or by Iran?".
There was a moment of confusion while the translation was going on - then all of these mullahs break out laughing.
One of them - i think it was Rafsanjani - said that Iran needs Israel.
Israel is keeping the true enemy of Iran busy: The Arabs. And so iranian policy will never allow that Israel will be destroyed, because we know exactly who will be the next target of the arabs.
And about the direction of these missiles: I wouldnt bet that they would be pointed again Israel but surely against the capitals of the arab nations, where their radical sunnite mullahs still consider shiite muslims as heretics who should be killed.
There is a difference between official statements of the iranian mullah regime and their real policy.
One example:
When the Kuwait War started and USA was bringing the iraqui troops one defeat after the other, there were islamic volunteers of Pakistan who wanted to travel through Iran to Iraq in order to join the iraqui troops.
Officially Iran didnt sent them back when they entered iranian territory. But these "guests" were escorted by iranian military. So the convoy was first sent to Northeast Iran, where medical exams had to be made, then to south Iran and so on. This funny convoy was permanently moving through Iran until the war was over.
So - officially Iran allowed islamic volunteers to cross iranian territory - but inofficially they took care that they were not reaching Iraq.
I know iranian policy is complicated but the last thing Iran would do is an attack against Israel. The simply fact is that Iran considers the non-arab nations in the regions - like Turkey or Israel - as useful in the political war against the arabs.
but, but, but....
if iran is only pretending to hate israel, why does she send, sponser and train terrorists?
-
Originally posted by Staga
So where are your nukes pointing at ?
tell me staga, do you really think it matters?
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
but, but, but....
if iran is only pretending to hate israel, why does she send, sponser and train terrorists?
It's all part of the great game, Flyboy. They have to be seen to hate Israel and it suits them internally and externally. Every regime needs a threat, an enemy. In truth Israel is no threat to Iran but the Arabs are. Better to keep them sweet.
Politics is a cynical exercise at the best of times. What is the saying: 'A man can't be too careful in his choice of enemies. .Oscar Wilde
It's a game.
-
i thought its "keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer."
back to topic.
so whats your point? you trying to justify their attacks on israel?
if ill continue your line of thought, lets say iran is attacked by a certien country, arabic or christian.
one of the first things iran will do is attack israel.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Well what I really want saw, and the rest of you who piled on me to explain is why you all automatically assumed that I would support an attack on Iran?
I have clearly stated on many occasions that I am against such a war, yet to man every one of you euros - always so eager to criticize me as a "black/white" absolutist thinker automatically assumed the opposite..
Considering the number of times I clearly stated my opinion about attacking Iran or North Korea I'm surprised about what u guys did in this thread..
Why? Inmstinct? Going after another attempt to be self righteus?
LOL yep .. :rofl
you bring the worst out of them gunn..
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
i thought its "keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer."
back to topic.
so whats your point? you trying to justify their attacks on israel?
if ill continue your line of thought, lets say iran is attacked by a certien country, arabic or christian.
one of the first things iran will do is attack israel.
For a better understanding of the discussion, I have no infos on Iran attacks on Israel.
Info please?
-
you miss understood me naso, i did not ment iranian people phisicly attack israel, but as i said in a previews post, the sponser train, and basicly have control a big part of the terrorists that attack israel.
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
but, but, but....
if iran is only pretending to hate israel, why does she send, sponser and train terrorists?
Why Israel delivered the Islamic Republic of Iran highly needed spare parts for its F-4 Phantom-fleet during the Iran-Iraq-War ?
Without Israel our air force wouldnt been able to gain air superiority during the counter offensives which pushed the arab hordes of Saddam out of Iran.
Why the USA, GB and other european countries supported Saddam Hussein - even after he butchered iraqui kurds during Iran-Iraq-War ?
Why the CIA trained a mujaheddin called Osama Bin Laden, so he could fight effectively against the soviet occupation army of Afghanistan ?
Why Israel has supported lebanese terrorists during the civil war in Lebanon ?
Why the islamic Iran was supporting the christian Armenia with weapons during war of Armenia against the muslim Azerbeidjan ?
Why Pakistan was supporting the Taliban befor 9/11 in the civil war of Afghanistan ?
Why Israel helped Turkey to get the kurdish leader Oeczalan ?
Why the USA is supporting a warlord in NE-Afghanistan, who is a Saddam-like criminal and responsible for the assassination of at least 3 ministers of the Karzai regime ?
All this questions could be answered with the following sentence:
Welcome to the real world: Its called policy.
-
Yes, Nilsen, correct. Didnt read the last statement from GRUN, sorry GRUN.
post deleted by author
-
-deleted-
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Here`s a hint. Were not starting wars, were preventing wars on our homeland.
LMFAO
Sounds like the kind of thing Hitler and co use to say a few years back.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
LMFAO
Sounds like the kind of thing Hitler and co use to say a few years back.
...-Gixer
So the US gov't is reminicent of the Nazi Gov't Gixer???
Man, blind hatred sure has to suck...
-
Originally posted by Scaevola
All in all though I would rather be "Eurotrash" than "redneck/trailer park-trash".
You need to get out more if you think that is what most Americans are...
-
Originally posted by babek-
So its easy for him to get interviews in Iran. In one occasion - it was shortly before the Kuwait-war between Bush sr. and Saddam - he was in Teheran and sitting with the highest ranking mullahs, making an interview.
You Euros are really setting a precedence of new found ignorance by ignoring facts as usual.
Um, question for yas.... since when did the first Gulf War become all GW Bush's doing? Last I heard, and read and saw was that it was a "UN Sponsored" invasion which is why we did not finish the job. (nothing like the UN to shreck a wet dream and do things half-arse.)
Come on, get it right, the US is either shrecked if we follow UN requests, and we are shrecked if we do not. When are you Euros going to set down and come up with a medium that is not such a flip / flop...
hell, now I know why the Euros liked Kerry so much... flip / flop... flip / flop... flip / flop...
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
You really have no clue on what you are talking about. But go on thinking you are all that...
:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Bodhi
You need to get out more if you think that is what most Americans are...
I noticed you'd slightly altered your post from the previous version.
Did I say "most"?, nope, it was a counter statement to your "Eurotrash" comment, I take people as I meet them and don't pre-judge or assume any bigotry.
Maybe if we listened to our own advice now and again.....
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
You Euros are really setting a precedence of new found ignorance by ignoring facts as usual.
(...)
Actually I am iranian - so sorry that I dont agree with these so called analysis of an Iran that just wait to get its first nuclear bomb and then drop it on Israel.
And if you see the results in Iraq - maybe you could get the idea that all these advisors of the US-president were ignoring obvious facts.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
LMFAO
Sounds like the kind of thing Hitler and co use to say a few years back.
-Gixer
Go find Alex and buy a clue Gixer. :D
-
Originally posted by babek-
Actually I am iranian - so sorry that I dont agree with these so called analysis of an Iran that just wait to get its first nuclear bomb and then drop it on Israel.
And if you see the results in Iraq - maybe you could get the idea that all these advisors of the US-president were ignoring obvious facts.
Never said that Iran intended to use a nuke on Israel. That would be a one way trip to hell for them as the Israeli's would nuke the caca out of them in retaliation.
What I do think will happen is that the Iranian mullahs either have nukes, or will continue to develop them in covert actions. When they have a reasonable expectation that they can deliver the weapons they will change their foreign policy to one that forces a showdown with the west. A showdown that will end in nothing short of death for Iran.
Sad really, as I do not feel the US wants to wage war with Iran, but I suspect it will eventually happen.
-
Gunn,
If a regime change occurs within the ranks of Iran, what do you see happening with their nuclear program?
-
What I want to know is when do we attack Saudi Arabia?
-
Nice propaganda babek
-
Originally posted by babek-
The most tragic aspect is, that it is ignored that the iranians of today are not anti-american.
Yes they arent ... and 90% of Iranian will go and fight americans.
Does it make sense ?
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Nice propaganda babek
Babek is right, you should listen to his advice...
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Nice propaganda babek
how long time did you spend in Iran, that you can blambe babek`s words ?
Tell me true please... come on.
-
Originally posted by soda72
Gunn,
If a regime change occurs within the ranks of Iran, what do you see happening with their nuclear program?
since there will be republic, as it were before Shah and corruption ruled by americans came, you sould have no reason to fear them.
Basicaly i do not see any single reason why should somebody fear Iran.
If you realy fear Iranain people or goverment.... could you please tell us why and what was source of those informations???
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I have clearly stated on many occasions that I am against such a war, yet to man every one of you euros - always so eager to criticize me as a "black/white" absolutist thinker automatically assumed the opposite..
I have to say, that im glad that you explained it even for us.. half retarded euros, coz i realy trough as Saw did, that you like that idea from your first statement.
It were somehow cinic statement.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
So the US gov't is reminicent of the Nazi Gov't Gixer???
Man, blind hatred sure has to suck...
Do you actually read the post? I was saying that guy Bodek or what ever his name is sounded like Hitler. But then I can see how you can jump top the conclusion that I meant Bush.
"At the Nuremburg trials, Hermann Goering explained the way of the world to an American intelligence officer named Gustave Gilbert. Goering noted that most people in the world, including the Germans, had not wanted war. But, after all, he explained, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." Gilbert protested that in a democracy the people had a say in such matters; in the U.S., for example, only the Congress could declare war. "Oh, that is all well and good, Goering answered, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
....-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
kind of like the pattern of Eurotrash Ameri-haters....
:rolleyes:
Let's face the facts Bodhi....they don't hate us, it's noodle envy.
-
The Iraq war was thrust upon America's sholders because the UN failed to enforce it's resolutions. Pretty plain to see if you have even an 8th grade level of inteligence.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The Iraq war was thrust upon America's sholders because the UN failed to enforce it's resolutions. Pretty plain to see if you have even an 8th grade level of inteligence.
Better change the record, its getting old........this thread was about "IRAN",,,, not "IRAQ"....maybe you never passed 8th grade?
-
just giving a reference.
It took 13 years for us to enforce the Iraq cease fire, because the UN would not......and now people ask why we don't attack Iran?
I say pull all US aid and troops from around the world and let the UN figure out the best way to deal with a threat.
I'd be all for the US getting all of our troops home. Then let the middle east, and every other part of the world deal with their problems themselves, with UN supervision.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I say pull all US aid and troops from around the world and let the UN figure out the best way to deal with a threat.
I'd be all for the US getting all of our troops home. Then let the middle east, and every other part of the world deal with their problems themselves, with UN supervision.
Great thoughts! And for once I have to agree with you NUKE.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Great thoughts! And for once I have to agree with you NUKE.
good, Now how do you feel the UN will deal with Iran?
-
I googled this and all 207 related articles refer to one New Yorker magazine article written by reporter Seymour Hersh, with undisputable evidence like "a sourse close to the pentagon"
-
The Iran war will be thrust upon us by the failure of the UN and it's sissified euromembership to ensure that there are no WMDs (women in men's dressing). we will attack and in 48 hours totally humiliate their elite forces and imprison reams of their lesser military personnel in Cuba which we will by that time have purchased for about $350.00 in 1950's car parts. We will then have no choice but to go in and set those poor citizens up with an American system of government. they will be very happy for our help and we will get all their trade. we will send them McDonald's and they will send us petroluem. we like that arrangement. If out outlanders don't like what we do and how we do it then become a superpower and kick our arses. if not shut up and take it. Honestly you are all so naive. get with the program already. The Military of the United States of America coming to conquer a country near you......soon. There can only be 1. :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
good, Now how do you feel the UN will deal with Iran?
I feel they will handle it smoothly and in peace.
How do you feel? Drunk enough to slam and bash around a little?
-
Originally posted by patrone
I feel they will handle it smoothly and in peace.
there is no way you said that with a straight face.
-
Originally posted by patrone
I feel they will handle it smoothly and in peace.
How do you feel? Drunk enough to slam and bash around a little?
Specifically, what do you think the UN should do? Maybe draft a resolution?
Maybe in 13 years, Iran will be scared enough to listen to the UN and give up their nukes........just because the UN made some resolutions.
Force has nothing to do with it, right?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
there is no way you said that with a straight face.
Yes I did.
And why would I worry about them getting Nukes? Iīm more worried about the guys that already has them and has proven that they can use it................
Just even the odds, just like Samuel Colt did.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Yes I did.
And why would I worry about them getting Nukes? Iīm more worried about the guys that already has them and has proven that they can use it................
So you fear that the US, after 59 years having nukes? You fear the US?
After that amount of time, you think the US is out to take over the world? You are funny.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Specifically, what do you think the UN should do? Maybe draft a resolution?
With US out of the security council, the inspections would be performed in other countries as well, without being vetod. Many diffrent resolutions could be made. Not just Involving Iran........
The World would be a peaceful place and you guys would be using Bicycles a lot more, I promise. Might be good for the health issues there. Did someone say "Fat"?.....no..
-
Originally posted by patrone
Yes I did.
And why would I worry about them getting Nukes? Iīm more worried about the guys that already has them and has proven that they can use it................
So you fear that the US, after 59 years having nukes? You fear the US?
After that amount of time, you think the US is out to take over the world? You are funny.
I see you are getting drunk enough, NUKE
-
Originally posted by patrone
With US out of the security council, the inspections would be performed in other countries as well, without being vetod.
So, how would the UN ensure the countries would be inspected? The same way they did with Iraq, when Saddam kicked them out?
How about Korea or Iran? How would the UN ensure that they were inspected?
Give a few examples. I'm open for ideas.
-
NUKE
Pointless to keep you busy posting. Get back when you sober up, please
-
Carbo is talking about europes favorite people, the jews.
With Israel being inspected, for whatver reason the openly jew hating UN wants, all the world would be safe and peaceful. Thats what he refers to whwenmentioning other countries and the US not being on UNSC...
-
Originally posted by patrone
NUKE
Pointless to keep you busy posting. Get back when you sober up, please
LOL!
You say that with the US off of the security council, the UN would be able to inspect countries.....free of the US veto.
I'm asking you tell tell me how the UN would have gotten inspectors back into Iraq after they were kicked out by Saddam.
I am also asking you to describe how the UN would ensure that N.Korea and Iran were inspected?
How? By resolutions?
Answer the simple questions.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
LOL!
You say that with the US off of the security council, the UN would be able to inspect countries.....free of the US veto.
I'm asking you tel tell me how the UN would have gotten inpsectors back into Iraq after they were kicked out by Saddam.
I am also asking you to describe how the UN would ensure that N.Korea and Iran were inspected?
How? By resolutions?
Answer the simple questions.
By passing resolutions aginst israel! Its Magic!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Carbo is talking about europes favorite people, the jews.
With Israel being inspected, for whatver reason the openly jew hating UN wants, all the world would be safe and peaceful.
As being a christian, I can not be against the jewish state or jews in general. Are you assuming I am?
But, in order to bring peace to middle east, yes, they have to back a little.
-
I dont know about you carbo, of course.
But the UN is pretty much stacked agaibst Israel and much of it does seem quite nasty in character.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
By passing resolutions aginst israel! Its Magic!
Yeah, everyone knows that Israel is a threat to world peace. They are so radical and promote terror and death.
Israel is the number one threat we face today......everyone knows that.
-
Originally posted by soda72
Gunn,
If a regime change occurs within the ranks of Iran, what do you see happening with their nuclear program?
did you see this gun?
-
Originally posted by patrone
As being a christian, I can not be against the jewish state or jews in general. Are you assuming I am?
But, in order to bring peace to middle east, yes, they have to back a little.
Why? Israel has too much of the middle east? one tenth of one percent is what they have of the Middle East. Is that too much ?
-
Crabbo, back to your claim that the UN, with the US off of the security council, would be able to inspect countries.
How would they inspect Iran, N. Korea, China or anyone else who didn't want them to? By drafting a resolution?
I'd love to hear how the UN would get things done with no credible threat of force. Maybe bake cookies for everyone?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I dont know about you carbo, of course.
But the UN is pretty much stacked agaibst Israel and much of it does seem quite nasty in character.
I think that we can agree on that religous fanatics are capable to do a lot of damage and the fundamentalistic Jew is no exception.
A conflict is not really onesided. And to have peace might require a little give and take.
I know that the Arabs claims a lot of impossible things from Israel.
But somewhere there must be a middle thing, really
-
The real question is how you would get the US off the SC?
If any country should go, it's France, which in fact should never have been given a seat in the first place. So boot France and replace them with Japan - the world's second largest economy and a country far larger and more important than France deserves the seat. Germany and Brazil should be next.
-
Originally posted by patrone
I think that we can agree on that religous fanatics are capable to do a lot of damage and the fundamentalistic Jew is no exception.
A conflict is not really onesided. And to have peace might require a little give and take.
I know that the Arabs claims a lot of impossible things from Israel.
But somewhere there must be a middle thing, really
Yep. I'm for giving west bank and Gaza to the Palestenians, consolidating settlements to as small an areas as possible, and a shared Jerusalem as capital for both. The right of return is prolly impossible.
-
Originally posted by patrone
I think that we can agree on that religous fanatics are capable to do a lot of damage and the fundamentalistic Jew is no exception.
A conflict is not really onesided. And to have peace might require a little give and take.
I know that the Arabs claims a lot of impossible things from Israel.
But somewhere there must be a middle thing, really
That's true.
So explain how the UN would inspect countries like Iran, N. Korea, China, Israel and whoever? You said that the UN, without the US on the security council, could inspect countries.....because the US couldn't veto them.
Explain how the UN would inspect a country that didn't want them to inpsect them?
How would the UN enforce any resolution? Hmmm? Can't answer? It's a pretty simple question.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The real question is how you would get the US off the SC?
If any country should go, it's France, which in fact should never have been given a seat in the first place. So boot France and replace them with Japan - the world's second largest economy and a country far larger and more important than France deserves the seat. Germany and Brazil should be next.
Sorry, the France is in as funding member, IRC: Theran 1943?
But, why would there have to be permanent members at all? Couldnt all 15 states be "changed" during a 4 years period?
And add, that only member of SC would be from countries with legaly elected goverments.
-
Nuke
I repeat, come back when you sober up..ok?
-
Originally posted by patrone
Sorry, the France is in as funding member, IRC: Theran 1943?
LOL. France was not a sovereign nation in 1943. Do you have any clue at all as to why France was GRANTED a permanent seat in the UN?
France was not a world power......they were not even a sovereign nation.
Russia, USA, Britain were the rightful permanent members. China was considered above France.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Nuke
I repeat, come back when you sober up..ok?
I'll take that as a "I can't answer your question without looking like an imbecile"
-
Originally posted by patrone
Sorry, the France is in as funding member, IRC: Theran 1943?
But, why would there have to be permanent members at all? Couldnt all 15 states be "changed" during a 4 years period?
And add, that only member of SC would be from countries with legaly elected goverments.
Ohh so it's OK to imagine an SC without founding member USA but not without the great glory of France...
BTW I really had no clue that Vichy sent reps to Tehran...
-
Isn't it odd that defeated France, who relied on the US, Britain, Russia and our allies to restore their nation, was considered a "world power" and thus deserved a permanent SC seat?
By those standards, Germany should have been a permanent SC council member. Germany was certainly more of a world power than France.
And both Germany and France had new, democratic governments.
Vichy France and Nazi Germany where replaced by democratic governments, thanks to the allies. Why was Germany not placed on the SC council?
France did not ever deserve a seat.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ohh so it's OK to imagine an SC without founding member USA but not without the great glory of France...
BTW I really had no clue that Vichy sent reps to Tehran...
First of all: I didnt sugest USA out of the UN, I said it was a good idea, if the people of America really thought this way.
You have to jump NUKE, sorry.......
But I am also sure you guys would never want to ride bicycles.
SO, its just a useless thought to think you ever would leave SC willingly, for the benifit of the rest of the world.
And the ideal SC, would be without any "veto" nations, permanent members.
And I put a "?" after tehran 1943
But France was in SC from start, for sure.
-
Originally posted by patrone
First of all: I didnt sugest USA out of the UN, I said it was a good idea, if the people of America really thought this way.
You have to jump NUKE, sorry.......
Yeah, all you said was that you agreed that the US should be out of the UN and that the SC would be better off without the US.
You said the with the US off of the SC, the UN would inpsect nations wothout the US veto.
You still have not answered how the UN would force inspections on countries like Iran, China, N. Korea, Israel, or any other nation.
-
Crabbo, come back when you have an intelect.
-
Don't do it till we have things under control in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by patrone
But I am also sure you guys would never want to ride bicycles.
You mean like Lance Armstrong?
-
As questions been raised by the "grey mass" about France and its defeat.
France stood up together with England from the very Start of WWII. The only reason England got away, not being invaded, was because of the geographic position: Being an Island.
(And because Churchills hate to Communism, Hitler was really naive to think he could have separate peace with England.)
Where was WW I fought?
Who took the largest risk declearing a war on its very neighbour?
-
Originally posted by patrone
As questions been raised by the "grey mass" about France and its defeat.
France stood up together with England from the very Start of WWII.
No they didn't. They had years of warnings and ignored them all.
France stood up to Germany in what way? They were steamrolled by Germany. What choice did France have? France ignorned the threat of Germany until they were steamrolled by Germany.
Your mentality is exactly the same.
Patrone, come back when you are sober...okay?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
My stance on attacking Iran is clear and well known to most here, but what do you guys think about this?
Two questions please!
Have you ever received any money from the government of the United States of America?
Would you please show your stance on attacking Iran?
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
No they didn't. They had years of warnings and ignored them all.
France stood up to Germany in what way? They were steamrolled by Germany. What choice did France have? France ignorned the threat of Germany until they were steamrolled by Germany.
Your mentality is exactly the same.
And you are telling me to come back when I have an intellect?
USA was the one having no choice. War was decleared on you before you started to fight the Germans.
France, decleared war on Germany after they Invaded Poland 1939. With risk to bring war to their own soil. Where was the USA then?
And who was the guy stating "peace in our time"? after a meeting with Hitler? He was not French, thats for sure....
Now, sober up, boy
-
Originally posted by Ozark
Two questions please!
Have you ever received any money from the government of the United States of America?
Would you please show your stance on attacking Iran?
Thank you.
What??
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What??
Someone else missunderstood that sentence, just like me, GRUN.
-
Originally posted by patrone
And you are telling me to come back when I have an intellect?
USA was the one having no choice. War was decleared on you before you started to fight the Germans.
France, decleared war on Germany after they Invaded Poland 1939. With risk to bring war to their own soil. Where was the USA then?
LOL
France was going to war weather or not they declared war on Germany. Are you that dumb?
And the US was attacked by Japan, yet we concentrated our efforts in Europe. Why do you think that is?
France rolled over for the Germans. France was not a world power when the UN was formed. France was lucky to be France at the end of it all, let alone be given a SC seat.
And you still cannot back up your claims that the UN would be able to inspect Nations after the US was out of the SC. Can you explain? No? I thought so.
-
Originally posted by patrone
And who was the guy stating "peace in our time"? after a meeting with Hitler? He was not French, thats for sure....
Indeed, he was not French, but I bet he thought that he handled the issue "smoothly and in peace."
The UN is basically powerless without US military backing. Maybe thje EU army will get up to speed at some point and be able to provide a sizable enough force and the ability to deploy it worldwide but then how will you Euros deal with having to wear the pants for once and not just rely on US military command and coordination? Moreover how will your decidely pacifist populations deal with that new role?
-
Originally posted by patrone
Someone else missunderstood that sentence, just like me, GRUN.
Damn I thought I went back and edited it. Doh!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
? Moreover how will your decidely pacifist populations deal with that new role?
New role?
I think that Sweden has sent troops, whenever it was called for.
Or you might disagree?
We are putting down our own homedefence, in this very moment. Sole educating soldiers to serve on international missions.
If you will not accept to serve in international missons, you will not be accepted for service in the military.
-
Originally posted by patrone
New role?
I think that Sweden has sent troops, whenever it was called for.
Or you might disagree?
I dissagree. Where were the Swedish troops when they were needed in WWII?
How about Korea or Vietnam. How about Gulf war 1?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I dissagree. Where were the Swedish troops when they were needed in WWII?
How about Korea or Vietnam. How about Gulf war 1?
When you sober up. you might be able to really do some research.........otherwise you wouldnt be asking theese questions, out of the blue
You might even see that UN was not really formed until 1945 and that Sweden became member 1946
Cheers
-
Originally posted by patrone
When you sober up. you might be able to really do some research.........otherwise you wouldnt be asking theese questions, out of the blue
You might even see that UN was not really formed until 1945 and that Sweden became member 1946
Cheers
You didn't say UN , you said Swedish contributions.
Sweden has a shameful history in WWII, yet you brag about the French effort? Amazing.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You didn't say UN , you said Swedish contributions.
Sweden has a shameful history in WWII, yet you brag about the French effort? Amazing.
If you read the statement and question from GRUN, if you are sober enough, you will find I answered a question specific about UN......
Shameful history? That we stayed out of it? It was a miracle or we where counted as "Axis" just like the Finns?
Can you spell the word "NEUTRAL",,, N....E.....U......T......R... ..A.....L.......NEUTRAL.
Good, now try again, if you donīt know what it means: please use google.
But try tomorrow, before consuming the first beer, please
-
Originally posted by patrone
Shameful history? That we stayed out of it? It was a miracle or we where counted as "Axis" just like the Finns?
Can you spell the word "NEUTRAL",,, N....E.....U......T......R... ..A.....L.......NEUTRAL.
Yes, like I said, SHAMEFUL. To remain neutral means that you had no preference one way or the other. Nazis, Allies......doesn't matter to you who one. Nuetral might as well be called "No Balls"
Very shameful.
-
Originally posted by patrone
New role?
I think that Sweden has sent troops, whenever it was called for.
Or you might disagree?
We are putting down our own homedefence, in this very moment. Sole educating soldiers to serve on international missions.
If you will not accept to serve in international missons, you will not be accepted for service in the military.
Oh yes new role. Sure the euros have been participants and even leaders in minior UN or NATO crisis situatuions but when it really came to serious stuff the USA, naturally as western superpower lead the way. In the new world where the EU is trying it as a new independant force how will your people adjust? Who will you blame for the inevitable failures? Or the difficulties? No need to take insult but europe has had the comfort of blaming the usa for every bad thing, what will yiou do when u are in cahrge of something serious - turn on each other?
-
Patrone, I feel that you are high on heroin. Please come back and argue when you are not shooting heroin.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Patrone, I feel that you are high on heroin. Please come back and argue when you are not shooting heroin.
You just got honured by being on my ignore list, again. Just like the Oldtimes
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yes, like I said, SHAMEFUL. To remain neutral means that you had no preference one way or the other. Nazis, Allies......doesn't matter to you who one. Nuetral might as well be called "No Balls"
Very shameful.
Heck the USA till 1941 was just as neutral as Sweden.
Yep, just as "neutral"
The swedes sent the nazis steel, gave them much acess to cross the country and were generally helpful. The USA sent the Allies materials, weaopns and we were generally helpful.
So you see not much difference at all, shame on you NUKE.
-
Sweden was "neutral" in WWII.
In other words, they hid their collective heads in the sand and prayed they would survive.
Lucky for Sweden that the allies won. I guess being neutral is kind of like rolling the dice in that case.
Sweden was neutral......meaning they could'nt care less if the Nazis took over the world. They were lucky that didn't happen....because countries like the US, Britain, and Russia prevented it.
You're welcome.
-
Originally posted by patrone
You just got honured by being on my ignore list, again. Just like the Oldtimes
so, you say that I'm drunk and it's perfectly okay? I'm just playing your stupid game.....only, surprise, you can't take what you dish out.
Have a cookie, dumb chit.
You're intelect is non-existant. You are incapable of sustaining an argument or defending a point.....I suspect because you have no point.
Thanks for playing, moron.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Heck the USA till 1941 was just as neutral as Sweden.
Yep, just as "neutral"
The swedes sent the nazis steel, gave them much acess to cross the country and were generally helpful. The USA sent the Allies materials, weaopns and we were generally helpful.
So you see not much difference at all, shame on you NUKE.
Dont forget, we sold steel to the Allies as well.
And, yes, it was very shamefull of us to let their trains pass through our country. Then again, study the map a little and tell us who would have come to our rescue if the germans ever invaded?
We where a little to difficult to invade, a high risk, Sweden is a very big country by EU messure, with very difficult terrain at parts, just like Norway.
We just didnt want to make it worth the risk.
-
Patrone, please come back when you are not high on heroin.
Thanks
-
Originally posted by patrone
We where a little to difficult to invade, a high risk, Sweden is a very big country by EU messure, with very difficult terrain at parts, just like Norway.
We just didnt want to make it worth the risk.
And America was seperated by oceans, impossible to invade....yet we fought in Europe to defeat the axis. I guess we figured it was worth it, unlike disgraceful Sweden.
I guess Sweden didn't give a damn about who won and got lucky that other nations defended against Germany.
Sweden was a disgrace in WWII. I'd call them ******* actually.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Oh yes new role. Sure the euros have been participants and even leaders in minior UN or NATO crisis situatuions but when it really came to serious stuff the USA, naturally as western superpower lead the way. In the new world where the EU is trying it as a new independant force how will your people adjust? Who will you blame for the inevitable failures? Or the difficulties? No need to take insult but europe has had the comfort of blaming the usa for every bad thing, what will yiou do when u are in cahrge of something serious - turn on each other?
After the bombings 911 the whole world was behind you. My goverment even went against our own constitution, to back you up.
Kadaffi and Saddam even sent their regards to you, condemning the attack. What more could you have asked for? (We sent troops to Afghanistan and as I know they are still there).
Then, the Iraq issue came up and you got a little to greedy......
To use all this support to make something most of the world didīnt agree with you on.
You tried to bribe your way thru SC. used false papers from Nigeria....to prove your case was valid.
Bush wanted to be a man of action, to get his next turn as well, in the white house. To make a name in the history books: And he sure has done it, maybe not a very honourble place, as he will be put in the "bad guys" section, along with Stalin, Hitler, De clerk, Pinochet, Franco, Ho Chi Min......(list is long, but I think he will be put fairly high in that list)
And, you guys have to defend your votes to your children, just like the Germans had to do: "We really didīnt know better"
-
So after all that posing as a reasonable and nuanced type you are back to Bush is Hitler and America is Nazi Germany, neat...
Carbo this is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned you EU types having to adjust to new roles if you really wanna execrise some leadership and responsibility in the world as the new military patrons of the UN (going by your scenario of the US not being in UN)... With the USA no longer playing this role who will you demonize when things dont go perfectly smoothly?
-
Crabbo, please come back to us after you have stopped using heroin.
-
Bush "wanted to be a man of action" LOL
Sweden "wanted to be neutral" yet still critisizes everyone else who takes a stand. WTG Sweden!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So after all that you are back to Bush is Hitler and America is Nazi Germany, neat...
No, not really this onesided, but to me, he is not the good guy.
Just wanted to give you a little hint, what the rest of the world thinks of him and saying: In 20 years, you might have changed your opinon about him as well. So donīt defend him to much.
I can not agree that Bush is Hitler, No. I admit that It was not very vice to bring up the last post with "bad guy list".
Thanks, by the way, for nice and intellegent postings in this thread, GRUN.
-
Crabbo is high on heroin.
-
Although they are not the target more children will die. And more children loosing their parents in the USA.
Since the end of the cold war we looking for possible enemys instead of possible friends.
we will never learn i guess .
Isn't it great going to war.
The best tactic is to prevent a war not start one.
-
Originally posted by Scaevola
My My we are sensitive aren't we.
Please insert name calling below[/U]
All in all though I would rather be "Eurotrash" than "redneck/trailer park-trash".
You fell on your own sword idiot. :aok
Karaya
-
Originally posted by babek-
But if there is an attack against Iran - either simple missile/air strikes against installations or a full scale invasion - these innerpolitical fightings will stop immediately.
Then the Mullahs will get the full support from all iranians because we always fight those who attack Iran.
The same happened when Saddam and his arab hordes tried to invade Iran and steal our province Khusistan, which the arabs define as "Arabistan" because there is a strong arab minority.
With this action Saddam had stabilized Khomeini, becuase all iranian political factions who were fighting for power after the deposal of the Shah - including the communist Tudeh party - unified to fight the aggressors.
Iran is much larger than our small neighbors Iraq or Afghanistan and also not a nice flat desert country like Iraq.
We have a population of 60 millions - most young men and women who are actually not anti-american but will become in the same moment when we are under attack.
If there is no invasion - but only missile attacks - the Mullahs will make a party. Because then their regime has been stabilized for decades and the damage done to installations could be repaired or replaced easily. Just because there are many countries in the world who will sell everthing to Iran if they just get enough money.
And there is also no iranian opposition outside Iran, which is accepted by the iranian people.
The Royalist are telling nice stories and dreaming about reinstalling the Pahlavi-dynasty. But fact is that the Shah and his terror hasnt been forgotten.
The so called democrats with this creature Radjavi are nothing else than traitors and hated by iranians. Their terrorist-fighters were fighting against Iran during the Iran-Iraq-War side by side with arabs.
The most tragic aspect is, that it is ignored that the iranians of today are not anti-american.
The mullah-propaganda tried to manipulate the iranians by showing the pictures from Iraq day by day. But even the shocking pictures from US-prisons in Iraq where iraquis were forced by US-soldiers to perform homosexual perversities havent had the results the mullahs hoped: The vast majority of the iranians still remain neutral.
An attack against Iran would change this completely.
60 million? :lol I remember in 1991 when Saddam's "Army" had in excess of 30 million "men". I remember when in 1991 they said Operation Desert Storm would be "The Next Vietnam". Yeah, 5 months later it was over. Population counts mean diddly-sh**.
What I find funny is the following. It is a "Jyhad" when another country attacks an Islamic country. However, terrorist groups in their countries that kill are not.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by patrone
As questions been raised by the "grey mass" about France and its defeat.
France stood up together with England from the very Start of WWII. The only reason England got away, not being invaded, was because of the geographic position: Being an Island.
(And because Churchills hate to Communism, Hitler was really naive to think he could have separate peace with England.)
Where was WW I fought?
Who took the largest risk declearing a war on its very neighbour?
Stood up? Their moronic use of their Tanks cost them from the get go. Believe it or not, the French tanks were equal to if not, better than the Panzer 1's and 2's the Germans used to attack the French. One must NEVER forget the "Maginot Line" either.
You left out "Neville Chamberlain". Remeber the stories of Hitler and him getting so drunk, that Neville allowed the Germans to grab Sudetenland, Czechoslavkia, Austria without rebuttal?
Yeah, Churchill hated Communism? This is the most ignorant statement I've seen yet in this ebtire thread. If he "hated Communism" so much, why did Roosevelt AND Churchill hang the Poles out to dry from 1939 ON, and allow it to be carved up by those "Hated Communists"?
Karaya
-
Just curious but if we were to go into Iran, what would we do about Iraq?
And does anyone else think perhaps a large part of the reason we went to Iraq was so we'd have a launching pad for an attack against what many consider a graver threat, Iran?
It would be much more difficult to attack Iran without first controlling land next to it, after all.
... Said the fellow who couldn't be bothered reading most of the posts (can you blame me though, half of them are just two people having duels anyway)
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
60 million? :lol I remember in 1991 when Saddam's "Army" had in excess of 30 million "men". I remember when in 1991 they said Operation Desert Storm would be "The Next Vietnam". Yeah, 5 months later it was over. Population counts mean diddly-sh**.
Karaya
Remember that Iraq had been in a hughe, long war with its neighbour, Iran, not to long before 1991. They lost millions of soldiers.
I wouldīnt bang my chest to hard over "the Victory".
And after that attack, you kinda "boggered out" leaving Saddam in power and the ****es to try to liberate themself.
And to become a "Next Vietnam" you really needed to stay a little. Just like you did this time. If you know what I mean.......maybe not "next nam" yet.......but pretty close...
And 60 is a little more then 30, actully double the size....
-
Originally posted by patrone
Remember that Iraq had been in a hughe, long war with its neighbour, Iran, not to long before 1991. They lost millions of soldiers.
I wouldīnt bang my chest to hard over "the Victory".
And after that attack, you kinda "boggered out" leaving Saddam in power and the ****es to try to liberate themself.
And to become a "Next Vietnam" you really needed to stay a little. Just like you did this time. If you know what I mean.......maybe not "next nam" yet.......but pretty close...
And 60 is a little more then 30, actully double the size....
Your first sentence is useless.
The reason the US "boogered out" was simple the SOLE REASON for Operation Desert Storm / Shield was to extricate the Iraqi's from Kuwait. What do you know, they did. Keep shovelling the watermelon though.
Again, POPULATION NUMBERS do not matter. Who cares if they are triple? I don't.
Karaya
PS - You spelled Shiite wrong. It isn't spelled ****e.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Just curious but if we were to go into Iran, what would we do about Iraq?
And does anyone else think perhaps a large part of the reason we went to Iraq was so we'd have a launching pad for an attack against what many consider a graver threat, Iran?
It would be much more difficult to attack Iran without first controlling land next to it, after all.
Said the fellow who couldn't be bothered reading most of the posts (can you blame me though, half of them are just two people having duels anyway)
I doubt you have the manpower at this moment, really. But it all depends.
Could you get UN to take care of security after the elections in Iraq, it might be possible. And maybe with a draft......
G.W.B could not loose a third term anyway.
It would take a while, thats for sure, atleast 1 year.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Your first sentence is useless.
The reason the US "boogered out" was simple the SOLE REASON for Operation Desert Storm / Shield was to extricate the Iraqi's from Kuwait. What do you know, they did. Keep shovelling the watermelon though.
Again, POPULATION NUMBERS do not matter. Who cares if they are triple? I don't.
PS - You spelled Shiite wrong. It isn't spelled ****e.
Good that you doesīnt care about numbers.. I guess you be the first crossing iranian border, or would you leave that to your fellowed country men, oh brave one?....(and well spelling)
I assume that the Soviet tied down some Germans on the eastfront, didīnt change the odds of the outcome of Normandy either?
-
Originally posted by patrone
Good that you doesīnt care about numbers.. I guess you be the first crossing iranian border, or would you leave that to your fellowed country men, oh brave one?....(and well spelling)
I assume that the Soviet tied down some Germans on the eastfront, didīnt change the odds of the outcome of Normandy either?
BTW, If there was EVER a draft in the US. Even though I'm 31, I'd volunteer so STFU with your pacifist trolling. You bore me.
I'm still waiting to see you anser Nuke's "If the US in NOT in the SC, how will the inspections be handled"?
Karaya
PS - Comparing WWII military tactics with Current ones are a laugh. You can do better than that, can't you? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Stood up? Their moronic use of their Tanks cost them from the get go. Believe it or not, the French tanks were equal to if not, better than the Panzer 1's and 2's the Germans used to attack the French. One must NEVER forget the "Maginot Line" either.
You left out "Neville Chamberlain". Remeber the stories of Hitler and him getting so drunk, that Neville allowed the Germans to grab Sudetenland, Czechoslavkia, Austria without rebuttal?
Yeah, Churchill hated Communism? This is the most ignorant statement I've seen yet in this ebtire thread. If he "hated Communism" so much, why did Roosevelt AND Churchill hang the Poles out to dry from 1939 ON, and allow it to be carved up by those "Hated Communists"?
Karaya
I think that declearing War on another country, because it is invading someone you made insurance to: can be called stood up.
Moronic use of tanks? This was the "Tanktactics" used by most countrys at that time. But, its easy to talk, when you can read a history book 60 years after. And, if you didīnt know it "blixtkieg was an inovation to tactics, made by the Germans.
Chamberlain, was actully the one that i refered to having a meeting with Hitler and uttering the words "Peace in our time"...
Sure you really read this thread?
And , yes Churchill hated Communism and I am not really sure he was in charge at the time for the attack on Poland.
Why did Roosevelt and Churchill let any country at all get carved up? And please tell me how they would been able to aid the Poles? Taking their fleets into the Baltic sea?, March through Germany? Use paratroopers in mass?
I know realize that you can not be very old and your knowledge about matters are within a minimum. One does not get to be very well educated about history by playing "WWII Online".
I can recommend you to read a little more about "Churchill and communism",, by all means,, use google
-
Originally posted by patrone
I think that declearing War on another country, because it is invading someone you made insurance to: can be called stood up.
Moronic use of tanks? This was the "Tanktactics" used by most countrys at that time. But, its easy to talk, when you can read a history book 60 years after. And, if you didīnt know it "blixtkieg was an inovation to tactics, made by the Germans.
Chamberlain, was actully the one that i refered to having a meeting with Hitler and uttering the words "Peace in our time"...
Sure you really read this thread?
And , yes Churchill hated Communism and I am not really sure he was in charge at the time for the attack on Poland.
Why did Roosevelt and Churchill let any country at all get carved up? And please tell me how they would been able to aid the Poles? Taking their fleets into the Baltic sea?, March through Germany? Use paratroopers in mass?
I know realize that you can not be very old and your knowledge about matters are within a minimum. One does not get to be very well educated about history by playing "WWII Online".
I can recommend you to read a little more about "Churchill and communism",, by all means,, use google
Excuse me, you NEVER REFERRED to Chamberlain, but someone you are NOW the authority on WWII and how to BUTCHER the English Language? Pretty pathetic on YOUR part to not remeber Chamberlain. You are a tool.
ANSWER NUKE'S QUESTION.
You can "try" to insult me all you want pony boy. It isn't going to work. You are one sad individual.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
BTW, If there was EVER a draft in the US. Even though I'm 31, I'd volunteer so STFU with your pacifist trolling. You bore me.
I'm still waiting to see you anser Nuke's "If the US in NOT in the SC, how will the inspections be handled"?
Karaya
PS - Comparing WWII military tactics with Current ones are a laugh. You can do better than that, can't you? :confused:
31?,, ok, sorry i thought you where a kid
By the way, I think they need some re-enforcement in iraq, why donīt you get in there, before the draft? Oh brave man....
And I can see that you havent really followed the thread very well, kinda missed me saying that I answer NUKE another day, when his sober? I bet you even missed me putting him on ignore.
And to compare WWII tactics with Current ones?
What do you mean....like "doh, ever heard about jetplanes, M16, Abrahams, helicopters"?
Like: we can conquer any country with like 150,000 men?
Sure dude...
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Excuse me, you NEVER REFERRED to Chamberlain, but someone you are NOW the authority on WWII and how to BUTCHER the English Language? Pretty pathetic on YOUR part to not remeber Chamberlain. You are a tool.
ANSWER NUKE'S QUESTION.
You can "try" to insult me all you want pony boy. It isn't going to work. You are one sad individual.
Karaya
Wow....did you say "butcher english language" and "pathetic" ....lol.....I "remeber" chamberlain
Atleast I am not claiming to be native, speaking English.
WOW NUKE, you must be pretty drunk by now.
Guess what? I will put your "Alter ego" on ignore as well.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
No they didn't. They had years of warnings and ignored them all.
France stood up to Germany in what way? They were steamrolled by Germany. What choice did France have? France ignorned the threat of Germany until they were steamrolled by Germany.
Your mentality is exactly the same.
Patrone, come back when you are sober...okay?
First and for the last time : Vichy governement was in NO way legitimate.
One day instead of buying crayon book you will buy an history one and you will look more informed.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Stood up? Their moronic use of their Tanks cost them from the get go. Believe it or not, the French tanks were equal to if not, better than the Panzer 1's and 2's the Germans used to attack the French. One must NEVER forget the "Maginot Line" either.
There is a least one exception to this affirmation.
hint : 4eme DCR,Montcornet.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
BTW, If there was EVER a draft in the US. Even though I'm 31, I'd volunteer...
ROFLMAO What kind of convoluted logic is THAT??? If there is a DRAFT, see, then you are already being "volunteered"... that's why they call it (doh) a "draft."
Not to mention, of course, that if you are so convinced this war is just, WTF are you waiting to get "drafted" for? By all means you should beat the rush and enlist NOW and you MIGHT get one of the easy jobs, like cutting the draftee's hair off, for instance...
But, then again, face it- you have the Porsche, the Bimmer. all the toys- there's no way in the world you'd put YOUR life on hold, much less in jeopardy, as long as you can assign people to be your proxy. ;)
Your life is too soft and too good for military service, Karaya- I suggest you quit volunteering before I give your e-mail address to a Marine Corps recruiter.
"I'd volunteer for a draft"... LOL, too funny.:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by NUKE
good, Now how do you feel the UN will deal with Iran?
UN will send Iranian love letter. Iran will join WTO and all people around the world will be happy that they can make bussines with Iran instead of having war with Iran.
Once world will be open for iranian, they will have better tool for creating preasure on goverment.
And domestical politic inside Iran ?... It will have same progress like it had in past 30 years., so there is no reason to worry or fear them.
do u agree ?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Do you actually read the post? I was saying that guy Bodek or what ever his name is sounded like Hitler.
Maybe you need to read your own posts. If you are addressing someone else , then quit quoting me. :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Sweden was "neutral" in WWII.
In other words, they hid their collective heads in the sand and prayed they would survive.
Maybe you forgot that was exactly what US was trying to do before Japanese forces attacked Pearl Harbour.
Difference between US and Sweden at 1939 was that Swedes actually sent pilots and fighters to help Finland to fight against attacking Russian troops while US was sitting on its butt with thumb deep in bellybutton when the war had raged years around the world.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You fell on your own sword idiot. :aok
Karaya
Perhaps I should have added the sarcastic roll eyes to the end of
"Please insert insult here"[/U]
statement for it to be taken in the context that it was meant.
The fact that some people who post here appear unable or unwilling to formulate an argument and resort to name calling then the "Please insert insult here"[/U] section would be ideal for them.
p.s I don't have a sword, can I fall on the butter knife instead?
btw the thread is actually about IRAN (the middle east country).
If they get out of line and start to threaten world peace then get in there and sort them out.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Wow....did you say "butcher english language" and "pathetic" ....lol.....I "remeber" chamberlain
Atleast I am not claiming to be native, speaking English.
WOW NUKE, you must be pretty drunk by now.
Guess what? I will put your "Alter ego" on ignore as well.
Please do. You are to SKEERED to answer a simple question.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Airhead
ROFLMAO What kind of convoluted logic is THAT??? If there is a DRAFT, see, then you are already being "volunteered"... that's why they call it (doh) a "draft."
Not to mention, of course, that if you are so convinced this war is just, WTF are you waiting to get "drafted" for? By all means you should beat the rush and enlist NOW and you MIGHT get one of the easy jobs, like cutting the draftee's hair off, for instance...
But, then again, face it- you have the Porsche, the Bimmer. all the toys- there's no way in the world you'd put YOUR life on hold, much less in jeopardy, as long as you can assign people to be your proxy. ;)
Your life is too soft and too good for military service, Karaya- I suggest you quit volunteering before I give your e-mail address to a Marine Corps recruiter.
"I'd volunteer for a draft"... LOL, too funny.:rofl :rofl :rofl
"ROFLMAO What kind of convoluted logic is THAT??? If there is a DRAFT, see, then you are already being "volunteered"... that's why they call it (doh) a "draft." I had every paper signed to go into the Army. I waited seven days to receive a letter of acceptance to Adrian College, I went the college route. I gained a friend and spoke my with the "recruiter" regularly until 1997 (we lost contact). I regret not going into the service.
"But, then again, face it- you have the Porsche, the Bimmer. all the toys- there's no way in the world you'd put YOUR life on hold, much less in jeopardy, as long as you can assign people to be your proxy. ;) "
You have no idea how wrong you are with this statement. But, think as you must, your Handle fits you perfect here.
"Your life is too soft and too good for military service, Karaya- I suggest you quit volunteering before I give your e-mail address to a Marine Corps recruiter. "
Please hand it out, they would NOT accept me because of my age s%^thead. You have no idea of the crap I had to deal with having a Vietnamese brother and sister growing up. So quit while you are ahead.
You just seem to be confusing a Draft, with Volunteering. You are stupid.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Scaevola
Perhaps I should have added the sarcastic roll eyes to the end of
"Please insert insult here"[/U]
statement for it to be taken in the context that it was meant.
The fact that some people who post here appear unable or unwilling to formulate an argument and resort to name calling then the "Please insert insult here"[/U] section would be ideal for them.
p.s I don't have a sword, can I fall on the butter knife instead?
btw the thread is actually about IRAN (the middle east country).
If they get out of line and start to threaten world peace then get in there and sort them out.
"The fact that some people who post here appear unable or unwilling to formulate an argument and resort to name calling then the "Please insert insult here"[/U] section would be ideal for them."
Then in the next breathe OF THE SAME POST you typed "trailer trash"(edited). Hypocrasy at it's finest.
"btw the thread is actually about IRAN (the middle east country).
If they get out of line and start to threaten world peace then get in there and sort them out."
What wrld have you been living in? They've been training Terrorists for a long time. Wait, I bet you already knew that when you posted, eh?
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Staga
Maybe you forgot that was exactly what US was trying to do before Japanese forces attacked Pearl Harbour.
Difference between US and Sweden at 1939 was that Swedes actually sent pilots and fighters to help Finland to fight against attacking Russian troops while US was sitting on its butt with thumb deep in bellybutton when the war had raged years around the world.
Maybe you forgot that the US was ecscorting convoys and giving aid to Russia and Britain before Pearl Harbor.
USN was ordered to attack Germans on sight to gaurd the convoys.
The USN escorted and TONS OF SUPPLIES , freeing British ships.
Ever here of "Lend-Lease" act?
-
Lend lease act was made in spring 1941; 1,5 years after Germany and Russia attacked Poland, 1,5years after Great Britain and France declared war on Germany and year after Germany attacked France.
Before that US sold materials to Britain but required hard currency; because of that Britain had to liquidate its assets and sell its properties in US.
Before that US was really sitting on its thumbs; sorry.
-
What the US did was pretty good, for a "nuetral" country.
besides, I thought people didn't like the US getting involved in European affairs? maybe next time we should sit out completeley, let you guys sort it all out.
-
What I want to know is when do we attack Saudi Arabia?
Been thinking this since sept 11 when they found out the majority of the hijackers were saudi..
Then the money trail (even the royal family has donated to terrorism) and now the economic warfare they are engaging us with 40-50 dollar a barrel oil thru Opec when previous prices that opec has set up (which they profit considerably even at this lower number they set it.. not the US)
was 27-30 dollars a barrel..
its pretty clear who are enemies are.. yet we attack Iraq.. Now Iran is in the crosshairs (maybe rightfully so..) and IMO it would be a mistake to hit them in preeumpt fashion.. trap them goad them and bait them.. would be more effective.
Make it clear to them.. If you or any of your fission material attack the United States or Its allies we will target you inkind with a nuclear response.. (we mean business, pull a DPRK tactic and launch a cruise missle over there borders as show of force if you want to go the sabre rattle get tough route..)
Write this in stone go thru the UN / EU / asia etc.. and hand deliver it to them.. (post the docs on the internet etc.. there will be no confusion)
Then when / if (knowing the persians it will be when) they renig on their NNPT we take all the evidence (nuclear isotopes can be tracked to their origin) take the fact we gave them fair warning and glass them in a low level response..
quite honestly though the Iranians are bold but they are not stupid... they would back down.. and reward them for the intelligent solution..
we win and gain respect by flexing our muscles and using diplomacy.. As opposed to false pretense preeumptive BS..
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by Me
"The fact that some people who post here appear unable or unwilling to formulate an argument and resort to name calling then the "Please insert insult here"[/U] section would be ideal for them.
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Then in the next breathe OF THE SAME POST you typed "trailer trash"(edited). Hypocrasy at it's finest.
[/b]
I didn't say that I wouldn't trade insults if one was offered but the insults are directed at guy who instigated the attack. If that insult is of a general nature i.e "Eurotrash" and as I don't personally know the guy then my insult needs to be general as well, such as calling an american a "redneck", which I beleive is an insult of some sort in america?.
If I knew them personaly then I could refine the insult to "yeh well your breath smells of knob cheese" or a similar statment.
I was just stating a sad fact that threads end up this way. You will find that I am not the one that usually throws the first insult though.
I've heard most of them before
Your Mom wears army boots.
My dad is bigger than your dad.
Your mother can't knit.
Your father can't walk with a rhubarb stick.. blah blah
Originally posted by Masherbrum
What wrld have you been living in? They've been training Terrorists for a long time. Wait, I bet you already knew that when you posted, eh?
Karaya
The mostly blue one that circles a burning ball of burning gas about 93,000,000 miles out, you heard of it?
You'd win that bet, I am fully aware of Iran and terrorism, however, I don't think that terrorism in itself is enough to justify a war. In a war of this kind you would ultimately overwhelm the government concerned and possibly be able to install a more favorable regime, however, it is unlikely that you would resolve the terrorist issue, unless you incarcerate the entire population. Even with the current occupation of Iraq and the vast resources of the coalition forces over there, terrorism is still a major headache for them and you could bet your bottom dollar that there are still terrorist training camps in Iraq somewhere and they're receiving funding from one source or another.
I think you'll find that at one time or another most countries have either supported or had a bias towards one terrorist organisation or another if that particular group fitted the current philosophy of that government. You'd also find that these governments saw them as freedom fighters etc.. We up for invading them all?
If you could be sure of rounding up the terrorists and only the terrorists, eliminating that group for good then round the buggers up and execute them.
If Iran start throwing nukes around or invade another country then it's a different matter.
-
Ok there has ben progress regarding this theme...
[eeke i wanted some other link.. but i cant find it now... will try later]
link is here
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050118214811F29
this is quite funny, it must piss of those who belive in terrorism
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_HOME&TYPE=HO&id=200501181348159
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050118160400F29
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050118195341F29
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
you miss understood me naso, i did not ment iranian people phisicly attack israel, but as i said in a previews post, the sponser train, and basicly have control a big part of the terrorists that attack israel.
Damnation to live in this multicultural world: communication. :)
I have tried my best to not be misunderstud.
My request was a genuine one, I simply had the doubt to have lost some direct "official" attack on Israel, lost in time, in infos, or in "filters" (local propaganda/choises of news networks).
Yes, because I am the first to fear to be myself victim of propaganda (or whatever new cover name you want to give it), stance that many of the posters here would have some advantage to assume.
Back on the quote:
I understand now.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
we are at "defactco war" with Iran now... it is only a matter of time before it becomes public.
Do you support Bush starting a "defacto war" without Congressional approval?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I googled this and all 207 related articles refer to one New Yorker magazine article written by reporter Seymour Hersh, with undisputable evidence like "a sourse close to the pentagon"
I guess we are all just going to take this guy's word for it.
I thought we all learned something about taking information at face value with the WMD thing.
At least Colin had photographs and charts.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I guess we are all just going to take this guy's word for it.
I thought we all learned something about taking information at face value with the WMD thing.
What WMD thing ?
-
Grunherz: how will you Euros deal with having to wear the pants for once
Well quite apparently SOME of the euros had pants enough to force YOU into a rubber dingy enroute to America. :lol
Christ this guy.. He escapes his homecountry with the tail between his legs and shreaks from behind the fence like he took over Iraq all by himself.
Unbelievable.
-
I left a few years before the war because my father sought better opportunities in the USA, so your pathetic and rather disguisting attempt at insult misfires. But it's nice to know that you think europeans should be proud of "wearing the pants" because they started yet another war of racial holocaust, conquest and annhilation where some 250,000 people - most of them innocent women and children - were shot, starved blown up or killed in other greusome ways...
Yea that was just great, go europe!!! Real accomplishment of responsible european ways there... Really something to be proud of to be "wearing the pants."
As for you personally siaf, well what else is there to say except:
You think its a great idea to :lol <--- at the deaths of 250,000 people!!!
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
but, but, but....
if iran is only pretending to hate israel, why does she send, sponser and train terrorists?
muhehehe.... ehmmm where did you read that Iran sponsore terrorist?
Its as objetive statement as fact, that US is full of terrorist (viz. idiot who were sending antrax etc.... )
So basicaly if you see things that easy, that you can claim "iran support terrorist" , then its true, that " US support terrorist"
Better dont post your source of information, because if you have it from same source like info about Iraq, i will go probably rofl
-
But it's nice to know that you think europeans should be proud of "wearing the pants" because they started yet another war of racial holocaust, conquest and annhilation where some 250,000 people - most of them innocent women and children - were shot, starved blown up or killed in other greusome ways...
I just wanted to remind people of your own origin. Don't get me wrong Grunherz I have nothing personal against you, really. I just detest the way you position yourself above others by the simple fact that you moved to another country. Sadly it doesn't change who you are or where you come from. So get off your high horse, while you pathetically try to insult Europe you insult yourself.
The attrocities were committed by your nation, not mine. And you're right, they truly are nothing to laugh about.
Your stance, however, is.
-
I dont deny my heritage, where do you get that idea? I accept all the good and bad about it, how can I not?
My posts dealt with europe taking on a greater military leadership responsibilty in the UN as the independant EU army grows. You will note, however, that YOU made a big deal about europeans wearing pants because some got delusions of genocidal grandeur yet again. I thought it was sick.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Moronic use of tanks? This was the "Tanktactics" used by most countrys at that time. But, its easy to talk, when you can read a history book 60 years after. And, if you didīnt know it "blixtkieg was an inovation to tactics, made by the Germans.
If you didn't know it, "blixtkieg" was not invented by the Germans. The theories and tactics came from B.H. Lidell Hart, a Brit. Unfortunately, only Guderian truly understood them at the time. He may have built the Blitzkrieg, but he didn't invent it.
French tanks were superior at the time. The Panzer Mk1 was supposed to be a training tank. However their tactics were flawed, using them as almost individual infantry support, spread out across the front, instead of the armored spearhead we know & love.
...but don't get your panties in a bunch. American tanks sucked even at the end of the war, and the US tank destroyer doctrine was a very dismal failure.
-
For those who count that US army could invade Iran from 2 sides.... ummm (http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_HOME&TYPE=HP&id=200501200437329)
one more interesting link (http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050119160045F30)
but this one made me realy rofl :D
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050120201538F01
-
Well Grun as you might or might not remember the disaster personally touches me too (through marriage of a relative) so I don't think it's a laughing matter.
Wasn't nice to lose a familymember. He was also one of the funnyest guys I've known. Shot by Serb artillery while shopping in the city.
Anyway, to me your views seem awfully harsh sometimes. I know I could never think the way you're thinking.
Edit: Lada do you seriously think that the Afghans could do more than just 'firmly protest' if the US army wanted to stomp the presidential palace let alone pass through the country? :rolleyes:
-
Which views exactly?
-
I meant your general stance towards europe. You really give the impression that you hate everything it stands for.
Am I right or am I right?
Hey it's no Disneyland.. but still?
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Edit: Lada do you seriously think that the Afghans could do more than just 'firmly protest' if the US army wanted to stomp the presidential palace let alone pass through the country? :rolleyes:
Yes i belive, that US can not enter afghanistan and use it for attacking another country, specialy, while UN forces are in.
Do you think that your leaders should ignore will of democratic republic of afghanistan ? :D
-
Nah, there's lots I like about europe. In fact I see myself as a European patriot who is concerned about the political/moral direction the continent is taking.
-
Well that's good to hear Grun.
Lada: I might be wrong but I consider Afghanistan an occupied country at the moment. Sure it has the new government - which owes it's existence to the U.S.
I seriously doubt that anything would happen if the push came to shove.
Maybe an UN resolution which would get vetoed by the U.S. :D
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Lada: I might be wrong but I consider Afghanistan an occupied country at the moment. Sure it has the new government - which owes it's existence to the U.S.
Seccurity forces in afghanistan belongs to UN and US handed it to UN some 3 year ago or so.
http://www.unama-afg.org/about/index.html#mandate
-
So WOW! Unbelievable!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Do you support Bush starting a "defacto war" without Congressional approval?
The president cannot declare war, he can only ask for a declaration of war from Congress. The last time a state of war was declared was on Japan. Germany declared war on the U.S. (not exactly the sharpest pencils in the box I guess). Bush ask for and recieved (Under the war powers act) authority for military action against Iraq. The WMD's was only one of several reasons for this. After Iraq's defeat in the 90's they agreed to a CEASE FIRE if certain conditions where met,among these was a northern and southern NO FLY ZONE to be patroled by coalition aircraft. And weapons inspectors would have unlimited access to any where they chose to search. After eight years of fireing on our aircraft (a violation of the cease fire agreement) as well as throwing the inspectors out of the country (another violation of the cease fire. and 16,356 UN resolutions informing Sadass to knock it off or they'll pass another resolution, action was taken. If Iran where to participate in any way with hostile activites against the Iraqi government (I'll let you come up with a definition,I can think of dozens) We will provide Freedom to the Iranian people.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nah, there's lots I like about europe. In fact I see myself as a European patriot who is concerned about the political/moral direction the continent is taking.
umm how much time did you spend in Europe in past years, that you have so good overview about europian directions ?
btw what directions do you mean, coz there are huge diferences among europian countries
-
Originally posted by Scaevola
Perhaps I should have added the sarcastic roll eyes to the end of
"Please insert insult here"[/U]
statement for it to be taken in the context that it was meant.
The fact that some people who post here appear unable or unwilling to formulate an argument and resort to name calling then the "Please insert insult here"[/U] section would be ideal for them.
p.s I don't have a sword, can I fall on the butter knife instead?
btw the thread is actually about IRAN (the middle east country).
If they get out of line and start to threaten world peace then get in there and sort them out.
I like the "Please insert insult here" proposal.
But I would also like to have (in addition to 'smilies') a full set of 'Hatees' for some guys. :mad: :mad: :mad:
And BTW when talking about IRAN it's always fun to remind some dudes about GERMAN-POLISH NON-AGRESSION PACT of 1934, BELGIUM's DECLARATION of NEUTRALITY of 1936, COPENHAGEN DECLARATION of NEUTRALITY (SWEDEN, BELGIUM, DENMARK, NORWAY, FINLAND, ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA) of July 1938.
:D :D :D