Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raider179 on January 27, 2005, 12:44:53 PM
-
Well here is one way bush can get us into a war with Iran. Make them shoot first. Then he can use that to justify whatever he is gonna liberate next...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050126-iran-game.htm
Who know the authenticity but given what our military does regarding testing of radar capability this is nothing beyond the scope of possibility. Get a couple Iranian missile sites to launch at U.S. aircraft and all of a sudden you've got reasons to escalate and escalate and then bingo liberation time. Only time will tell...
-
What's the exact "spot" this confrontation occured?
-
"The flights, which have been going on for weeks, are being launched from sites in Afghanistan and Iraq"
"To collect badly needed intelligence on the ground about Iran's alleged nuclear program, the United States is depending heavily on Israeli-trained teams of Kurds in northern Iraq and on U.S.-trained teams of former Iranian exiles in the south to gather the intelligence needed for possible strikes against Iran's 13 or more suspected nuclear sites, according to serving and retired U.S. intelligence officials"
Iran not exact enough? lol
Notice in my first post I said no telling on credibility
-
This approach has certainly worked in the past for us..
-
If American aircraft were violating Iranian airspace I would think the Iranian gov't would be screaming bloody murder in the UN by now.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
If American aircraft were violating Iranian airspace I would think the Iranian gov't would be screaming bloody murder in the UN by now.
Yep good point elfie. But there has been a lot more threatening between us and them over the last 2 weeks. I think Iran cares about as much about the U.N. as we do.
-
I say we attack N-Korea. NK is powerfull than Iran and we wont have to face "complications" like we did in Iraq-2.
-
imagine Iran airforce would fly very close around your border,
thats the usual "game" until some site gets a bloody nose.
-
I think the real question is: How are we going to get a Korean Airliner over there?
:confused:
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Raider179
"The flights, which have been going on for weeks, are being launched from sites in Afghanistan and Iraq"
"To collect badly needed intelligence on the ground about Iran's alleged nuclear program, the United States is depending heavily on Israeli-trained teams of Kurds in northern Iraq and on U.S.-trained teams of former Iranian exiles in the south to gather the intelligence needed for possible strikes against Iran's 13 or more suspected nuclear sites, according to serving and retired U.S. intelligence officials"
Iran not exact enough? lol
Notice in my first post I said no telling on credibility
Yup...nukes in the hands of Ayatollahs....why not? That would be a good thing.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
imagine Iran airforce would fly very close around your border,
thats the usual "game" until some site gets a bloody nose.
That link says American aircraft are actually violating Iranian airspace. Not just flying very close to the border in the hopes of provoking the Iranians.
-
Were's Lada to tell us the Iran is a peacfull country with no ties to terrorism or Nuclear Weapons????
This is a smart move if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
That link says American aircraft are actually violating Iranian airspace. Not just flying very close to the border in the hopes of provoking the Iranians.
Thats simple .. If iranian will shot them down, they can simply deny it.
So what can US do ? .. It can cry that Iranian army shot down their airplane, while it were voilaiting their airspace..... so what ... Iran will simply Deny it.... What will you do then ?
And even if they will accept it, nothing will happen.. just US will bash how deadly terrorist they are... and they will try to lift up some sanctions.
Its more that clear, that US doesnt have money or power to attack Iran, coz its not 3rd world country.
Actualy what about another 80$ bil. for Iraq and Afhanistan ? ... Did congress already approve it ? Us have so bad debts and economy is going down, that attack on non 3rd world country would damege US economy a lot more.
Specialy, when nobody in the world support this idea and its so clear whos agressive in this game.
But i agree that peace in the middle east will be greate tragedy for US military industry (whitch has no lobby in goverment and is absolutly w/o corruption.
Like when US gov. donate 400$ mil. to Israel and israel buy weapons from US companies worth 300$ mil. weak after :D
Im wondering if there is a tender for weapon deals.
IN NAME OF SECURITY.
amen
just IMO
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Were's Lada to tell us the Iran is a peacfull country with no ties to terrorism or Nuclear Weapons????
This is a smart move if you ask me.
lol i were writing :cool:
edit: this post was so empty so i will add one more thing..
Iran claimed 6 months ago or so, that they will make China (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050126-china-oil.htm) their bigger Oil costumer instead of Japan. [ wow friend of US is biggest costumer of Evil islamist regime ... shameful]
-
Originally posted by lada
Thats simple .. If iranian will shot them down, they can simply deny it.
So what can US do ? .. It can cry that Iranian army shot down their airplane, while it were voilaiting their airspace..... so what ... Iran will simply Deny it.... What will you do then ?
And even if they will accept it, nothing will happen.. just US will bash how deadly terrorist they are... and they will try to lift up some sanctions.
Its more that clear, that US doesnt have money or power to attack Iran, coz its not 3rd world country.
Actualy what about another 80$ bil. for Iraq and Afhanistan ? ... Did congress already approve it ? Us have so bad debts and economy is going down, that attack on non 3rd world country would damege US economy a lot more.
Specialy, when nobody in the world support this idea and its so clear whos agressive in this game.
But i agree that peace in the middle east will be greate tragedy for US military industry (whitch has no lobby in goverment and is absolutly w/o corruption.
Like when US gov. donate 400$ mil. to Israel and israel buy weapons from US companies worth 300$ mil. weak after :D
Im wondering if there is a tender for weapon deals.
IN NAME OF SECURITY.
amen
just IMO
actually our economy is still growing. Orders for durable goods were up and it was stated if you took out airplanes and cars its up to the highest level since 1984 IIRC.
Not saying I want war with Iran though, I really don't.
-
Apparently the US already made the first move.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
actually our economy is still growing. Orders for durable goods were up and it was stated if you took out airplanes and cars its up to the highest level since 1984 IIRC.
Well but so do your debt. And your currency is loosing in long term. Well im not ecconomist, but i would fear to invest to US right now.
That remind me our previous goverment.
They made our debt 10x bigger in 6 years...
Then they pointed on graph and they said... look our economy is bigger it grow.... However theres something smelly around... no money for that , no money for that.... and so on.
But im sure that we have some skilled economist among us, who could tell us more.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050126-iran-game.htm
from that link
They claimed the Kurds operating from Kurdistan, in areas they control. The second group, working from the south, is the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, listed by the State Department as a terrorist group, operating from southern Iraq, these sources said.
*bush mode on*
FREEEDOOOOM ... DEAD TO TERRORISSMM >.. TERRORIST ARE EVIL
WAR ON TERRORISM >>WAAAAAAAAAARRRR WE ARE AT WAAARRR ON TERRORISM ... TERRORIST ARE AFTER YOU !!!! BE OBEY, SHUT UP AND WATCH EVIL ISLAMIST TERRORIST
*bush mode off*
* 1st bushs advisor *
dammmm ... whitch bloody idiot put those freedom fighters on that list ?
* 1st bushs advisor off *
*orel mode on*
anyway thx for link :D
-
Its more that clear, that US doesnt have money or power to attack Iran, coz its not 3rd world country.
Don't kid yourself
-
Originally posted by Rude
Don't kid yourself
well thats your opinion.... i rather read your opinion about cooperating with terrorist
-
Originally posted by lada
well thats your opinion.... i rather read your opinion about cooperating with terrorist
LMAO....that's funny!
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Well here is one way bush can get us into a war with Iran. Make them shoot first. Then he can use that to justify whatever he is gonna liberate next...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050126-iran-game.htm
Who know the authenticity but given what our military does regarding testing of radar capability this is nothing beyond the scope of possibility. Get a couple Iranian missile sites to launch at U.S. aircraft and all of a sudden you've got reasons to escalate and escalate and then bingo liberation time. Only time will tell...
That is the most asinine thing ever.
-
I think the US could take out Iran, and we probably will if they wont give up the nuclear program.
Some don't understand, I don't think. We are not playing games anymore.
I know that's flame bait, but it's what I feel. We are in a real war and it's probably WWIII.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I think the US could take out Iran, and we probably will if they wont give up the nuclear program.
Some don't understand, I don't think. We are not playing games anymore.
I know that's flame bait, but it's what I feel. We are in a real war and it's probably WWIII.
I hate to say it but I think you hit it on the head nuke.
-
I'll be sure to read your book when it's all over, Nuke. I'm sure you'll get all the details right.
-
What I find interesting is that lots of people criticized Bush for calling Iran a member of the "Axis of Evil"
They say it only inflames the Iranians and Muslims, yet don't even blink an eye when Iran's government has been calling us the "Great Satan" for years.
Don't they say stuff like "death to America", Great Satan" and call us"infidels" and the people in the US write it all off and consider it a part of Arab culture......a culture we need to "understand" ???
Well, now these nutjobs are not just talking.....they are trying to get nukes.....and guess what? It's game time, in case anyone doesn't already know that.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
I'll be sure to read your book when it's all over, Nuke. I'm sure you'll get all the details right.
What solution would you offer in dealing with the situation in Iran?
1. leave them alone, they have a right to build a nuclear deterent
2. let the EU and UN have time to work out a solution
3. other?
-
Originally posted by Rude
Yup...nukes in the hands of Ayatollahs....why not? That would be a good thing.
it's not for YOU to determine WHO gets WHAT...
You do not control the WORLD, even though you THINK you should...
Deflate that oversized ego of yours would you...
damn I hate control freaks
-
Originally posted by SLO
it's not for YOU to determine WHO gets WHAT...
You do not control the WORLD, even though you THINK you should...
Deflate that oversized ego of yours would you...
damn I hate control freaks
SLO, the world, since the history of man, has been ruled by force.
So, it is up to us to decide if we will let a powder keg like Iran get nukes. It's simple logic, life and death. We cannot risk letting Iran have nukes. It's sad , but very true.
We have the power to stop them from doing something that could threaten us, and we will use it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I think the US could take out Iran, and we probably will if they wont give up the nuclear program.
Some don't understand, I don't think. We are not playing games anymore.
I know that's flame bait, but it's what I feel. We are in a real war and it's probably WWIII.
That's exactly it Nuke, the US is at WAR, some people just cant understand that. You're also correct that we are not playing games anymore. We have a big stick, and we are swinging it.....no idea how it's all gonna turn out though.
-
Main reason I think we can take iran is because it doesnt have to be a war of occupation. We would simply bomb them until we were satisfied they were no longer a threat. Question is how that gonna get sold to us? Like the title of the thread, if Iran takes the first shot, most of America is not gonna have much of a problem with giving them a Knockout punch.
-
I have no solution. I'm waiting on your book to tell me how it went.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Main reason I think we can take iran is because it doesnt have to be a war of occupation. We would simply bomb them until we were satisfied they were no longer a threat. Question is how that gonna get sold to us? Like the title of the thread, if Iran takes the first shot, most of America is not gonna have much of a problem with giving them a Knockout punch.
When we take out Iran, not if, the reason given will not be to say that we are simply responding to Iran shooting down a plane.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
I have no solution. I'm waiting on your book to tell me how it went.
well, do at least have any ideas you can share? I have ideas that I'm not afraid to share.
Or would you rather sit on your hands and hope it will somehow all turn out alright?
My book is not a fortune telling novel, it's about the verifiable and historical facts which lead to the second gulf war.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Well here is one way bush can get us into a war with Iran. Make them shoot first. Then he can use that to justify whatever he is gonna liberate next...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050126-iran-game.htm
Who know the authenticity but given what our military does regarding testing of radar capability this is nothing beyond the scope of possibility. Get a couple Iranian missile sites to launch at U.S. aircraft and all of a sudden you've got reasons to escalate and escalate and then bingo liberation time. Only time will tell...
Assuming you could sell the deception of course, but if you control the information it makes it a tad easier...just inbed some fox news reporters and bingo "instant credibility"...well at least with your core voting block.
However most of the time these things are seen through for what they are, mind you after the dust has settled of course. And considering the wonderful world we live in where govt.s can all just explain it away and exclaim "well it's too late now", or my favourite "the ends justify the means" to explain it's dubious actions.
Originally posted by Elfie
That's exactly it Nuke, the US is at WAR, some people just cant understand that. You're also correct that we are not playing games anymore. We have a big stick, and we are swinging it.....no idea how it's all gonna turn out though.
Must be good to be at war with no-one and everyone
Tronsky
-
Tronsky, I feel I have a realistic view of the situation.
I feel that nobody wants Iran to aquire nuclear weapons, yet no one is going to do anything to stop them......other than the US or maybe Israel.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Tronsky, I feel I have a realistic view of the situation.
I feel that nobody wants Iran to aquire nuclear weapons, yet no one is going to do anything to stop them......other than the US or maybe Israel.
Perhaps, but I can't see Blair, or us being involved in any widening of the conflict to include Iran especially involving another WMD issue...
Tronsky
-
Make sure to write another one after WWIII's done. That'll help me keep track of what happened.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
Make sure to write another one after WWIII's done. That'll help me keep track of what happened.
What sources would you rely on to tell you what happened?
Now If I write a book, it's going to be full of verifiable facts and logical expressions as they pertain to the actual facts.
-
Naw, war with Iran, NK, would just be too costly in both dollars and people. The best defense against an organized attack is the very threat of wiping them out.
I'd say Iran is more interested in gaining nuke status as that would make our invasion of their country less likely. What if Iran got a few nukes? They'd dare not use them. They might be able to put major hurt on one of our cities, but that would open the door of our turning all of Iran into glass.
No, the time of sabre rattling is over. The time for opening diplomatic relations and dialogue is long over due.
The risks are too great.
LOL, some of you crack me up. Here we are, the most powerful nation in the history of the earth, and you're afraid of Iran? NK? Saddam's Iraq? Libya? Cuba?
My goodness, how did you ever sleep at night when the Soviet Union was at its peak?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
LOL, some of you crack me up. Here we are, the most powerful nation in the history of the earth, and you're afraid of Iran? NK? Saddam's Iraq? Libya? Cuba?
My goodness, how did you ever sleep at night when the Soviet Union was at its peak?
Why do you say "you're" when referencing your own country.
The Logic is simple. We are not "afraid" of Iran. Iran is a threat that we cannot allow to develope. We have the power to prevent them from getting nukes, and we will use it.
It's pretty simple.
They do not compair to the USSR by the way.
-
define THREAT to you Nuke...
remember them 15 people who were from Saudi Arabia and decided to ram a plane into a building...
Saudi A. is a threat...not Iran
yet you decided to invade Iraq...
talk about confusion
-
Originally posted by SLO
define THREAT to you Nuke...
remember them 15 people who were from Saudi Arabia and decided to ram a plane into a building...
Saudi A. is a threat...not Iran
Okay SA is a threat? What threat are they? They gonna officially sponser 15 more people to try and hijack airliners? No, the are not a threat as a nation.
Slow, what do you feel about Iran getting nuclear weapons? Do you think it's okay for Iran to have them?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why do you say "you're" when referencing your own country.
The Logic is simple. We are not "afraid" of Iran. Iran is a threat that we cannot allow to develope. We have the power to prevent them from getting nukes, and we will use it.
It's pretty simple.
They do not compair to the USSR by the way.
I say "you're" because I don't fear them, with or without nukes.
I never feared China either and they were/are a much bigger threat than Iran, NK, etc ever will be. Used to be the Chinese regarded the US as evil imperialists. Since our opening and improving our dilomatic/business relations, we get along rather well.
"You're", I'm referring to those here that discuss so easily and freely of wiping out sovereign nations that really don't seriously threaten us.
-
Saudi Arabia is not pursuing nuclear technology and the government of Saudi Arabia did not endorse the attack on 9/11.
-
The US is overflying to find out if they are too late and Iran has nukes. If they have nukes its way to late to attack them.
If Japan or Germany had developed nuclear weapons even in early 1945, the US would have accepted a cease fire. Imediatly.
so ends nuclear non proliferation. It was a usefull super power tool while it lasted.
-
SaburoS
I dont fear any other nation, but that doesn't mean we will not hesitate to take out a threat.
Iran with nukes is a threat. We will take them out rather than risk trusting them with nukes. There is too much at risk.
NK is another problem....but NK already has nukes, thanks to Carter's meddling and Clinton's ignorance.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The US is overflying to find out if they are too late and Iran has nukes. If they have nukes its way to late to attack them.
If Japan or Germany had developed nuclear weapons even in early 1945, the US would have accepted a cease fire. Imediatly.
Really?
Germany and Japan could not touch the US . How could they bomb the US?
Of course, the US was about 2o years ahead of them with the A-Bomb anyway.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
SaburoS
I dont fear any other nation, but that doesn't mean I will not hesitate to take out a threat.
Iran with nukes is a threat. We will take them out rather than risk trusting them with nukes. There is too much at risk.
NK is another problem....but NK already has nukes, thanks to Carter's meddling and Clinton's ignorance.
Proving my point. Exactly why Iran wants nukes. Without the nukes, the risk is great that we will attack them. That's the reason we won't attack NK.
LOL, yeah, it's all the dems fault! They are responsible for the world's ills! The god-fearing, freedom loving Republicans are the world's savior (whether the world wants it or not)! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Proving my point. Exactly why Iran wants nukes. Without the nukes, the risk is great that we will attack them. That's the reason we won't attack NK.
LOL, yeah, it's all the dems fault! They are responsible for the world's ills! The god-fearing, freedom loving Republicans are the world's savior (whether the world wants it or not)! :rolleyes:
You're being dumb.
Iran trying to get nukes is the main reason we would attack them. If Iran didn't have it's nuke program, we would never consider attacking them. Are you sane? When did the US ever threaten Iran before?
The reason Iran will be attacked is BECAUSE they are deleloping nuclear weapons.
And NK getting Nukes is a direct result of Clinton trusting NK and allowing Carter to make a deal with them...trusting them.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
When did the US ever threaten Iran before?
Maybe not directly by the military, but there is this ...
1953 ... CIA and British Intellegence sponsored coup installs the Shah.
-
Iran can't hit US soil...with or without nukes
therefore Iran is NOT a threat to you, it only threatens your NATIONAL INTEREST in that particular region.
And I'd be more scared of SA because you do TRUST em more then you do any other nation in the region...
SA is the center of Muslim religion...hence the more fanatical resource pool...
keep your friends close and your enemies even closer...(well something close to that)
-
We know how Iran must be treated, and I hope America does it right.
-
Originally posted by SLO
... I'd be more scared of SA because...
Iran has just as much ability to hit US soil as Saudi Arabia has, why do you consider SA a threat?
Is it because Islamic extremism is only in SA?
(http://www.superseventies.com/1979news.gif)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Iran has just as much ability to hit US soil as Saudi Arabia has, why do you consider SA a threat?
Is it because Islamic extremism is only in SA?
(http://www.superseventies.com/1979news.gif)
good point, but to me the 15 from SA proved to me there resolution to execute such actions...
Iran and SA do not have the ability to strike US soil...militaraly speaking.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
We know how Iran must be treated, and I hope America does it right.
no you don't...and I hope America does the right thing and STAY out of Iran
-
I really have to wonder which country is bigger threat to world peace: Iran or USA ?
Looks like whole nation should take Prozacs and Valiums and sit down for a while...
-
Originally posted by SLO
no you don't...and I hope America does the right thing and STAY out of Iran
Yes I do.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes I do.
Vietnam taught you nothing...
Iraq is teaching you nothing...
your ignorance must be bliss Grun, cause you sure ain't thinking about the young boys doing the fighting and the dieing.
-
What do you know about what I want the USA to do about those mullahs in Iran?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What do you know about what I want the USA to do about those mullahs in Iran?
well you sure weren't talking about sharing a beer with em
-
Highly unlikely since muslims arent supposed drink alcohol. But do tell, what am I saying in these posts about US polcy towards Iran?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Now If I write a book, it's going to be full of verifiable facts and logical expressions as they pertain to the actual facts.
That's why I'm looking forward to it so much.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Highly unlikely since muslims arent supposed drink alcohol. But do tell, what am I saying in these posts about US polcy towards Iran?
I know about the alcohol...
well since alcohol won't work then maybe splitting a joint with em would:D
you're an open book when it comes to HOW America should DEAL with other countries...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You're being dumb.
You want to keep this discussion between you and me civil, or do you want to go down the childish road of insults?
Originally posted by NUKE
Iran trying to get nukes is the main reason we would attack them. If Iran didn't have it's nuke program, we would never consider attacking them. Are you sane? When did the US ever threaten Iran before?
The reason Iran will be attacked is BECAUSE they are deleloping nuclear weapons.
And NK getting Nukes is a direct result of Clinton trusting NK and allowing Carter to make a deal with them...trusting them.
Bush has had this hard on for Iran even before we knew of its nuke program. Remember Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech? An argument can be made that the Iranian leadership seeing what happened to Iraq (with our made up WMD charges) and subsequent invasion. If anything, we are forcing Iran's hand to develop nukes. You think NK is going to give up its nukes? No way.
Bush's recent speeches are not sitting well with Iran right now. Absolutely nothing to make them feel safe if they didn't have nukes.
BTW, Iraq will end up falling out of our set-up "democracy" and move into a theocratic "democracy" similar to Iran's. I give it one year after our full withdraw out of Iraq (provided another third party doesn't get involved such as the UN). It will be bloody. Oh yeah, most of the Iraqis hate us.
Try not to get into a "America hating" argument as my prediction is just that, not a wanting on my behalf. Too many innocent American, Allied, and Iraqis have died from this invasion/occupation that just wasn't necessary. A similar invasion and occupation of Iran will be far more costly.
I'd rather see better Iran/US diplomatic relations. Things don't have to be so black and white.
-
some people here talk about WWIII as it is something they can
finish it weekends and then live on the next monday like usual.
How far from the reality can you go!?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Bush has had this hard on for Iran even before we knew of its nuke program. Remember Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech? An argument can be made that the Iranian leadership seeing what happened to Iraq (with our made up WMD charges) and subsequent invasion. If anything, we are forcing Iran's hand to develop nukes.
In the late 1980s, a consortium of companies from Argentina, Germany and Spain submitted a proposal to Iran to complete the Bushehr-1 reactor, but huge pressure by the US stopped the deal. The US pressure also stopped in 1990 Spain's National Institute of Industry and Nuclear Equipment to complete the Bushehr project. Iran also tried, unsuccessfully, to procure components for the Bushehr reactors, but her attempts were blunted by the US. For example, in 1993, Iran tried to acquire eight steam condensers, built by the Italian firm Ansaldo under the Kraftwerk Union contract, but they were seized by the Italian government. The Czech firm Skoda Plzen also discussed supplying reactor components to Iran, but, under the US pressure, negotiations were cancelled in 1994. Iran was also not successful in her attempt to buy nuclear power reactor components from an unfinished reactor of Polland. We have known about Iran's nuclear ambitions for a few decades.
BTW, Iraq will end up falling out of our set-up "democracy" and move into a theocratic "democracy" similar to Iran's.
[/b]
According to polls, 39% prefer western style parlimentary democracy, 29% prefer a 'shura' Islamic system, 10% prefer an Iranian style theocracy. the remaining is divided among SA style kingdom, a contitutional monarcy, a pakistani sytle islamic democracy, and a few others.
Oh yeah, most of the Iraqis hate us.
[/b]
Forty percent of Arabs say it was right for the United States to invade; that soars to 87 percent of Kurds. 75% say that they would feel a lack of security were the American forces to decide to leave the country.
-
Attacking Iran next are we?
You will only be happy when we'll all glow in the dark, is that it?
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
some people here talk about WWIII as it is something they can
finish it weekends and then live on the next monday like usual.
How far from the reality can you go!?
-
subaru... I am not afraid of little pissant countries with nukes.. What is the worst they can do? lower the population of some blue counties in the U.S. before the next election?
As for lada.... I think that his "hairly women who smell like camels all covered in black blankets" fetish is getting the best of him.
lazs
-
Preamble: Lada is ignored, so I got this from Rude's post.
"Its more that clear, that US doesnt have money or power to attack Iran, coz its not 3rd world country. "
Lada, you're a tool. A dull, and dumb one at that.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
You want to keep this discussion between you and me civil, or do you want to go down the childish road of insults?
Bush has had this hard on for Iran even before we knew of its nuke program. Remember Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech? An argument can be made that the Iranian leadership seeing what happened to Iraq (with our made up WMD charges) and subsequent invasion. If anything, we are forcing Iran's hand to develop nukes. You think NK is going to give up its nukes? No way.
Bush's recent speeches are not sitting well with Iran right now. Absolutely nothing to make them feel safe if they didn't have nukes.
BTW, Iraq will end up falling out of our set-up "democracy" and move into a theocratic "democracy" similar to Iran's. I give it one year after our full withdraw out of Iraq (provided another third party doesn't get involved such as the UN). It will be bloody. Oh yeah, most of the Iraqis hate us.
Try not to get into a "America hating" argument as my prediction is just that, not a wanting on my behalf. Too many innocent American, Allied, and Iraqis have died from this invasion/occupation that just wasn't necessary. A similar invasion and occupation of Iran will be far more costly.
I'd rather see better Iran/US diplomatic relations. Things don't have to be so black and white.
Why blame Bush?
I remember Iran allowing Iraq fighters to be brought into Iran, back in Operation Desert Storm.
Black and White?
All I get out of this current endeavor in Iraq is an "often overlooked" realization that the countries pissed off at the US for invading, were the one's PROFITING from Saddam being in POWER.
Sure, take the p**sy way out and bash Bush. Don't bash the UN system that allowed this "profiteering" in the first place. Don't blame the UN for sending weapons inspectors that couldn't find their Mont Blanc pens. Some of these countries lost some "free money" to cash in on, now that gravytrain isn't around.
Some of you are so f**king typecast it is pathetic.
Btw, SaburoS, you disgrace Pat Tillman.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
We know how Iran must be treated, and I hope America does it right.
Im probably to simple to know it.
Would you be so kind and explain me, how shall be Iran treated ?
-
Originally posted by Staga
I really have to wonder which country is bigger threat to world peace: Iran or USA ?
Looks like whole nation should take Prozacs and Valiums and sit down for a while...
LOL :rofl
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
were the one's PROFITING from Saddam being in POWER.
Do you mean Iran ?
If you realy think, that Iran were profitin from SH goverment, could you explain us how and post some links please.
And be so kind and exclude those 8 years of profit, when Iraq had war with Iran and US supplied weapons to both countries... and acidentaly shot down Iranian civil airliner.
-
Originally posted by SLO
it's not for YOU to determine WHO gets WHAT...
You do not control the WORLD, even though you THINK you should...
Deflate that oversized ego of yours would you...
damn I hate control freaks
You should just get over it.
Like I've said before...we'll do what we feel is necessary to protect our interest and the likes of you will benefit from our sacrifice for free...nothing new.
You've become such a whiney little fella...what happened to you anyway?
-
Originally posted by SLO
I know about the alcohol...
well since alcohol won't work then maybe splitting a joint with em would:D
you're an open book when it comes to HOW America should DEAL with other countries...
What exactly do you think the Iran chaper says?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Idiot. If the Germans and Japanese had A-bombs in early 1945 your European expeditionary army would disappear (along with France), your European air forces would disappear (along with Britain), your Pacific fleet would disappear (along with a few Kamikazes and a few tiny islands). After that it would be just a matter of building a few JU388's and America herself would be in danger.
and of course, Iran could not possibly concieve of a way to deliver a nuclear device on an American target.
Remember....as much as it might annoy you and others on this board...Isreal is enough reason to keep nukes out of the hands of middle eastern extremists.
Which would you prefer? Smaller preventative ops into Iran or Syria.....or would you prefer the US response to a nuclear blast on US soil? I assure you, the price of the latter scenario would be much greater.....your call.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Maybe not directly by the military, but there is this ...
1953 ... CIA and British Intellegence sponsored coup installs the Shah.
Yeah .. so US supported dictator instead of renew Republic of Iran, whitch existed before.
And installed Shah did everything what US wanted him to do, he were in fact dictator, coz he never listen to his people. So US spoiled Iran with a big smile so long, that people had to make another revolution, coz level of curruption installed by US were terrible.
Poor US ... only 2 of 4 proUS doctatorship regimes left in ME (SA, Pakistan)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Remember....as much as it might annoy you and others on this board...Isreal is enough reason to keep nukes out of the hands of middle eastern extremists.
huh ... and how are middle eastern extremists related to Iran ?
( please do not post all those cool Iranian-terrorist connections from US TV serials. )
-
Originally posted by lada
huh ... and how are middle eastern extremists related to Iran ?
( please do not post all those cool Iranian-terrorist connections from US TV serials. )
Ya know, as much as some on this board, who btw have never met me nor do they know me, would like to label me some right wing nut, I wish so badly that the folks, just the normal guys and gals would get to know the truth about each other.
I know for a fact, that Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian folks just want to live a life where they can love, protect and provide for those they care for...where folks can just live in peace....no different than their US counterparts.
Problem is, whether you choose to believe it or not, a few people in power along with those they can pursuade to follow them, have a design for not only the disruption of US policies, but the control of their own people by force....they operate by hatred and are fueled by religious doctrine that they have twisted and perverted to serve their desired end.
It's a good world full of beautiful creations and people...problem is, evil is tangible and not theoretical....history spells out the game...the players simple change over time.
To answer your question, there are those in the Iranian government who have had designs on first, control of the middle east, secondly, supporting terror networks in multiple countries for the purpose of destabilizing western policy in the middle east. It's simple a fact.
It's the folks that are innocent and the folks that will pay for all of it in the end.
This American hopes that someday it will get better for all of us, especially the folks in the middle east....my kids have a squabble with a friend in school and they define it as a bad day....every day in the middle east and many other places in this world, life deals out REAL problems that bring REAL pain and suffering.
I've said enough.....later
-
Before you take the speck from your neighbours eye take the plank from your own.
How in the hell can any country with enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the planet, tell others they shouldn't have them. HYPOCRITES.
But hey, yeeeha lets have another war boys! Then we can send more American and British men and women to be killed and shoot the hell out of foreigners. Oh and it'll help the military industrial complex make a few more millions as well.
Just plain bloody stupid!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Rude
Ya know, as much as some on this board, who btw have never met me nor do they know me, would like to label me some right wing nut, I wish so badly that the folks, just the normal guys and gals would get to know the truth about each other.
I know for a fact, that Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian folks just want to live a life where they can love, protect and provide for those they care for...where folks can just live in peace....no different than their US counterparts.
Problem is, whether you choose to believe it or not, a few people in power along with those they can pursuade to follow them, have a design for not only the disruption of US policies, but the control of their own people by force....they operate by hatred and are fueled by religious doctrine that they have twisted and perverted to serve their desired end.
It's a good world full of beautiful creations and people...problem is, evil is tangible and not theoretical....history spells out the game...the players simple change over time.
To answer your question, there are those in the Iranian government who have had designs on first, control of the middle east, secondly, supporting terror networks in multiple countries for the purpose of destabilizing western policy in the middle east. It's simple a fact.
It's the folks that are innocent and the folks that will pay for all of it in the end.
This American hopes that someday it will get better for all of us, especially the folks in the middle east....my kids have a squabble with a friend in school and they define it as a bad day....every day in the middle east and many other places in this world, life deals out REAL problems that bring REAL pain and suffering.
I've said enough.....later
Rude, well written but I have to ask. If you could remove yourself, just for one minute, from the patriotism you feel for america; could you then transpose America for Iran and vice versa in your text and it still hold true?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Why blame Bush?
I remember Iran allowing Iraq fighters to be brought into Iran, back in Operation Desert Storm.
Black and White?
All I get out of this current endeavor in Iraq is an "often overlooked" realization that the countries pissed off at the US for invading, were the one's PROFITING from Saddam being in POWER.
Sure, take the p**sy way out and bash Bush. Don't bash the UN system that allowed this "profiteering" in the first place. Don't blame the UN for sending weapons inspectors that couldn't find their Mont Blanc pens. Some of these countries lost some "free money" to cash in on, now that gravytrain isn't around.
Some of you are so f**king typecast it is pathetic.
Btw, SaburoS, you disgrace Pat Tillman.
Karaya
LOL, it was a response to Nuke's blaming it squarely on Clinton and Carter. As far as typecasting, where is your criticism of Reagan and HWB as far as dealings with Iraq? Yet you want to blame this one on the UN and "some of these countries".
Look in the mirror when you talk about pathetic typecasting.
No, it is the warmongering "wipe them out because they could be a threat" crowd that are a disgrace to Pat Tillman's memory. He's dead because of some misguided administration officials that put these wars in motion. He'd be alive today as well as many of the casualties in those wars.
Disgrace? Look again in the mirror.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
No, it is the warmongering "wipe them out because they could be a threat" crowd that are a disgrace to Pat Tillman's memory. He's dead because of some misguided administration officials that put these wars in motion. He'd be alive today as well as many of the casualties in those wars.
Disgrace? Look again in the mirror.
IIRC Tillman died in Afghanistan. Are you saying that the Afghanistan war after 911 was a misguided policy choice?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In the late 1980s, a consortium of companies from Argentina, Germany and Spain submitted a proposal to Iran to complete the Bushehr-1 reactor, but huge pressure by the US stopped the deal. The US pressure also stopped in 1990 Spain's National Institute of Industry and Nuclear Equipment to complete the Bushehr project. Iran also tried, unsuccessfully, to procure components for the Bushehr reactors, but her attempts were blunted by the US. For example, in 1993, Iran tried to acquire eight steam condensers, built by the Italian firm Ansaldo under the Kraftwerk Union contract, but they were seized by the Italian government. The Czech firm Skoda Plzen also discussed supplying reactor components to Iran, but, under the US pressure, negotiations were cancelled in 1994. Iran was also not successful in her attempt to buy nuclear power reactor components from an unfinished reactor of Polland. We have known about Iran's nuclear ambitions for a few decades.
Thanks for that info.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
According to polls, 39% prefer western style parlimentary democracy, 29% prefer a 'shura' Islamic system, 10% prefer an Iranian style theocracy. the remaining is divided among SA style kingdom, a contitutional monarcy, a pakistani sytle islamic democracy, and a few others.
Forty percent of Arabs say it was right for the United States to invade; that soars to 87 percent of Kurds. 75% say that they would feel a lack of security were the American forces to decide to leave the country.
Well then, time will tell. Funny thing about polls, they aren't your best indicator unless taken with near 100% participation and without undue influence.
-
How in the hell can any country with enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the planet, tell others they shouldn't have them. HYPOCRITES.
It's called the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, I believe your country signed it as well.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
IIRC Tillman died in Afghanistan. Are you saying that the Afghanistan war after 911 was a misguided policy choice?
Yes.
Al Quaida just isn't that big or powerful. Change nothing from 9/11 and a 9/11 attack won't happen again. Passengers just won't allow it.
-
LOL, it was a response to Nuke's blaming it squarely on Clinton and Carter.
Clinton and Carter were both directly invovled in a deal with North Korea where NK would drop her nuclear weapons program and the US was suppossed to help build a nuclear power plant to help with NK's lack of enough electrical power. Clinton and Carter didnt uphold their end of the deal, now NK has nukes. Thats paraphrasing the events.
As far as the US making up stories about WMD in Iraq, how blind are you Saburo? Most of the world's intelligence agencies thought he had them, not just the US. There are chemical munitions that have never been accounted for. They existed, and were verified as having existed, but not all have been accounted for yet. They are still out there somewhere. IF they fall into the hands of terrorists and are used in a terrorist attack.....I bet you blame the US for not finding them.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Yes.
Al Quaida just isn't that big or powerful. Change nothing from 9/11 and a 9/11 attack won't happen again. Passengers just won't allow it.
You got that right Saburos...I have to fly allot for business and had just got back from the east coast when 9-11 happened.
The tag on my pick-up is "LETSROL"
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Yes.
Al Quaida just isn't that big or powerful. Change nothing from 9/11 and a 9/11 attack won't happen again. Passengers just won't allow it.
Thats just stupid of you saburo.
So you propose that we just left afghanistan to be a free area for the Al Qaeda to train an organize. Not to mention the propaganda value they would get from having their ideas of a cowardly america confirmed because we didnt attack their central bases and operation in Afghanistan after an outrageus act like 911.. Finally what makes you thibk they would try just asnother 911? They arent stupid they would know that was a one sdhot deal that exploited a single type of security weakness in the USA. They were working on other attasck types and developing new ideas all the time safely in Afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
As far as the US making up stories about WMD in Iraq, how blind are you Saburo? Most of the world's intelligence agencies thought he had them, not just the US. There are chemical munitions that have never been accounted for. They existed, and were verified as having existed, but not all have been accounted for yet. They are still out there somewhere. IF they fall into the hands of terrorists and are used in a terrorist attack.....I bet you blame the US for not finding them.
Really, what countries are you talking about? You think the US wasn't sharing "intel" with the other agencies?
P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A, or are you that naive?
Even our administration now admits to not finding any. Care to show me where there's an admission by this administration that "WMDs" are still out there but we just can't find them?
The former Soviet Union has some weapons not accounted for.
What is it with the retarded "you're gonna blame the US...."
LOL, you have a funny way of arguing, wrapping yourself in the flag and dare any discussion that disagrees with you as anti-American. You can shove it.
I can make the "anti-American" argument the other way by stating many fine Americans, our best, are dead now because of misguided policy. They'd be alive today.
So can the STUPID anti-American garbage statements.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thats just stupid of you saburo.
Name calling's the Stupid part Grun. It's just not necessary to get your point across.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So you propose that we just left afghanistan to be a free area for the Al Qaeda to train an organize. Not to mention the propaganda value they would get from having their ideas of a cowardly america confirmed because we didnt attack their central bases and operation in Afghanistan after an outrageus act like 911.. Finally what makes you thibk they would try just asnother 911? They arent stupid they would know that was a one sdhot deal that exploited a single type of security weakness in the USA. They were working on other attasck types and developing new ideas all the time safely in Afghanistan.
Trouble is Grun, we were in a tight spot after 9/11. We had to show the public of doing something decisive. Afghanistan was the sacrificial lamb of a country we had to "show" the American people that we're doing something.
They were going through their own civil war and were ripe for an overthrow. The Taliban had their hands full against the Northern Alliance. Trouble is, what reports are true and what's propaganda?
I just don't buy into every report that comes out of "sources".
Those terrorists of 9/11 were staying in the US and Canada, some trained here on how to fly (they didn't do that in Afghanistan).
The pieces of the puzzle just don't fit for me. I don't have the leap of faith of believing 100% what my government tells me as true. Too many times there seems to be a possible ulterior motive behind them. BTW, that holds true for any govt.
Well, I've got some projects to do and errands to run. Be back later.
-
I didnt call you stupid, I said it was stupid of you to say it. There is a difference.
Afhganistan was used to plan, coordibate and develop this idea and others. Though 911 is brilliantly simple in concept the actual exacution and implementation are very difficult and in fact the operation took years to put together. I think you greatly underestimate the impoprtance of that secure base, one safe from police inbtervention, one ideolgically compatible with Al Qeda policies and one politically agreeable to supporting Bin Laden.
As for the war itself, this IS NOT Iraq, pretty much everry meaningful government on earth agreed it was the right thing to do. Lets also not forget the world did ask the Taliban to turn Bin Laden over, they refused.
So the issue now is what do you think should have been done? Tell me, if we couldnt go into a hostile nation Afghanistan to attack or capture the people who carried out 911 then when ever is war "justfied?" Why not just get rid of the military all together, because if we cant use it to fight against those who attacked us on 911 then we might as well scrap the whole thing because we can never use it.
That is, of course, if you still belive that Al Qaeda were the ones behind 911, which you leave some doubt about in your last post.
-
Ayatollah's (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed062804a.cfm)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nuclear blast.
If there was any doubt about your hatred for this country I think that you just erased it in the minds of many Americans here GS...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I didnt call you stupid, I said it was stupid of you to say it. There is a difference.
Where all we deal with on a BBS is the printed word, it's the same thing. Can it as it's not necessary.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Afhganistan was used to plan, coordibate and develop this idea and others. Though 911 is brilliantly simple in concept the actual exacution and implementation are very difficult and in fact the operation took years to put together. I think you greatly underestimate the impoprtance of that secure base, one safe from police inbtervention, one ideolgically compatible with Al Qeda policies and one politically agreeable to supporting Bin Laden.
As for the war itself, this IS NOT Iraq, pretty much everry meaningful government on earth agreed it was the right thing to do. Lets also not forget the world did ask the Taliban to turn Bin Laden over, they refused.
So the issue now is what do you think should have been done? Tell me, if we couldnt go into a hostile nation Afghanistan to attack or capture the people who carried out 911 then when ever is war "justfied?" Why not just get rid of the military all together, because if we cant use it to fight against those who attacked us on 911 then we might as well scrap the whole thing because we can never use it.
That is, of course, if you still belive that Al Qaeda were the ones behind 911, which you leave some doubt about in your last post.
If these attackers were representing Afghanistan and attacking us on its behalf, gloves are off. Total war time.
But that's not what happened.
What training did these 9/11 terrorists receive in Afghanistan that trained them for their attack?
First, I'd expect us to bump up our intelligence services to find out exactly who and where all the alledged perpetrators were, bring them in for trial to determine guilt. I'd also find out the motive for such an attack.
What I wouldn't do is invade another country for what might be. Too many innocent people getting killed that way. We have a responsibility as a super power to be damn sure of what we're doing before invading another sovereign nation.
The they might be, could be just isn't a strong enough argument to put at risk our American and Allied soldier's lives.
It'll cost a lot less in dollars and more important innocent lives lost.
Give me a range of lives lost in Afghanistan:
Afghanistan civillians.
Afghanistan combatants.
US soldiers.
Allied Soldiers.
How about the cost $:
We still don't have Bin Laden in custody. I'd say this invasion was an error in judgement.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
If these attackers were representing Afghanistan and attacking us on its behalf, gloves are off. Total war time.
But that's not what happened.
What training did these 9/11 terrorists receive in Afghanistan that trained them for their attack?
First, I'd expect us to bump up our intelligence services to find out exactly who and where all the alledged perpetrators were, bring them in for trial to determine guilt. I'd also find out the motive for such an attack.
What I wouldn't do is invade another country for what might be. Too many innocent people getting killed that way. We have a responsibility as a super power to be damn sure of what we're doing before invading another sovereign nation.
The they might be, could be just isn't a strong enough argument to put at risk our American and Allied soldier's lives.
It'll cost a lot less in dollars and more important innocent lives lost.
Give me a range of lives lost in Afghanistan:
Afghanistan civillians.
Afghanistan combatants.
US soldiers.
Allied Soldiers.
How about the cost $:
We still don't have Bin Laden in custody. I'd say this invasion was an error in judgement.
You know you are right, thanks for changing my mind.
We should have sent the FBI to serve an arrest warrant on Bin Laden at one of his Taliban governrnt sponsored training camps after we conducted a thurough investigation and interviews of all parties involved.
For over three years I thought that military action against Bin Laden and the Taliban who willingly sheltered and protected him was the correct chourse of action but now I know better.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
America wiping out Iran with nuclear fire, and once and for all teaches humanity the price of the use of WMD is anti-American?
If there was any doubt about your lack of understanding and emotional restraint I think that you just erased it in the minds of many here Grun...
It was you who said that a nuclear blast on US soil was prefereable to a limited US attack on Iran.
As for your second paragraph, about my emotional restraint and understanding ans whatnot. I guess you are just one of the countless nuanced euro thinkers who automatically assume that I support an attack on Iran (which I certainly do not). SHOCK HORROR SURPRISE!!! I dont think attacking Iran is the right thing to do considering their internal politics now...
Anyway..
But you ceratinly seem to find nuclear attacks on the USA preferable to conventinal limited attacks on Iran...
Maybe you are the one with emotinal restraint problems, no? Especially with that gross hyperboloc distortion where you transform his idea of limited attacks in the USA wiping out Iran with nuclear hellfire or whatver you said...
-
Rude:
Which would you prefer? Smaller preventative ops into Iran or Syria.....or would you prefer the US response to a nuclear blast on US soil? I assure you, the price of the latter scenario would be much greater.....your call
GS:
Nuclear Blast
Thats all I read of your discussion, what was missed?
Nice how you ignore that I actually oppose an attack on Iran, must be hard to accept that when you build people up as such caricatures of what you need them to be..
-
Yes, no way can prefereing a nuclear attack on america be considered anti american.
No way can transforming Rude's idea of "limited attacks on Iran" into "wpiing out Iran with nuclear hellfire" be considered anti american bias...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You know you are right, thanks for changing my mind.
We should have sent the FBI to serve an arrest warrant on Bin Laden at one of his Taliban governrnt sponsored training camps after we conducted a thurough investigation and interviews of all parties involved.
For over three years I thought that military action against Bin Laden and the Taliban who willingly sheltered and protected him was the correct chourse of action but now I know better.
Nice sarcasm and spin.
How about we locate his precise location and then send in the military for a surgical removal. Then hold a trial.
Invading another country and killing/destroying anything that COULD be the enemy just isn't a just way to wage this type of war.
You care to answer the following (use your sources)?
Give me a range of lives lost in Afghanistan:
Afghanistan civillians.
Afghanistan combatants.
US soldiers.
Allied Soldiers.
How about the cost $:
We still don't have Bin Laden in custody. I'd say this invasion was an error in judgement.
-
So we just have to get Bin Laden? One man and this is over?
Or do we have to do hundreds of precision military strikes to get all the key people one by one and then take them to trial.
When do continous "precisin military" strikes become war? Or how long does the Taliban tolerate these incursions into their national territory before they start fighting back and we have to shoot them too?
Well at least we have got you to admit that military action was unavoidable once the Taliban refused to hand Bin Laden over.
-
And simply placing the empasis on:
Rude: "Which would you prefer? Smaller preventative ops into Iran or Syria.....or would you prefer the US response to a nuclear blast on US soil?"
GS:
"Nuclear Blast"
He posed a simple question and you answered.
He gave you a choice between two potions:
1) Limited conventila attcaks on Iran
or:
2) US response to a nuclear attcak on US soil
Your respose consiting oly of the words "Nuclear attack" clearly shows that you prefer an option where nuclear weapons are used. Since thats higly unlikely in option 1 it must mean you prefer option 2.
It's clear that you prefer a nuclear blast on us soil over limited attacks on Iran. Which is pretty sick.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So we just have to get Bin Laden? One man and this is over?
Or do we have to do hundreds of precision military strikes to get all the key people one by one and then take them to trial.
When do continous "precisin military" strikes become war? Or how long does the Taliban tolerate these incursions into their national territory before they start fighting back and we have to shoot them too?
Well at least we have got you to admit that military action was unavoidable once the Taliban refused to hand Bin Laden over.
I never did rule out the military, never have. What I disagree with is how it's used.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I never did rule out the military, never have. What I disagree with is how it's used.
CC.
Even following your scenario it would become a geberal war very quickly and probably a much messier one since the Taliban would have more time to prepare, mobilize and fight harder during thse precise strikes you mention.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes! ... AND the US response. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you. I'm not used to having to explain simple connections like "the US response to a nuclear blast on US soil" to people of limited cognitive abilities.
[head scratch]
So... you prefer the distruction of a US city and the retaliation that would follow that may kill tens of millions from Qom to Tehran... to... a conventional conflict in Iran ala' the removal of Saddam and Baathists from Iraq.
You prefer 10+ million deaths to a conventional alternative that may be on the scale of 10k to 100k deaths.
[/head scratch]
You must really hate Iranians.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
CC.
Even following your scenario it would become a geberal war very quickly and probably a much messier one since the Taliban would have more time to prepare, mobilize and fight harder during thse precise strikes you mention.
Naw, they were too busy in their own civil war against the Northern Alliance forces.
Big difference would be that we wouldn't be an occupation force but a quick strike surgical one.
Once a suspect was positively identified, we'd bring our forces to the ready for quick snatch.
Wipe out any active resistance and get out.
Much less casualties all around especially innocent civillians.
We'd be fighting the "good" fight imho. We have a choice in how we want to prosecute this war, we're choosing a more costly and deadly way.
-
You oversimplify. What you suggest would quickly turn into the vietnam war era search and destroy missions where our army units took a VC base one day, then left. Some intel report would come in citing enemy activity there and they would retake it then leave etc. I hear those were a great strategy.
As for the civil war, well the northern alliance controlled maye 10% of afghanistan and their leader ahmed Shah Massoud was assasinated by foreign Al Qaeda men posing as journaliosts a few days before 911. They were poised to fall and your plan would have pretty much assured that.
And you cannot just go hopping about an active war zone doing special precision ground actions to capture al qaeda men in their Afghan camps for any long period of time without it turning into a full scale and much bigger war, and in this case a much nastier war you are less well prepared for since I'm sure yopur stategy of limtied presvion command raids does not include degrading the Talibans national military infrastructure beforehand.
Also what is this "once our suspect is clearly identified" stuff? Do you expect that we would know exactly where he was down to the meter? How much time do you want to seach for him to "clearly ID the guy? Thats not how things work, they would have to secure and search pretty large areas and those searches take time since the al qaeda and taliban were experts in hiding drugs, guns, people etc. They wouldnt just walk up to a house and pull the guy from his bed in Afhghan training camps.
Finally you mentioned waiting until our inbtelligence services were reformed and made better before responding and starting to arrest the AQ people. Well how long do you think that would take? These are huge agencies, with huge bureocracies and extablished practices. On top of that, they are regulated by congress. It would take months and months and months to design and arrange all these ghanges let alone begin to implement them. Yet you seem to think it's just a matter of saying that it should be done...
Saburo I'm sensitive to your need not be called names, but I have to express my view that your ideas in this topic strike me as naive and not all that well thought out.
-
http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm
http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweaponsc.html
Scroll down till you see this: (first part is a link to a pdf file, I didnt take the time to read it yet) The UN found (prior to the US invasion of Iraq) that Iraq hadn't accounted for all of its VX gas production. Iirc the UN is *most of the world*.
State Department, 27 February 2003: "The UN concluded that Iraq had not accounted for 1.5 tons of the VX agent. Just one drop is enough to kill a person."
This is what the US gov't knew, or thought it knew prior to invading Iraq. This CIA report talks about the discrepancies in Iraq's reporting as well. Again, I didnt read all of this one, just most of the front page.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
These are just the first 4 results from my Google attempt. Serious questions still remain on the where abouts of filled artillery shells, bombs, chemical agents, chemical precursors, biological agents etc.
So what if the US gov't admits to not finding any WMD? The possibility of chemical weapons etc in hidden caches *somewhere* is very real. The scary part is, absolutely NO ONE knows for sure.
Some people seem to assume that President Bush declared war on Al-Qaeada after 9-11......he didnt. I clearly recall him declaring war on terrorism, not Al-qaeada.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Naw, they were too busy in their own civil war against the Northern Alliance forces.
Big difference would be that we wouldn't be an occupation force but a quick strike surgical one.
Once a suspect was positively identified, we'd bring our forces to the ready for quick snatch.
Wipe out any active resistance and get out.
Much less casualties all around especially innocent civillians.
We'd be fighting the "good" fight imho. We have a choice in how we want to prosecute this war, we're choosing a more costly and deadly way.
In some cases this approach should be used. I believe the Taliban would have just supported someone else if we had managed to bag bin-Laden in this manner. Also, just nabbing bin-Laden wouldnt stop Al-Qaeada, someone else would step up into the top job.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Saburo I'm sensitive to your need not be called names, but I have to express my view that your ideas in this topic strike me as naive and not all that well thought out.
You miss the point entirely. Why do you have this constant apparant need to throw labels at people that happen to disagree with you?
You also have this bad habit of framing your opponent's argument to something that suits your argument.
The first part will only lead to closed threads, warnings (and possibly bannings) from Skuzzy. I feel Skuzzy has more important things to do with his time. If you can't articulate your argument clear enough without resorting to insults and name calling, perhaps you should look in the mirror and look hard.
Second part, we'll leave to continued discussions.
End of the reasons for childish namecalling. I hope you finally get it. Let your argument speak for itself.
********
You still keep doging the cost and casualty questions that I've asked twice already. Care to finally answer them or do you just want to keep dodging?
Do you really think that the Al Quaeda camps (as well as other terrorist camps are located only in Afghanistan??
What do these camps look like?
Any videos of their getting shot/blown up?
How many have we found?
You think these Al Quaeda are actually stupid enough to stay in any organized place long enough to be found after an official announcement and invasion of a major military force?
The ones in Afghanistan scattered. That's what small groups have is mobility and why our present military ops are not going to win this war against terrorists. It will bankrupt us.
Are we going to invade and go to war with every nation that could house terrorists?
How about Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Libya? Egypt? Yemen? Syria? (This is just the Middle East area)
How about in the Americas?
The 9/11 terrorists got some of their training here in the US and possibly Canada. They definitely were staying in our two countries for a while before the attacks.
How about in Asia?
Europe?
You keep aluding to Vietnam, but our present ops are closer to Vietnam than what I was aluding to.
We've entered a new era of warfare, one against very small groups that are essentially countryless. Their allegience is to themselves as a cause, not a country. They've got small pockets in most continents. They are usually independent of each other and fighting for their own causes.
What we need to do is deploy more satelites to keep a stationary position over suspected sites. Upon suspected activity, we increase recon overflights and we start deploying our nearest Navy Carrier group. After closer scrutiny, we deploy Special Ops troops (Force Recon, Seals, Sniper/Observation Teams, etc) for a confirmation. If confirmed as a threat to the US (or our allies) we take out hostile "military" personnel that happen to take an active defense. Primary goal is to snatch alive our targets for interrogation.
In short, we're in, we're out. Minimal cost in casualties and comparitive dollars (compared to present day ops in Afghanistan).
You catch the enemy when he is least expecting it, not when he's in hiding. We just need to catch a few members to get the info of where most of the rest of their group is.
What we're not doing is our present Vietnam style search and destroy ops which are costing waay to much in our own soldiers getting killed, innocent civillian casualties, and dollars.
We also need to be paying much more attention to what's going on at our own borders. I'm more concerned with terrorists coming into my country than some dessert in the Middle East/Asia/Africa.
So give us the figures here and show us how successful our Afghanistan campaign is. BTW, another reason to minimize civillian casualties is not help the enemy your seeking. Friends and family of those that die can not care less that it was as accident or misjudgement. Quickest way of making your enemy stronger. Don't discount that.
-
Afghanistan had a government that supported and aided in the attacks on 911 and provided a whole country for OBL to operate in freely.
1. Iraq was not attacked because of terrorism
2. If we attack Iran, it will be to eliminate a nuclear capability and a threat. Its not because we are going after terrorists.
The war on terror groups is ongoing and a lot of the things you said we need to be doing to fight them are already being done, plus alot more that we will probably never hear about.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
In some cases this approach should be used. I believe the Taliban would have just supported someone else if we had managed to bag bin-Laden in this manner. Also, just nabbing bin-Laden wouldnt stop Al-Qaeada, someone else would step up into the top job.
If we hadn't invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban have more pressing issues at hand. They still had their hands full with both the Northern Alliance forces and rebuilding their country.
I want all members of the group that are responsible for 9/11. Bin Laden heads that list. With him in custody, we're able to determine his chain of command which will lead to the capture/interrogation/capture/interrogation until that group ceases to be a threat.
We can't afford the cost in poeple and dollars in invading/occupying every nation that could be hiding our terrorists. The terrorists will keep moving.
-
The cost question is a pointless red herring for you. You present a hypothetical scenario which yoiu imagine to be a some great thing and you want me to compare it to a real life scenario. As for name calling I'm gonna go right now and say that you are smart enough guy to know thats a pretty convenenit bbs gimmick for you; real costs of real things vs cosys of undefined hypotheticals. So you cut it out.
And where is this idea that your plan would be cheap? You talk of reorganizing the whole intelligence operation, that cost billions. You talk about putting stationary statelites over many single sites to watch them, do yoiu know how much that costs? How many satelites. As for lives lost, well in afghanistan we have lost very few soldiers for all taht we have done maybe 100 to 200. Do you think that your special raids would be causalty free to the USA? Or the Afghans? They would turn out like a whole bunch of little mogadishusus, where we would have to eastabilish control over each city block and have a real close fight. There we lost 19 guys and we killed 2,000 Somalis. With your plan there would be nothing to stop the Taliban and AQ from simply hiding in the crowded narrow street cities of Afghanistan. And since your plan calls for arrests and trials we would have to pull mogadishus there to get them. In fact it woyuld be worse than Mogadishu since we could only insert/extract from helicopters since your plan calls for no ground bases or occupying territory in afghanistan. At least in Moigadishu we had a grouynd base at the locakl airporort and the Pakistani UN IN THE CTY to lend us APCs which saved lives of prolly more US soldiers when they got trapped.
Honestly Saburo I have every right to tell yoiu that I think yiur ideas are not well thoiught out and that they wouldnt work in real life. Yiu may now attcak me for being mean to you or whatever, I dont care beyond trying not to ibnsult you. But if you are as mature as you say you should not be insulted because we dosagree or because I dont accept your pov and tnink you are wrong. OK? We agree on that, right?
-
The fact is that we are fighting terrorists in many, many ways that we will probably never hear about.
To imply that because we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, we are fighting the war on terror only by invading countries is completely incorrect.
It's nothing like Vietnam.
-
"The fact is that we are fighting terrorists in many, many ways that we will probably never hear about. "
LOL! How the hell is that a "fact" when you can't prove it because we will never hear about it.
This has become the most retarded thread in the history of the internet.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"The fact is that we are fighting terrorists in many, many ways that we will probably never hear about. "
LOL! How the hell is that a "fact" when you can't prove it because we will never hear about it.
This has become the most retarded thread in the history of the internet.
The fact is that we are fighting the war on terror and going after groups in many ways, many that we will probably never hear about.
Better?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The cost question is a pointless red herring for you. You present a hypothetical scenario which yoiu imagine to be a some great thing and you want me to compare it to a real life scenario. As for name calling I'm gonna go right now and say that you are smart enough guy to know thats a pretty convenenit bbs gimmick for you; real costs of real things vs cosys of undefined hypotheticals. So you cut it out.
No Grun,
We're talking about real costs for a real operation. One that you believe is the right way.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And where is this idea that your plan would be cheap? You talk of reorganizing the whole intelligence operation, that cost billions. You talk about putting stationary statelites over many single sites to watch them, do yoiu know how much that costs? How many satelites. As for lives lost, well in afghanistan we have lost very few soldiers for all taht we have done maybe 100 to 200. Do you think that your special raids would be causalty free to the USA? Or the Afghans? They would turn out like a whole bunch of little mogadishusus, where we would have to eastabilish control over each city block and have a real close fight. There we lost 19 guys and we killed 2,000 Somalis. With your plan there would be nothing to stop the Taliban and AQ from simply hiding in the crowded narrow street cities of Afghanistan. And since your plan calls for arrests and trials we would have to pull mogadishus there to get them. In fact it woyuld be worse than Mogadishu since we could only insert/extract from helicopters since your plan calls for no ground bases or occupying territory in afghanistan. At least in Moigadishu we had a grouynd base at the locakl airporort and the Pakistani UN IN THE CTY to lend us APCs which saved lives of prolly more US soldiers when they got trapped.
My ops would be far cheaper and more effective than our present ops. You think our ops in Afghanistan are the end of it?
That somehow all of our enemies have just moved into Afghanistan so they could be captured and/or killed?
Afghanistan is just the tip of the iceberg. After we withdraw, we invade what country next? Pakistan? Pick your country. The terrorists will just move back to Afghanistan and anywhere we don't have an active presence.
We're talking terror camps. Remember that's the reason we went into Afghanistan. Mogudishu is your red herring. Not enough support, not covert, didn't wait until the timing was right.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Honestly Saburo I have every right to tell yoiu that I think yiur ideas are not well thoiught out and that they wouldnt work in real life. Yiu may now attcak me for being mean to you or whatever, I dont care beyond trying not to ibnsult you. But if you are as mature as you say you should not be insulted because we dosagree or because I dont accept your pov and tnink you are wrong. OK? We agree on that, right?
LOL, you crack me up. You think my motive for the no-namecalling discussions is because I'm too sensitive to it? You want to carry on an insult laden discussion then email me big boy.
Don't mistake my restraint on a public BBS (where it has been specifically requested of its membership to refrain from insults) as somehow that I can't take it.
I've clearly defined why I don't resort to such insults.
**DO YOU FINALLY GRASP THIS CONCEPT?**
If not, email me. My email addy is in my profile. Carry on as you wish, I'll respond in kind. Insult me in private and I'll return the favor.
Carry on a meaningful discussion here on this BBS and I'll respond in kind.
Of course we disagree! That's what these discussions are about. I don't disrespect you less as an individual because you happen to have an outlook different than mine.
My question to you is, why are you seemingly chomping at the bit to throw out labels here?
Let your argument speak for itself. If you can't grasp this concept, contact Skuzzy. Maybe he can articulate it better for you.
-
Me telling you that I disagree with your pov and that I think you are wrong insults you?
No need to continue the discussion if thats how you are going to take it.
-
:aok
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Me telling you that I disagree with your pov and that I think you are wrong insults you?
No need to continue the discussion if thats how you are going to take it.
No, not at all. It is obviously clear that we disagree with each other. Your wanting to throw in labels was and is not necessary. Simple, no?
Yes, it is best you withdraw if you feel you can't carry on a meaningful discussion without childish namecalling/labels.
-
Labels? Adjectives are not labels. I sincirely feel that your ideas are naive because you seem to assume all these extremely complex precision strikes will go off smooth and cheap. I think your ideas are not well thought out because you think reforming intelligence is some simple thing and you dont account for the time it will take or the enormous costs requited to reform the dozen or so major US intelligence organizations. You also seem to think its just a matter of finding the precise location of a particukar person and send in a precision team to arrest him quickly, well thats not easy. Thats exactly the mission profile of Mogadishu and those things dont go off easy, ever. Now you want to the same but with no close ground presence or armored vehicles for support and extraction. If you bring in heavy air support you just end up with a big price tag again. Not mentiuon that your plan requires many of these operations to capture the Al qaeda terrorists that you yourself admit would try to hide and be dispersed.
There are so many holes in your story that it would take hours of face to face discussion to maybe give you an idea of how wrong you are. But seeing that you threaten to make it even more personal and angry in a private setting I really see no point wasting my time to go see somebody who will yell and scream obscenties at me when I tell him his ideas are not well thought out and try to explain the weaknesses of his argument as I see them.
So why go on about this topic, Saburo?
Tell me, have you taken any cool pictures lately?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Labels? Adjectives are not labels. I sincirely feel that your ideas are naive because you seem to assume all these extremely complex precision strikes will go off smooth and cheap. I think your ideas are not well thought out because you think reforming intelligence is some simple thing and you dont account for the time it will take or the enormous costs requited to reform the dozen or so major US intelligence organizations. You also seem to think its just a matter of finding the precise location of a particukar person and send in a precision team to arrest him quickly, well thats not easy. Thats exactly the mission profile of Mogadishu and those things dont go off easy, ever. Now you want to the same but with no close ground presence or armored vehicles for support and extraction. If you bring in heavy air support you just end up with a big price tag again. Not mentiuon that your plan requires many of these operations to capture the Al qaeda terrorists that you yourself admit would try to hide and be dispersed.
There are so many holes in your story that it would take hours of face to face discussion to maybe give you an idea of how wrong you are. But seeing that you threaten to make it even more personal and angry in a private setting I really see no point wasting my time to go see somebody who will yell and scream obscenties at me when I tell him his ideas are not well thought out and try to explain the weaknesses of his argument as I see them.
So why go on about this topic, Saburo?
My price tag is much cheaper than an invasion/occupation/govt building that we're prosecuting in Afghanistan right now. Success rate would be higher as covert ops are just that, covert.
You have the forces on the ready for standby when the need arises.
Big difference is that we are tracking/targeting suspects for extraction, not toppling govts and nation building. We don't need a major overhaul of our intelligence forces, they just need a common goal of actually gathering intelligence.
As far as my making it more personal and angry has to do directly on how you wish to pursue it.
You want to remain civil in private, I'll respond in kind (as I try to do here as well). If I'm yelling obsenities, it's only cause I'm responding to yours. I thought I was clear on that.
At near the start of this thread I posted I was against our policy on Afghanistan and Iraq.
You were surprised on Afghanistan. I gave you some of my reasons as to why.
Afghanistan:
How long have we been there as a military presence?
Projected for how long our continued stay?
Total dollars to date?
Total projected dollars for the whole campaign?
US and Allied casualties to date?
Projected?
Total Afghanistan civillians killed to date?
Wounded?
Al Quaeda bases/camps found?
Other terrorist bases/camps?
Where are the Al Quaeda members from Bin Laden's group?
Bin Laden?
Reason given for involvement in Afghanistan?
Bottom line is when any country invades another, the local populace tends to get up in arms about an invasion. The more civillian casualties, the breeding ground for hate and revenge.
The USSR couldn't control Afghanistan and it was on her border.
War on terror? We're going to lose if we keep invading/occupying/overthrowing other sovereign nations. We're not talking total war here where anything and everything is open for targeting (like WWII).
The only time I could recall it (non-total war) happening and working is when Vietnam invaded and overthrew Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge forces. After Khampuchia (former Cambodia) stabilized, Vietnam withdrew her forces.
Now we can keep going around in circles, or, how about you fill in the answers of the above questions. You should know them right? After all you're the expert.
After you're done, you tell me that the present ops in Afghanistan is the best policy.
Why don't we have Bin Laden in custody?
...And who's naive?
Unless you have nothing new to add and wish not to answer my above questions, we'll agree to remain gentlemen about it and agree to disagree.
History will prove one of us right.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Tell me, have you taken any cool pictures lately?
Actually sitting on some images that I have to process. Went to Vancouver, some good ones there.
How about you?
-
You can eaily find the casualty and cost numbers of the current Afhghan operation, in fact I think you prolly know them.
However I feel that you are trying a pull a fast one with this instance on numbers because you would want to compare the real numbers of a real operation to the hypothetical numbers of your hypothetical dream operation.
Also what makes you think that we would be any more succesful in finding Bin Laden? We are doing exactlt that which you suggest and we still cant get him. WE are using extreme intel efforts toi try to find him and have been from day one. But it's really really really hard to locate a single specific individual. I must make that point you because your plan is centered on that idea, the idea of locating single people and picking them up. It just doesnt work out easily, yet you make plans that we should target hundreds of individuals in that way.
Economies of scale work in military operations as well so I'd say that your operation would be far more expensive than you imagine if we were to seek out more or less individual targets with the level of specificity that you reccomend.
And what makes yoiu think that the taliban would just sit around fiddly diddly while we attacked targets all around their nation with helicopter raids? They would fight us too.
Also where would we launch these strikes out of if we couldnt occupy afghan land for permenant forward bases? Do you think Pakistan would let us do it to the exent your plan requires with all their problems? I doubt it.
Would you make bases in the northern alliance area in the 10% of the land north they occupy? If so wouldnt we be getting involved in the afghan civil war, because they would surely ask for help in order to get the bases.
Or do you think choppers shpuld just fly hours over all of Afghanistan from bases in the former USSR states?
Maybe from CVs in the ocean?
What would that do to your element of surprise?
There are just so many tremendous issues with your overly simple vision of this plan that we can go on for pages and pages here Saburo.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You can eaily find the casualty and cost numbers of the current Afhghan operation, in fact I think you prolly know them.
However I feel that you are trying a pull a fast one with this instance on numbers because you would want to compare the real numbers of a real operation to the hypothetical numbers of your hypothetical dream operation.
Also what makes you think that we would be any more succesful in finding Bin Laden? We are doing exactlt that which you suggest and we still cant get him. WE are using extreme intel efforts toi try to find him and have been from day one. But it's really really really hard to locate a single specific individual. I must make that point you because your plan is centered on that idea, the idea of locating single people and picking them up. It just doesnt work out easily, yet you make plans that we should target hundreds of individuals in that way.
Economies of scale work in military operations as well so I'd say that your operation would be far more expensive than you imagine if we were to seek out more or less individual targets with the level of specificity that you reccomend.
Go ahead Grun, post them. Use your figures, just be honest about it.
So where was Bin Laden after 9/11? LOL, my plan would sure be a lot less costly than our present Afghanistan one. Remember we went to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. Find him at all costs. Well after how many dead and wounded? Both military and civillians? Remember we were told that there were untold numbers of Al Quaeda training bases and that we were going to go hunt down Bin Laden and his group.
Targeting Bin Laden covertly without a huge military presence in Afghanistan would most likely result in pinpointing him. We gave him a reason to hide with our very uncovert presence.
My way would have been less costly in everyway, less of our boys coming back in coffins.
We don't have Bin Laden in custody, we've got casualties, inflicted civillian casualties, spent big dollars. REAL success with our Afghanistan campaign... OOOOKAY. In the mean time here's betting he and his group aren't even in Afghanistan anymore. Can't find someone who isn't there. We're wasting good men and resources on a poorly planned military ops.
So why are we really in Afghanistan, again?
-
We went to Afghanistan to remove Al-Qaeda and capture Bin Ladden.
We went to Aghanistan to remove the Taliban , who allowed Al-Qaeda to have an entire country to operate from.
We did not capture Bin Ladden yet.
Al-Qaeda no longer has a host country with a host government allowing them to operate freely.
What's not to like so far?
-
BTW Grun,
Just so you know where I'm coming from.
I grew up from a military family. I've got friends in the military. I don't want someone sitting behind a desk making life and death decisions using our military personnel as pawns. War is a serious business not to be entered casually. I want my govt to make absolutely sure of its goals and have a very defined set of targets, not changing its goals inn the middle of the game, so to speak.
I love my country and the forces who protect her. I don't want anyone getting a visit informing the family of a soldier that he/she won't be coming home.
We better be damn sure before we go to war.
Afghanistan and Iraq are both wrong in how we're executing them, IMHO.
-
I believe Bin Laden to be in IRan.... Discuss... lol
-
It's obviously now become a Grun/ Saburo exchange.
Why not just email each other?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
We went to Afghanistan to remove Al-Qaeda and capture Bin Ladden.
We went to Aghanistan to remove the Taliban , who allowed Al-Qaeda to have an entire country to operate from.
We did not capture Bin Ladden yet.
Al-Qaeda no longer has a host country with a host government allowing them to operate freely.
What's not to like so far?
Good points Nuke. Regardless of whether we got Osama we got rid of the Taliban government who allowed him and who knows who else to operate with impunity. They were warned and when they failed to heed they showed which side they were on. Good riddance.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And what makes yoiu think that the taliban would just sit around fiddly diddly while we attacked targets all around their nation with helicopter raids? They would fight us too.
Also where would we launch these strikes out of if we couldnt occupy afghan land for permenant forward bases? Do you think Pakistan would let us do it to the exent your plan requires with all their problems? I doubt it.
Would you make bases in the northern alliance area in the 10% of the land north they occupy? If so wouldnt we be getting involved in the afghan civil war, because they would surely ask for help in order to get the bases.
Or do you think choppers shpuld just fly hours over all of Afghanistan from bases in the former USSR states?
Maybe from CVs in the ocean?
What would that do to your element of surprise?
There are just so many tremendous issues with your overly simple vision of this plan that we can go on for pages and pages here Saburo.
Where the hell did I say helicopter raids? What part of covert do you not understand? Talk about framing your opponents' argument. We've got spec ops going around all over the world. Yes, it would take pages and pages of your framed arguments attributed to me.
BTW, you're still evading answering some easily answered questions. You ever going to answer them or are you just content on spinning away? C'mon Grun, answer them.
BTW you might want to start a new post rather than editing. Helps keep it somewhat cronological.
Again:
Afghanistan:
How long have we been there as a military presence?
Projected for how long our continued stay?
Total dollars to date?
Total projected dollars for the whole campaign?
US and Allied casualties to date?
Projected?
Total Afghanistan civillians killed to date?
Wounded?
Al Quaeda bases/camps found?
Other terrorist bases/camps?
Where are the Al Quaeda members from Bin Laden's group?
Bin Laden?
Reason given for involvement in Afghanistan?
Tell me again how I'll pull a fast one after you post figures? We're having a discussion on our present day policy and ops in Afghanistan, remember?
Show me how we're prosecuting this one the best way.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Where the hell did I say helicopter raids? What part of covert do you not understand? Talk about framing your opponents' argument. We've got spec ops going around all over the world. Yes, it would take pages and pages of your framed arguments attributed to me.
BTW, you're still evading answering some easily answered questions. You ever going to answer them or are you just content on spinning away? C'mon Grun, answer them.
BTW you might want to start a new post rather than editing. Helps keep it somewhat cronological.
Again:
Afghanistan:
How long have we been there as a military presence?
Projected for how long our continued stay?
Total dollars to date?
Total projected dollars for the whole campaign?
US and Allied casualties to date?
Projected?
Total Afghanistan civillians killed to date?
Wounded?
Al Quaeda bases/camps found?
Other terrorist bases/camps?
Where are the Al Quaeda members from Bin Laden's group?
Bin Laden?
Reason given for involvement in Afghanistan?
Tell me again how I'll pull a fast one after you post figures? We're having a discussion on our present day policy and ops in Afghanistan, remember?
Show me how we're prosecuting this one the best way.
Please dont hijack this thread. The title is Make Iran make the 1st move. you want to talk afghanistan take it to another thread unless you are gonna link it into the Iran thing.
-
I'm telling you, it's a Saburo/ Grun stupid fest at this point.
Guys, just email each other.
-
Covert raids now?
How do they get in to position?
Is it walking in by foot and walking out by foot (with caputerd high value target in tow) through miles and miles of territory controled by the distinctivly unfriendly taliban...
-
Grun, are you going to fly tonight? I'm gettin ready.
-
Maybe later, now I've got some errands to run.
Oh Saburo, I havent had much time to used the D70 lately, been busy with work etc.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Please dont hijack this thread. The title is Make Iran make the 1st move. you want to talk afghanistan take it to another thread unless you are gonna link it into the Iran thing.
Does this go for me only or the other half dozen individuals as well? In any case I'll withdraw from this thread regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. Going around in circles anyway.
-
It's just you SaburoS. You suck.
;)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Does this go for me only or the other half dozen individuals as well? In any case I'll withdraw from this thread regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. Going around in circles anyway.
I was hoping you would somehow link it into the iran debate....Open one up on the subject you will have bait I mean debate in no time.
-
Hey, I just wanted to get a whine in....WAAAAAAAHHH!
Now where's Airhead for a walk on the beach! :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I only have time for one post, so I'll answer yours.
Yes.
I prefer the slight possibility that the Iranians would attack the US or facilitate such an attack with the help of terrorists, to a continually "poking" by the USA. The Iranian regime and population are currently more neutral to the US than they have been since the fall of the Shaw ... That will end if you attack them; even just a limited attack will in fact increase the likelihood of them using WMD against you in the future ... Because they will eventually manage to get their hands on it, it is just a matter of time.
If and when a nuclear attack on the US (or any other major power) occurs, I sincerely want the attacking/sponsoring nation to be completely and utterly wiped of the face of the earth with every single man women and child. Even with the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki humanity has never really known the true horror of nuclear warfare. Unfortunately it seems we need to learn everything the hard way.
So after all that BS posing about me not understanding your post you basically fess up to it just like I thpout.
You would prefer a nuclear attack on the USA.
The funny thing about my initial response was that I said many here would take it as final proof that you hate America. I never said that I did, in my view I understand why you would p[refere this secenario - being the cold legalistic type that you are - but yiou just had to blow up.
-
More reports coming in of these "overflights" or intelligence flights...this time from Iranian air force leaders and their media.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050129-iran-targets.htm
-
Maybe you should read your posts GS... That whole tirade about me being too stupid to understand your english and thus unable to understand your post, when in fact you now admit it turned out exactly as I understood it was a pretty good emotinal blow up by you.
And now you deny it all, funny stuff...
-
Grun,
Looks like GScholz is saying it is better to attack and wipe out the country that sets off a nuke in our country as a defensive response. He even gave a reason he believes why it would be a mistake to attack Iran because they might be a threat.
You really believe he wishes the US to get nuked?
You really think he wishes harm to us?
C'mon, re-read his posts - ALL of them in this thread.
Sheesh.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
More reports coming in of these "overflights" or intelligence flights...this time from Iranian air force leaders and their media.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050129-iran-targets.htm
This is 99% Iranian propaganda ! :D
-
He clearly finds wating for nuked US cities preferable to pre-emptive conventinal strikes to prevent those attacks on the US. This is the pre 911 mindset, and many americans disagree with it.
This whole tirade of his stared because I mentioned that many americans here would read that statement of his and pretty much write him off forever as an America hater extraordinare.
He seemed to take offense to that and the resukts were his neat posts where he based me for being too stupid to understand his sophisticaed posts when, in fact, as we see now I understood his words perfectly and I understand why he wrote them. I just pointed out how poeople might react.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Iranian regime and population are currently more neutral to the US than they have been since the fall of the Shaw ... That will end if you attack them;
2004-05-28
TEHRAN --(AP) In a display of anti-U.S. anger not seen in parliament for years, Iran's conservative-dominated legislature chanted "Death to America" and hardliners clashed with reformists yesterday in the first day of the house's new session. The tensions signalled a tough year ahead for President Mohammad Khatami, after fellow reformists lost control of the parliament in contentious February elections. The ballot was boycotted by reformists and largely spurned by voters because the hard-line Guardian Council disqualified thousands of reformist candidates.
I'm glad they're neutral. I'd hate to see what anti-US sentiment would look like.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Go ahead Grun, post them. Use your figures, just be honest about it.
So where was Bin Laden after 9/11? LOL, my plan would sure be a lot less costly than our present Afghanistan one. Remember we went to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. Find him at all costs. Well after how many dead and wounded? Both military and civillians? Remember we were told that there were untold numbers of Al Quaeda training bases and that we were going to go hunt down Bin Laden and his group.
Targeting Bin Laden covertly without a huge military presence in Afghanistan would most likely result in pinpointing him. We gave him a reason to hide with our very uncovert presence.
My way would have been less costly in everyway, less of our boys coming back in coffins.
We don't have Bin Laden in custody, we've got casualties, inflicted civillian casualties, spent big dollars. REAL success with our Afghanistan campaign... OOOOKAY. In the mean time here's betting he and his group aren't even in Afghanistan anymore. Can't find someone who isn't there. We're wasting good men and resources on a poorly planned military ops.
So why are we really in Afghanistan, again?
And why are you really in Iraq, again ?
In both cases it looks like propaganda cover-up of some other, deeper reasons.
Could these moves (occupation of Afganistan and Iraq) be of some global strategic importance for the USA administration?
There are some other global powers in the neighborhood : Russia and India, Pakistan and China (congrats on the recent newborn Chinese babyboy # 1, 300 000, 000) .
:eek: :cool: :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Grun,
Looks like GScholz is saying it is better to attack and wipe out the country that sets off a nuke in our country as a defensive response. He even gave a reason he believes why it would be a mistake to attack Iran because they might be a threat.
You really believe he wishes the US to get nuked?
You really think he wishes harm to us?
C'mon, re-read his posts - ALL of them in this thread.
Sheesh.
What he said was that he prefered we waited until we got nuked in order to respond rather than act to prevent a nuclear attack before it happens.
Then he said we should whipe out every man, woman and child in the country responsible. That hardly sounds reasonable now does it?
I'd rather prevent the nuclear attack, and that's what we will probably do. Less loss of lives in both countries compoired to GS's idea of nuclear holocaust.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
And why are you really in Iraq, again ?
In both cases it looks like propaganda cover-up of some other, deeper reasons.
Could these moves (occupation of Afganistan and Iraq) be of some global strategic importance for the USA administration?
Lucky for us Bin Laden chose to hide in a country with a dark-age extremist Islamic government. Otherwise we could not have pulled off the ultimate confidence game: destroy our buildings, kill 3000 of our citizens, blame it on Bin Laden and gel UN opinion to allow the Afgan operation.
Genozaur, ever hear of Occam's razor? If not, check out the Jodie Foster section at the video store.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
This is 99% Iranian propaganda ! :D
That is what I think too Genz. After all dont we use planes such as that P-3 that hit that chinese fighter with equipment to do this type of stuff at a distance outside of their territory?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Lucky for us Bin Laden chose to hide in a country with a dark-age extremist Islamic government. Otherwise we could not have pulled off the ultimate confidence game: destroy our buildings, kill 3000 of our citizens, blame it on Bin Laden and gel UN opinion to allow the Afgan operation.
Genozaur, ever hear of Occam's razor? If not, check out the Jodie Foster section at the video store.
I don't use razor. I have impressive Islamic beard.
But I was baptized. Who am I ? (THE ANSWER: retsoF eidoJ ton) :D
-
Originally posted by Raider179
That is what I think too Genz. After all dont we use planes such as that P-3 that hit that chinese fighter with equipment to do this type of stuff at a distance outside of their territory?
:aok :D
-
Originally posted by genozaur
I don't use razor. I have impressive Islamic beard.
But I was baptized. Who am I ? (THE ANSWER: retsoF eidoJ ton) :D
Toidi Egalliv Eht?
Just a guess.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What he said was that he prefered we waited until we got nuked in order to respond rather than act to prevent a nuclear attack before it happens.
Then he said we should whipe out every man, woman and child in the country responsible. That hardly sounds reasonable now does it?
I'd rather prevent the nuclear attack, and that's what we will probably do. Less loss of lives in both countries compoired to GS's idea of nuclear holocaust.
The ability we have in completely destroying another civilization whether it be by Nukes, Chems, or Bios has been what's been protecting us from any WMD attack. We have the ability and will use it if we're attacked by another country.
Like it or not, that's been the best reason why we haven't been attacked by another country.
We're going down a very dangerous and costly road if we're going to go around attacking those that we feel might attack us just because they have the capability of what they might do if they chose to do it. Looks like we fear them, and we shouldn't.
The USSR and China were much bigger threats because they actually had the capability and had our cities targeted. LOL, they didn't like us either.
Let's say Iran tries to deliver a nuke and detonate it on US soil.
How does it get here? It'll escape detection? If we found it and traced it to Iran, bye-bye Iran.
What type, fission or fusion? How deadly? How large would it be?
It just isn't going to happen as it would assure their destruction.
Now we can change course and stop the saber rattling and open up diplomatic relations with Iran. Iran would make a good ally.
It's high time they saw the good in America instead of the bad side as we've not really given them a confidence in us as an ally.
Once we stop fearing each other, the sooner we could move forward in a mutually beneficial relationship.
-
I dont think it would be that hard to get one here. I would think it rather easy to take one in by boat. After all these drugs get in by the ton. You dont even have to get it in. Just close enough to the port of a major city and its gonna do plenty of damage.
As for knowing where it came from that will probably not be difficult. Nukes leave residual matter that can be traced. (If I remember correctly.) The only problem would be is if they were smart enough to use someone else's fissionable material.
Seems like the more I think about it the reason we might go after Iran now is because if we had to later then they would be nuclear armed and that would pose a signifigant threat to troops in theater.
They will not be our Ally. you can forget that one. They hate America with a passion. They hold anti-American rallies and the like.
-
The Iranian opposition groups are united in opposing an American initiative to liberate Iran from the IRI regime by American troops. They feel it would only solidify the regime's position, as happened during the Iran-Iraq war. The exiled opposition tend to call for economic sanctions against the regime, boycotts of Western firms that prop up the regime, and support for groups working to overthrow the regime from within. The only question is whether the US, Israel and the nascent Iraqi government can afford to give the Iranian opposition time to overthrow the mullahs before taking action themselves.
I like to follow the Iranian liberation movements on the web. Here are a few of the good pages:
http://www.activistchat.com/
http://www.daneshjoo.org/
http://www.iranvajahan.net/english/
http://www.democracyforiran.de/Iran%20-%20past,%20present%20&%20future%20-%20Present%20Pictures%203.htm
-
Originally posted by NUKE
We cannot risk letting Iran have nukes. It's sad , but very true.
We have the power to stop them from doing something that could threaten us, and we will use it.
NUKE, think about what you said here next time we have a gun thread. Your logic here is a complete reversal of your gun thread logic. You have no problem with nuts having guns, so why worry about nuts having nukes?
OK, so you be me and I'll be you...
... A nuke is just an inanimate object. It's not going to get up all by itself and blast you to hell - so where's the problem? Nukes don't kill people, only people kill people. America, Britain, France, Russia, Israel all have nukes - proof positive that nukes are not the problem. And if you DO one day get killed by a nuke, always remember that it wasn't the nuke's fault.
Join the NRA today! (Nuke Redistribution Alliance) We believe that no country shall take away the right of another country to have a nuke!
-
Wow, I think my comment (very first reply) went way over everyone's head...
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I dont think it would be that hard to get one here. I would think it rather easy to take one in by boat. After all these drugs get in by the ton. You dont even have to get it in. Just close enough to the port of a major city and its gonna do plenty of damage.
As for knowing where it came from that will probably not be difficult. Nukes leave residual matter that can be traced. (If I remember correctly.) The only problem would be is if they were smart enough to use someone else's fissionable material.
Seems like the more I think about it the reason we might go after Iran now is because if we had to later then they would be nuclear armed and that would pose a signifigant threat to troops in theater.
They will not be our Ally. you can forget that one. They hate America with a passion. They hold anti-American rallies and the like.
Why do you think the Iranians hate us?
What have we ever done to them that they can consider positive?
When have they ever attacked us?
Let's see, the Shah and his CIA and Mossad trained SAVAK.
They take our hostages (they were pissed).
We freeze their assets (We were pissed).
We urged Saddam's starting his invasion of Iran as we thought the post revolution Iran as weak militarily.
We were instrumental in Saddam gettin his hands on some WMDs that were used against the Iranians.
When we were supposed to be a neutral patrolling the Gulf during that Iran/Iraq war, we ended up taking sides after one of our ships gets bombed (Exocet) by an Iraqi Aircraft!
We ended up shooting down (accidental) an Iranian airliner which resulted in the deaths of all of its civillian passengers.
So far not so good for US/Iran relations.
The relations start to thaw under HWB and the Clinton Administrations.
Iran/US seem close to opening up diplomatic relations. We're not so seemingly pissed off at each other.
Anti-American rhetoric seemingly slows down in Iran.
Then comes the "Axis of Evil" speech by G. Bush.
We have targeted Iran.
That along with Invading Afghanistan, then Iraq (on false WMD charges).
We've got troops beyond Iran's western border in Iraq.
We have troops beyond Iran's eastern border in Afghanistan.
We have "allies" in Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, all close to or on the border with Iran.
Iran is fearing us right about now, so the increase in anti-American sentiment is not surprising.
You think all of our anti-Iranian speeches and threats are going to have them like us?
We've shown that we have invaded other countries, occupied them, and overthrew their govt's.
Right now is not the time to be rattling our sabres.
We should be extending the olive branch and try to develop our relations, both diplomatically and in business.
War and hatred is just too costly in wasted dollars and lives lost.
-
Thats a ridiculously childish analogy for somebody your age beetle...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thats a ridiculously childish analogy for somebody your age beetle...
LOL! Of course - I was talking to NUKE! :)
But don't get me wrong. I love NUKE.
-
Heh, but the analogy is still wrong.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
NUKE, think about what you said here next time we have a gun thread. Your logic here is a complete reversal of your gun thread logic. You have no problem with nuts having guns, so why worry about nuts having nukes?
OK, so you be me and I'll be you...
... A nuke is just an inanimate object. It's not going to get up all by itself and blast you to hell - so where's the problem? Nukes don't kill people, only people kill people. America, Britain, France, Russia, Israel all have nukes - proof positive that nukes are not the problem. And if you DO one day get killed by a nuke, always remember that it wasn't the nuke's fault.
Join the NRA today! (Nuke Redistribution Alliance) We believe that no country shall take away the right of another country to have a nuke!
gotta be joking. Your gonna give guns to extremists? Their rights are protected too huh? Sorry but I dont agree. Only law-abiding, non-fanatical people should be allowed to posses weapons of any kind. Now you talking nukes. One guy with a friggin machine gun could kill a couple thousand maybe if they all just stood there for it. 1 guy with a nuke could do what 3 or 4 million in the right place. Relating a firearm to a nuke is pure fantasy. Iran wants them to either keep us at bay or use them to exert dominance in the region. Either way that is a threat to us and World Security and that cannot be allowed to happen.
By the way why you are quoting all those countries that have nukes and there hasnt been a problem I suggest you read up on Pakistan and India, In case you forgot they were detonating them in retaliation to each others testing. That is a pure example of a nuclear detonation causing another country to use one. Testing or not I am not in favor of letting any more countries have them. I dont really care who it is. Enough of them exist in the world. No One needs them.
If I can put it like this maybe you will understand. In america It is illegal to own machine guns. (in most states and without going through appropiate checks and getting licensed) The Police are allowed to use them. I look at Nuclear weapons as the same. The good guys have them to make sure the bad guys dont get out of line.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
The Police are allowed to use them. I look at Nuclear weapons as the same. The good guys have them to make sure the bad guys dont get out of line.
please what? the USA is NOT the world police, no thank you.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
The ability we have in completely destroying another civilization whether it be by Nukes, Chems, or Bios has been what's been protecting us from any WMD attack. We have the ability and will use it if we're attacked by another country.
Like it or not, that's been the best reason why we haven't been attacked by another country.
We're going down a very dangerous and costly road if we're going to go around attacking those that we feel might attack us just because they have the capability of what they might do if they chose to do it. Looks like we fear them, and we shouldn't.
The USSR and China were much bigger threats because they actually had the capability and had our cities targeted. LOL, they didn't like us either.
Let's say Iran tries to deliver a nuke and detonate it on US soil.
How does it get here? It'll escape detection? If we found it and traced it to Iran, bye-bye Iran.
What type, fission or fusion? How deadly? How large would it be?
It just isn't going to happen as it would assure their destruction.
Now we can change course and stop the saber rattling and open up diplomatic relations with Iran. Iran would make a good ally.
It's high time they saw the good in America instead of the bad side as we've not really given them a confidence in us as an ally.
Once we stop fearing each other, the sooner we could move forward in a mutually beneficial relationship.
Well written.. I think it was Miko2d long ago that had a quote something like:
'When goods don't cross borders, armies will..'
The ability to achieve honest communication should be priority one..
-
If I was threatned by someone with a gun, I would make sure I had a gun next time I met this guy.
Maybe they don´t have Nukes now, but if USA keeps this game up, they sure will find some.
Trusting Pakistan as allied is a very big misstake, theese are the ones that supplied Iran with the technology and that will suply the bomb as well.
Remember, theese guys where also supporting the Talibans in Afghanistan. Their leader is a Dictator and he has a lot to lose in this "game" between "religions". He knows he´s next in line after Iran and Syria.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
please what? the USA is NOT the world police, no thank you.
You seemed to like us being the world police when we saved your arses in WW2!
-
Originally posted by Raider179
You seemed to like us being the world police when we saved your arses in WW2!
Ghost is a German, I think you can understand why he might not like the world police...
Sir! Put your arms down and slowly step away from the Poland!
;)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Why do you think the Iranians hate us?
What have we ever done to them that they can consider positive?
When have they ever attacked us?
Let's see, the Shah and his CIA and Mossad trained SAVAK.
They take our hostages (they were pissed).
We freeze their assets (We were pissed).
We urged Saddam's starting his invasion of Iran as we thought the post revolution Iran as weak militarily.
We were instrumental in Saddam gettin his hands on some WMDs that were used against the Iranians.
When we were supposed to be a neutral patrolling the Gulf during that Iran/Iraq war, we ended up taking sides after one of our ships gets bombed (Exocet) by an Iraqi Aircraft!
We ended up shooting down (accidental) an Iranian airliner which resulted in the deaths of all of its civillian passengers.
So far not so good for US/Iran relations.
The relations start to thaw under HWB and the Clinton Administrations.
Iran/US seem close to opening up diplomatic relations. We're not so seemingly pissed off at each other.
Anti-American rhetoric seemingly slows down in Iran.
Then comes the "Axis of Evil" speech by G. Bush.
We have targeted Iran.
That along with Invading Afghanistan, then Iraq (on false WMD charges).
We've got troops beyond Iran's western border in Iraq.
We have troops beyond Iran's eastern border in Afghanistan.
We have "allies" in Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, all close to or on the border with Iran.
Iran is fearing us right about now, so the increase in anti-American sentiment is not surprising.
You think all of our anti-Iranian speeches and threats are going to have them like us?
We've shown that we have invaded other countries, occupied them, and overthrew their govt's.
Right now is not the time to be rattling our sabres.
We should be extending the olive branch and try to develop our relations, both diplomatically and in business.
War and hatred is just too costly in wasted dollars and lives lost.
They hate us because we are infidels. I.E we dont all believe in Allah and that mohammed is the one and only prophet. Doesnt matter what we do/say we are fundamentally flawed in their eyes.
-
We were instrumental in Saddam gettin his hands on some WMDs that were used against the Iranians.
How was the US instrumental in Saddam getting his hands on WMD? Show some proof.
How does it get here? It'll escape detection?
Thousands of tons of drugs get smuggled into the US all the time. A more appropriate question would be.....How do we stop one from getting here in the first place.
It just isn't going to happen as it would assure their destruction.
Islamists dont worry about their own destruction, they just become martyrs. Dying in the name of Allah is a good thing in their eyes.
Remember we were told that there were untold numbers of Al Quaeda training bases and that we were going to go hunt down Bin Laden and his group.
I remember being told about 4 Al-Qaeada training bases in Afghanistan, I do believe they have been destroyed.
So can the STUPID anti-American garbage statements.
I've re-read my post several times. I have tried looking at my own post from different perspectives. I have yet to be able to see anything *anti-american* in it. My comment about *how blind are you* referred specifically to chemical precursors, 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas, and other items that were known to exist but have never been accounted for. The 550 artillery shells were somehow *misplaced* by the Iraqi army.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
They hate us because we are infidels. I.E we dont all believe in Allah and that mohammed is the one and only prophet. Doesnt matter what we do/say we are fundamentally flawed in their eyes.
You have that exactly right raider. We will never have peace with Islam simply because we are all infidels that dont believe and only deserve death because of it.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
They hate us because we are infidels. I.E we dont all believe in Allah and that mohammed is the one and only prophet. Doesnt matter what we do/say we are fundamentally flawed in their eyes.
Jews and christians and those who believe in the old iranian Zarathustra religion are not defined as infidels.
There are christian churches in Iran and also the holy buildings of the other religions and they are protected because - for example - in the Koran Jesus is not described as the son of God like in the Bible but as a holy prophet.
The constitution of Iran had defined the monotheistic religions as such who have to be protected.
And so - in the iranian parliament - by constitutional rule - there is also 1 christian, 1 jewish and 1 zoroasrian member without having to be elected in order to represent their religions in the parliament.
So these infidel/heretic-things you wrote is simply not true.
But I see that the propaganda machine to prepare the people for a war against Iran is working fine.
I just wait for news that Iran is able to strike WMD-attacks against USA within 45 minutes, so a preemptive strike has to be done...
-
Originally posted by babek-
Jews and christians and those who believe in the old iranian Zarathustra religion are not defined as infidels.
There are christian churches in Iran and also the holy buildings of the other religions and they are protected because - for example - in the Koran Jesus is not described as the son of God like in the Bible but as a holy prophet.
The constitution of Iran had defined the monotheistic religions as such who have to be protected.
And so - in the iranian parliament - by constitutional rule - there is also 1 christian, 1 jewish and 1 zoroasrian member without having to be elected in order to represent their religions in the parliament.
So these infidel/heretic-things you wrote is simply not true.
But I see that the propaganda machine to prepare the people for a war against Iran is working fine.
I just wait for news that Iran is able to strike WMD-attacks against USA within 45 minutes, so a preemptive strike has to be done...
That must be why Iran helps fund and support Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that attacks Israel regularly. I dont believe that protections extended to their own countrymen apply to Americans or to Jews living in Israel heh.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
We were instrumental in Saddam gettin his hands on some WMDs that were used against the Iranians.
When we were supposed to be a neutral patrolling the Gulf during that Iran/Iraq war, we ended up taking sides after one of our ships gets bombed (Exocet) by an Iraqi Aircraft!
We ended up shooting down (accidental) an Iranian airliner which resulted in the deaths of all of its civillian passengers.
Thanks for nice summary.
I will try to make this part more exact.
US sold Tow`s to Iran, official excuse were some terrorist in Lebanon.
US sold Tow`s to Iran again and again.
One day SH were informed, that his tanks were hit by TOW. Then he accidentaly hit american ship.
Then USAF shotdown Iranian civil airliner.
Then Iran and Iraq ended war, because it were clear, that the only one concern of US is to sell weapons, have profit and damage both countries as much as possible.
War took 8 years.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
They hate us because we are infidels. I.E we dont all believe in Allah and that mohammed is the one and only prophet. Doesnt matter what we do/say we are fundamentally flawed in their eyes.
Ahh poor brainwashed boy.
here are some hints for you
(http://www.farsinet.com/ecards/christmas/images/nativity_iran_church.jpg)
few more (http://www.farsinet.com/ecards/christmas2.html)
But im sure that all of that is BS, since you did hear on TV that Iran is full of islamist terrorist with mission goal to annihilate US and Israel....
But you are total noob and you have no balls to visit iran and ask Iranian Jewish hows the life in iran.
If you need more milk, just call you mummy
here is another wide spread religion in Iran zoroastrianism
(http://members.aol.com/ahreemanxii/images/c%20iran%20fire%20temple%20zoroastrian.jpg)
I can imagine that it doesnt suite to Israeli/US politics, that In Iran you can go to the dinner with Muslims, Jews, Catholics atheist at once and nobody want to kill anybody.....
Come on show me that you arent an ******* im going to iran in 6 months or so for my 3rd time.... come with me i will take you around. And you can buy carpet with mickey mouse
-
Yeah, the US never chose one side or the other, we helped both sides. I dont agree with that, but we did.
As far as *damage both sides as much as possible* goes, I dont think the Reagan administration wanted either side to come out as a clear winner and wanted both belligerents to come out of the war weaker than they went in.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
That must be why Iran helps fund and support Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that attacks Israel regularly. I dont believe that protections extended to their own countrymen apply to Americans heh.
Hmmm... when the USA supported terrorists - like those who fought the communist regime in Nicaragua - they did it surely to fight and kill christian infidels ? :rolleyes:
What a nonsense.
Its politic - nothing else.
Every nation in this world and in human history has used groups and persons for their political reasons.
And its also interesting how fast so called "freedom fighters" and "good guys" are definded later by the very same supporters as "terrorists" and "bad guys".
It should not be forgotton that creatures like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein were once supported by the USA and celebrated as freedom fighters or friends.
-
But you are total noob and you have no balls to visit iran and ask Iranian Jewish hows the life in iran.
Maybe you should go to Israel and ask Israeli Jews how they like Hamas (funded by the Iranian gov't) killing their people?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
That must be why Iran helps fund and support Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that attacks Israel regularly. I dont believe that protections extended to their own countrymen apply to Americans or to Jews living in Israel heh.
here is what Hamas is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)
And now be so kind and explain me, whitch political party is terrorist organization and whitch political party isnt terrorist organization.... or how to determine it.
thx
-
lol oh yeah I forgot all the moderate iranians. Like the ones who issued a fatwah against rushdie for writing a book. Who did that again? oh yeah the ayatolla.(sorry for spelling but I gotta get to class) some nice guys over there. Want to kill people for writing books. be back to discuss more how nice guys they are and we should play some cards with them sometime.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Maybe you should go to Israel and ask Israeli Jews how they like Hamas (funded by the Iranian gov't) killing their people?
not true Hamas was founded by my grany.
and if you want to beat me, post some links. Thx.
EDIT: we better do not ask who invested $1 bil. into afghan terrorists fighters and organized bigest army of worsters criminals of ME.
-
Originally posted by babek-
Hmmm... when the USA supported terrorists - like those who fought the communist regime in Nicaragua - they did it surely to fight and kill christian infidels ? :rolleyes:
Hey, they where convicted and found guilty. They have served their time for this crime: AKA, payed the dues.
Regan just by pure luck, cleared out from the courtrooms in Haag, as Nicaragua did´nt make a complaint there. It is even mention in the VERDICT against USA.
USA is the only state in the world that have used Nukes, the only state that has been convicted as terrorist-state, by the international court of law.
-
It should not be forgotton that creatures like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein were once supported by the USA and celebrated as freedom fighters or friends.
I already posted about the US supporting both sides of the Iran-Iraq war.
Osama bi-Laden was fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when we supported him. That was during the cold war and a very different era than the one we are now in. We can't forget that either ;)
-
Originally posted by Raider179
gotta be joking. Your gonna give guns to extremists? Their rights are protected too huh? Sorry but I dont agree. Only law-abiding, non-fanatical people should be allowed to posses weapons of any kind. Now you talking nukes. One guy with a friggin machine gun could kill a couple thousand maybe if they all just stood there for it. 1 guy with a nuke could do what 3 or 4 million in the right place. Relating a firearm to a nuke is pure fantasy. Iran wants them to either keep us at bay or use them to exert dominance in the region. Either way that is a threat to us and World Security and that cannot be allowed to happen.
By the way why you are quoting all those countries that have nukes and there hasnt been a problem I suggest you read up on Pakistan and India, In case you forgot they were detonating them in retaliation to each others testing. That is a pure example of a nuclear detonation causing another country to use one. Testing or not I am not in favor of letting any more countries have them. I dont really care who it is. Enough of them exist in the world. No One needs them.
If I can put it like this maybe you will understand. In america It is illegal to own machine guns. (in most states and without going through appropiate checks and getting licensed) The Police are allowed to use them. I look at Nuclear weapons as the same. The good guys have them to make sure the bad guys dont get out of line.
R179 - you would need to have been in at the ground floor of these gun threads to understand what I'm saying to NUKE. :aok
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Maybe you should go to Israel and ask Israeli Jews how they like Hamas (funded by the Iranian gov't) killing their people?
yeah israeli politics are fools.
Its clear... so i dont mind , that people of israel elected their leaders and they leaders created for them sutch a terrible conditions for living. If people of israel belive in arms and killing, they have what they wanted to have. If they do not like it, they can change it. But they probably like it very much so they keep supporting sutch politic.
Btw how is it related to fact, that in Iran all religion groups live in peace and in small israel and palestine they cant ?
-
Originally posted by lada
here is what Hamas is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)
And now be so kind and explain me, whitch political party is terrorist organization and whitch political party isnt terrorist organization.... or how to determine it.
thx
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/TerrorAttacks.html
Unless I have miscounted, FIFTY terrorist attacks against Israel since April of 1994 are attributed to Hamas. Some of the attacks Hamas had help from other organizations but most they did by themselves.
Another link to Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html
Hamas has a politcal agenda that they back up with terrorist attacks.
-
Btw how is it related to fact, that in Iran all religion groups live in peace and in small israel and palestine they cant ?
Just because they have learned to get along with each other in their own country does not mean they dont sponsor groups to attack Israel or that they like America. Israel and the palestinians are a different can of worms altogether. Both sides have their hands dirty in that one.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Hamas has a politcal agenda that they back up with terrorist attacks.
Well thanks for links.
But you didnt tell me, whitch political organization should be considered as terrorist organization and whitch should not.
For example. If you consider Hamas to be rather terrorist organization that political, im asking why? There are some other political organization who kill much more people a year and they are not considered to be an terrorist.
-
Originally posted by lada
here is what Hamas is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)
And now be so kind and explain me, whitch political party is terrorist organization and whitch political party isnt terrorist organization.... or how to determine it.
thx
From your link, 2nd and 3rd lines....
Hamas is also Arabic for 'zeal' or 'courage') is a Palestinian Islamist paramilitary and political organization, regarded by some as a militant organization and by others as a terrorist group.
3rd and 4th lines......
The United States, Canada, Israel and the European Union, among others, consider Hamas a terrorist organization
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Just because they have learned to get along with each other in their own country does not mean they dont sponsor groups to attack Israel or that they like America. Israel and the palestinians are a different can of worms altogether. Both sides have their hands dirty in that one.
Who do you mean by THEY ? Who do you mean by " Iran sponsor terrorists" ?
Do you mean that ritch bussinesman living in Kermanshah or someone who is member of some iranian political party with representaion in parlament ? Some evidence ?
And who found this information and when ?
-
But you didnt tell me, whitch political organization should be considered as terrorist organization and whitch should not.
Thats not up to me to decide. /shrug
Imo....this is JUST my opinion. If you specifically target civilians in your attacks then you are a terrorist. This is not to be confused with say, accidentally hitting a wrong target and causing civilian deaths. Things like suicide bombers hitting a cafe full of people for instance, or bombing a federal building in Oklahoma.
-
Who do you mean by THEY ?
Iran.
Who do you mean by " Iran sponsor terrorists" ?
Give me a few minutes on that one, I have seen the information before, just have to find it again.
-
Iran
Since the inauguration of moderate President Mohammad Khatami in 1997, Iran has taken steps towards liberalization and made conciliatory gestures towards the United States—including public condemnations of terrorist attacks by Algerian and Egyptian groups. It remains, however, one of the most active state sponsors of international terrorism. It continues to support terrorist groups. In the trial of an Iranian and four Lebanese for the 1992 killing of Iranian Kurdish dissidents in a Berlin restaurant, a German court in 1997 found the Government of Iran to have implemented a policy of assassinating dissidents abroad. Iran conducted at least 13 such assassinations in 1997.
Affiliated Groups: Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, PKK
Sanctions: The Iran & Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 deprives foreign companies of certain economic benefits for investing in Iran's energy sectors.
link to above information, http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terrorism4.html
Didnt find the same link as I saw before, but found this one instead.
Iran
Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the planning of and support for terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.
Iran’s record against al-Qaida remains mixed. After the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, some al-Qaida members fled to Iran where they have found virtual safehaven. Iranian officials have acknowledged that Tehran detained al-Qaida operatives during 2003, including senior members. Iran’s publicized presentation of a list to the United Nations of deportees, however, was accompanied by a refusal to publicly identify senior members in Iranian custody on the grounds of “security.” Iran has resisted calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for further interrogation and trial.
During 2003, Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli activity, both rhetorically and operationally. Supreme Leader Khamenei praised Palestinian resistance operations, and President Khatami reiterated Iran’s support for the “wronged people of Palestine” and their struggles. Matching this rhetoric with action, Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian rejectionist groups -- notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command -- with funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. Iran hosted a conference in August 2003 on the Palestinian intifadah, at which an Iranian official suggested that the continued success of the Palestinian resistance depended on suicide operations.
Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq aimed at securing Tehran’s perceived interests there, some of which ran counter to those of the Coalition. Iran has indicated support for the Iraqi Governing Council and promised to help Iraqi reconstruction.
Shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, individuals with ties to the Revolutionary Guard may have attempted to infiltrate southern Iraq, and elements of the Iranian Government have helped members of Ansar al-Islam transit and find safehaven in Iran. In a Friday Prayers sermon in Tehran in May, Guardian Council member Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati publicly encouraged Iraqis to follow the Palestinian model and participate in suicide operations against Coalition forces.
Iran is a party to five of the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31644.htm
-
U.S. policy toward Iran on this subject is firm. The regime must end its support of international terrorism. Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security continue to be involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continue to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Iran's support includes funding, providing safe haven, training, and weapons to a wide variety of terrorist groups including Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Liberation Front for Palestine-General Command. Its support of HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is of particular concern, as both groups continue their deliberate policies of attacking Israeli citizens with suicide bombings.
http://www.state.gov/t/vc/rls/rm/24494.htm
-
You tell 'em, Gramps! :aok:cool:
-
Gramps? :rofl I am still not used to that!
-
I also found this in my Google search for Hamas funding.
http://www.betar.co.uk/articles/betar1062618980.php
Europe appears to be funding them as well.
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=191951&attrib_id=7777
Where does Hamas' money come from? Much of Hamas' funding comes from Palestinian expatriates, as well as from private donors in Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states. Iran also provides significant support, which some diplomats say could amount to between $20-$30 million per year. Moreover, some Muslim charities in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe funnel money into Hamas-backed social service groups.
Just cut/pasted that part of the article. Whoever wrote that article didnt use paragraphs, so it's kind of a chore to read.
I agree wholeheartedly with the social service side of Hamas, that is an awesome example of people trying to help themselves. Hamas does have a *military wing* that has accounted for many terrorist attacks.
-
Originally posted by lada
Ahh poor brainwashed boy.
here are some hints for you
(http://www.farsinet.com/ecards/christmas/images/nativity_iran_church.jpg)
few more (http://www.farsinet.com/ecards/christmas2.html)
But im sure that all of that is BS, since you did hear on TV that Iran is full of islamist terrorist with mission goal to annihilate US and Israel....
But you are total noob and you have no balls to visit iran and ask Iranian Jewish hows the life in iran.
If you need more milk, just call you mummy
here is another wide spread religion in Iran zoroastrianism
(http://members.aol.com/ahreemanxii/images/c%20iran%20fire%20temple%20zoroastrian.jpg)
I can imagine that it doesnt suite to Israeli/US politics, that In Iran you can go to the dinner with Muslims, Jews, Catholics atheist at once and nobody want to kill anybody.....
Come on show me that you arent an ******* im going to iran in 6 months or so for my 3rd time.... come with me i will take you around. And you can buy carpet with mickey mouse
This is laughable....
Religions:
Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#People
I cant take you into the ghetto because I have friends there and you wont get killed or robbed but you go by yourself your gonna have a bad time. I.E i can show you what I want you to see but not the reallity of the situation.
-
Originally posted by lada
here is what Hamas is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)
And now be so kind and explain me, whitch political party is terrorist organization and whitch political party isnt terrorist organization.... or how to determine it.
thx
Simple...Once the target of an attack becomes civilians.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
R179 - you would need to have been in at the ground floor of these gun threads to understand what I'm saying to NUKE. :aok
rgr that sorry
-
Originally posted by lada
Btw how is it related to fact, that in Iran all religion groups live in peace and in small israel and palestine they cant ?
See the link I posted on numbers of these other groups. They are sucha minority no one pays them any mind.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
This is laughable....
Religions:
Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#People
I cant take you into the ghetto because I have friends there and you wont get killed or robbed but you go by yourself your gonna have a bad time. I.E i can show you what I want you to see but not the reallity of the situation.
What are you talking about ?
Ghetos in Iran ? ehhh ? Must be some super information by CIA ? Some links?
Last time i were in Iran i meet Zoroastrians, Jews, Christian & 1 Baha'i guy from Singapor.
I dont know what is laughable about that ... i just wanted to show, that people of other religion live there w/o problems.
What exactly did you mean ?
-
my point was that there isnt a very large population of these other groups and in fact they are so small they are negligable. Even Iraq had catholics and christians in small numbers. The ghetto reference is saying that you being able to travel safely there is one thing, me being able to do it is another.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
my point was that there isnt a very large population of these other groups and in fact they are so small they are negligable. Even Iraq had catholics and christians in small numbers. The ghetto reference is saying that you being able to travel safely there is one thing, me being able to do it is another.
ahh ok so you basicaly agree that in Iran people are free regarding religion and they do not have any problems with other people regarding religion .. ?
-
This thread...And I have read it all is unreal.
Man there are some serious haters of the U.S. on this BBS. This thread shows some of it. It combined with other threads that some of you have been in , make me ask why in the world you even participate here.
Some of you here need to start a BBS of Amerihating People of the World who want it nuked to oblivion.
Some of what I have read here is simply revolting.:( :mad:
-
Originally posted by lada
ahh ok so you basicaly agree that in Iran people are free regarding religion and they do not have any problems with other people regarding religion .. ?
Biggest crock I have seen in awhile. Helll no.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/august/ateqeh_executed_27804.shtml
Hanging a 16 year old for being un-islamic.
PARIS, 27 Aug. (IPS) Iranians and international community expressed outrage at reported execution of the 16-year-old Ateqeh Rajabi on vague charges of un-Islamic behaviour
Beating a 15 year old for breaking ramadan fast
http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/001327.html
Here is some good reading for you
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/iran/Iran-05.htm#P209_34007.%20
"Information on the treatment of Jews in Iran is difficult to gather, owing in part to the apparent preference of community leaders not to publicize instances of mistreatment, if and when they occur. The organized community tends to publicly voice support for government policies, for example in denouncing Israel. "
jews hating Isreal no wonder they let them stay. The rest of that HRW article goes on to say how all of the minorities are mistreated some more severely than others. great bunch of people you are defending. Real freedom of religion kinda people unless you dont do it their way. Then its a hanging or beating.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
jews hating Isreal no wonder they let them stay. The rest of that HRW article goes on to say how all of the minorities are mistreated some more severely than others. great bunch of people you are defending. Real freedom of religion kinda people unless you dont do it their way. Then its a hanging or beating.
yeah .. typical american, he read 3 www and he know everything.
From the link regarding execution, you could note, that even local people protested. True is that in most sutch cases family doesnt back their children. The one who were "vicim" of the crime of somebody else in iran have some sort of power regarding his punishment.
And its quite common that
For example. One of my friend (a girl from Yazd) were harashed on the street by some boy. In 2 days police bring 3 guys, she identify one of them. Then they simply ask hew, how should they punish him.
He went to the jail for several days, as she suggested.
Thanks for link, but i suggest you to visit iran. May be you will be surprised, that Iranian jews doesn agree with israeli politics or iranian muslim do not consider their liders to be a muslims.
every event like execution w/o clear reason or proving guilty is another knife to the back of guardian council.
But you are probably to cool to check hows reality works.
Since 10 years ago prostitution were subject of dead penality, today prostitution in Tehran is just subject of little fine.
One thing is what happen there
second thing is whats public opinion
third thing is, where does iranian want to go.
i guess you have no clie about No.2&3
But fell free to judge and if you will have balls to go to Iran, let me, i will join you.
-
Isn't there a mentally impaired 19 year old female named Leila under sentence of death by stoning for prostitution? The original date for execution has passed but I haven't heard anything about commutation or pardon. More details are available at activistchat.com.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
Isn't there a mentally impaired 19 year old female named Leila under sentence of death by stoning for prostitution? The original date for execution has passed but I haven't heard anything about commutation or pardon. More details are available at activistchat.com.
Yeah the one that was forced into it by her mother.
http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/human_rights/stoning_to_death_iran.htm
Wonderful people
-
Originally posted by lada
yeah .. typical american, he read 3 www and he know everything.
From the link regarding execution, you could note, that even local people protested. True is that in most sutch cases family doesnt back their children. The one who were "vicim" of the crime of somebody else in iran have some sort of power regarding his punishment.
And its quite common that
For example. One of my friend (a girl from Yazd) were harashed on the street by some boy. In 2 days police bring 3 guys, she identify one of them. Then they simply ask hew, how should they punish him.
He went to the jail for several days, as she suggested.
Thanks for link, but i suggest you to visit iran. May be you will be surprised, that Iranian jews doesn agree with israeli politics or iranian muslim do not consider their liders to be a muslims.
every event like execution w/o clear reason or proving guilty is another knife to the back of guardian council.
But you are probably to cool to check hows reality works.
Since 10 years ago prostitution were subject of dead penality, today prostitution in Tehran is just subject of little fine.
One thing is what happen there
second thing is whats public opinion
third thing is, where does iranian want to go.
i guess you have no clie about No.2&3
But fell free to judge and if you will have balls to go to Iran, let me, i will join you.
1) I am far from a typical american. You have no clue on that subject so speaking on it pointless.
2)prostition is not just a fine. see the link on murdering the retarded girl for prostitution even though her mother forced her into it at a young age.
3) if they tried to execute someone in America for prostitution, adultery, or just being un-islamic(which would never happen because we are not idiots) you can be assured I wouldnt be the only one raising hell about it. I will protect anyones right to believe and do what they want as long as it doesnt interfere with someone elses same rights.
4)I have something bigger than balls bro its called a brain and my brain says it would be a one way trip to iran. The more I read about that country though the more I am favor of some of our friends in the big black planes with big shiny bombs paying you guys a little visit.
5)thats the great thing about america I can judge anything I want to and not worry about getting buried up to my neck and stoned to death for it.
6) of course their are some good people there. Not saying that at all. But you got some damn rotten apples over there and they are spoiling it for the rest of you. So you want to blame someone for the way I see your country blame your countrymen first.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Wonderful people
In Russia the marriage age is 18. In Ukraine it's 17. In Central Asian republics like Uzbekistan it's 15 or 16.
Let's bomb Uzbekistan!
You need to define your tolerance limits.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
In Russia the marriage age is 18. In Ukraine it's 17. In Central Asian republics like Uzbekistan it's 15 or 16.
Let's bomb Uzbekistan!
You need to define your tolerance limits.
and in arkansas its 14 or 16.. Did you read the article? Its about a mentally retarded woman being executed for prostitution not about how old she is to be married.
-
My remark was about cultural diversity that Americans are so proud about.
For me - live broadcast of McWeigh's (spelling?) execution for the families of Oklahoma Bombing victims is as barbaric as your article.
-
JFYI, if you read Charles Dickens, you should know that in XIX century in UK stealing more then 20 shillings was punished by death. Just came into my mind.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
2)prostition is not just a fine. see the link on murdering the retarded girl for prostitution even though her mother forced her into it at a young age.
fine .. it were in the meaning like "pay fine for prostitution", its quite common
Yeeep sutch things could never happen in US, there is no slavery and never ever in man kind history US women force her child to be a prostitude.
However if you realy belive that trip to iran could be one way trip, then you must have some special sort of information.
I would love to see some sources of your fear, coz you can meet a lot of foreigners in Iran.. .from Germany, France, New Zeland, UK, Swiss, Australian, and so on... but so far i saw the only 1 american in Tehran and 1 Emreekan in Turkey.
It seems that all people around the world just getting wrong informations and fact, that non of them has been split into 5 pieces in iran is probably incredible luck. Yeah... your informations are most correct .. the one way trip :rofl
-
Originally posted by Boroda
JFYI, if you read Charles Dickens, you should know that in XIX century in UK stealing more then 20 shillings was punished by death. Just came into my mind.
lol thats 200 years ago...try to stay at least in the same century
as for mcviegh he killed 168 people including babies. For me, they coulda strapped him to the top of the space shuttle for all I care about his rights.
-
Originally posted by lada
fine .. it were in the meaning like "pay fine for prostitution", its quite common
Yeeep sutch things could never happen in US, there is no slavery and never ever in man kind history US women force her child to be a prostitude.
However if you realy belive that trip to iran could be one way trip, then you must have some special sort of information.
I would love to see some sources of your fear, coz you can meet a lot of foreigners in Iran.. .from Germany, France, New Zeland, UK, Swiss, Australian, and so on... but so far i saw the only 1 american in Tehran and 1 Emreekan in Turkey.
It seems that all people around the world just getting wrong informations and fact, that non of them has been split into 5 pieces in iran is probably incredible luck. Yeah... your informations are most correct .. the one way trip :rofl
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_920.html
-
Lada, can you read Cyrillic? I mean - like I can read Czech to some extent, I understand about 70%, but for you reading Russian there's a problem with different alphabet...
You say things that contradict Western stereotypes about Iran. Here's a link about DPRK: http://www.enlight.ru/camera/dprk/index.html
Author said that he expected to see "underfed dirty peasants" there. I think that his pictures are worth 1000 words. It's an eye-opening experience.
-
http://www.theculturedtraveler.com/Archives/JUL2002/Iran.htm
http://www.iranian.com/Sep95/American_Iran.html
http://www.farhorizon.com/middle_east/iran-empire-of-ever-lasting-fires.htm
well i dont think, that you have problems between your ears.... i would guess your problem is between your legs :)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Lada, can you read Cyrillic? I mean - like I can read Czech to some extent, I understand about 70%, but for you reading Russian there's a problem with different alphabet...
You say things that contradict Western stereotypes about Iran. Here's a link about DPRK: http://www.enlight.ru/camera/dprk/index.html
Author said that he expected to see "underfed dirty peasants" there. I think that his pictures are worth 1000 words. It's an eye-opening experience.
hey thats NK :cool:
thanks but i cant read ciliric ( i can read something like 30% :D
i could post my own pictures if people are interesting in it.
-
That's North Korea, indeed :)
Please, post your pictures, they will be appreciated!
If you understand 30% of Russian text - WTG! ;)
Did you see the pictures there? Contradicts with propaganda stereotypes, doesn't it? ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
That's North Korea, indeed :)
Please, post your pictures, they will be appreciated!
If you understand 30% of Russian text - WTG! ;)
Did you see the pictures there? Contradicts with propaganda stereotypes, doesn't it? ;)
yeeep .. i will prepare them and post them during next week in o`club :cool:
-
Originally posted by lada
http://www.theculturedtraveler.com/Archives/JUL2002/Iran.htm
http://www.iranian.com/Sep95/American_Iran.html
http://www.farhorizon.com/middle_east/iran-empire-of-ever-lasting-fires.htm
well i dont think, that you have problems between your ears.... i would guess your problem is between your legs :)
1) 4 years old pre-9/11 letter
2)10 years old
3) a friggin travel agency
Give me a break.All you got is to question my manhood. Like I said the more I read the more in favor I am of bombing them/you back to the stone age. (not the people, the government, the mullahs, whomever supports the crap I posted earlier, looks like that includes you. Care to give your nationaliry, race? I guess HRW is full of it too, I couldnt even go through a miniscule amount of what they have on your friendly iran.
-
Originally posted by lada
hey thats NK :cool:
Probably don't need the sunglasses in NK.
(http://pacific.commerce.ubc.ca/keith/Images/easialit.gif)
-
ol' zoraster is still around?
no kidding?
:)
wasnt he the first to rule the universe singlehandedly?
-
Judging from that night satellite photo, looks like North Korea leads the world in energy conservation!
-
i have often wondered what the earth would look like looking at the dark side against the stars.
it must be amazing.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
gotta be joking. Your gonna give guns to extremists? Their rights are protected too huh? Sorry but I dont agree. Only law-abiding, non-fanatical people should be allowed to posses weapons of any kind. Now you talking nukes. One guy with a friggin machine gun could kill a couple thousand maybe if they all just stood there for it. 1 guy with a nuke could do what 3 or 4 million in the right place. Relating a firearm to a nuke is pure fantasy. Iran wants them to either keep us at bay or use them to exert dominance in the region. Either way that is a threat to us and World Security and that cannot be allowed to happen.
.
.
.
If I can put it like this maybe you will understand. In america It is illegal to own machine guns. (in most states and without going through appropiate checks and getting licensed) The Police are allowed to use them. I look at Nuclear weapons as the same. The good guys have them to make sure the bad guys dont get out of line.
Raider179 - I just wanted to come back to this, as it is highly logical and will be useful in future gun threads.
Of course I understand what you're saying here, and I agree entirely. I don't like the idea of nutjobs having nukes, and oil producing countries like Iran can meet their energy needs by conventional means, without needing nuclear energy.
As for your example about the US police being allowed machine guns, while John Doe is not, I agree again. But my stance has always been to extend this logic to include all guns - not just machine guns. And that pretty much describes the status quo in most European states.
I see that you agree with me when you said "Only law-abiding, non-fanatical people should be allowed to posses weapons of any kind." Unfortunately, having a ready supply of guns in retail outlets as in the US, there's no way to keep them out of criminal hands. That's why, like most people here, I would never want to see the same thing happen in Britain. - just for the record. :aok
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1) 4 years old pre-9/11 letter
2)10 years old
3) a friggin travel agency
actualy there are about 500 americans tourists in Iran every year.
Ahh.. i got your point so you want to spread you ideas to people who live under diferent regimes and at the same time you simply ignore&fear those people..
... wtg have a nice fear.
Thats right .. something has change in Iran after 9/11. Security at the airfield went up, people are scared of terrorist and hostility by goverment is not tolerated by public opinion.
But you can still belive in propaganda from your media. " average guy from ME is dreaming about Jihad" and not girls....
ohh well.. hard to speak with someone who doesnt have balls to check reality
Sure if you will wear miniscule you will be punished by police and people will be happy that sutch dumb has been arested.... thats same like walking nude in NYC .... they have just diferent limits and if you arent able to tolerate diferent cultures, then try to speak about it with your doctor.
However some proper scotish in iran could be proper fun. :D
-
Lada, are you joking?
I wouldn't be going to ANY muslim country to check out the climate right about now, unless I had an M-16 and body armor strapped on, and was going in with the Army.
There is "scared" and there is "smart"... it isn't exactly the smartest thing in the world to go into a region where people are kidnapped and killed.
And yes, yes, I know Iran isn't Iraq... but it is close, and I bet that border is pretty porous in some places.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Lada, are you joking?
I wouldn't be going to ANY muslim country to check out the climate right about now, unless I had an M-16 and body armor strapped on, and was going in with the Army.
There is "scared" and there is "smart"... it isn't exactly the smartest thing in the world to go into a region where people are kidnapped and killed.
And yes, yes, I know Iran isn't Iraq... but it is close, and I bet that border is pretty porous in some places.
Dont bother urchin he is obviously foolish. He will tell ya you dont have the balls to go there. I told him it aint balls its brains but he doesnt seem to understand. Wonder which one he thinks with.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Raider179 - I just wanted to come back to this, as it is highly logical and will be useful in future gun threads.
Of course I understand what you're saying here, and I agree entirely. I don't like the idea of nutjobs having nukes, and oil producing countries like Iran can meet their energy needs by conventional means, without needing nuclear energy.
As for your example about the US police being allowed machine guns, while John Doe is not, I agree again. But my stance has always been to extend this logic to include all guns - not just machine guns. And that pretty much describes the status quo in most European states.
I see that you agree with me when you said "Only law-abiding, non-fanatical people should be allowed to posses weapons of any kind." Unfortunately, having a ready supply of guns in retail outlets as in the US, there's no way to keep them out of criminal hands. That's why, like most people here, I would never want to see the same thing happen in Britain. - just for the record. :aok
Yeah only problem here is they are so abundant it would be like the war on drugs. Utterly useless to make them illegal. People would still own them. And like I said no problem for law-abiding folks but I am favor of making those laws against felons and violent criminals possessing weapons stricter. Doubt even that would change anything though. A person who is gonna risk 5-10 carrying a gun probably gonna risk 10-20 or whatever the years are. so I guess we are stuck the way we are.
-
Well, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the VAST majority of Muslims are nice, law-abiding people that just want to live and love in peace.
Unfortunately for me, there are roving groups of them that like to kill white people. Since I'm white, that means I'm not gonna go visit there any time soon.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Yeah only problem here is they are so abundant it would be like the war on drugs. Utterly useless to make them illegal. People would still own them. And like I said no problem for law-abiding folks but I am favor of making those laws against felons and violent criminals possessing weapons stricter. Doubt even that would change anything though. A person who is gonna risk 5-10 carrying a gun probably gonna risk 10-20 or whatever the years are. so I guess we are stuck the way we are.
Yes, I think that sums it up. Which is why I have never suggested that Americans should give up their guns - though some people think I have! Yes, it would be pointless to ban guns in the US - *they* would have to target ammo sales... but it's funny that guns are legal but drugs are not. If it's pointless to ban guns, then it's also pointless to ban drugs - for the same reasons.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
Judging from that night satellite photo, looks like North Korea leads the world in energy conservation!
That's partially because US made them stop their nuclear powerplant programm. Policy of starving works :(
The author on the page I posted says there are great energy saving measures taken.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Lada, are you joking?
I wouldn't be going to ANY muslim country to check out the climate right about now, unless I had an M-16 and body armor strapped on, and was going in with the Army.
I suggest Moslim provinces of Russian Federation. Like Tatarstan or Bashkiria.
-
Yea, I'd prolly be much more popular as a headless indie movie film star.
-
Ok Condi is throwing down the gaunlet looks like to me. This appears to be an open threat to Iran that they are next.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/09/rice/index.html
BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or "the next steps are in the offing."
"And I think everybody understands what the 'next steps' mean," Rice told reporters after a meeting with NATO foreign ministers and European Union officials.
what doesn next steps are in the offing mean? is that a typo?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Rude, well written but I have to ask. If you could remove yourself, just for one minute, from the patriotism you feel for america; could you then transpose America for Iran and vice versa in your text and it still hold true?
Do I understand your question correctly? You believe that the US government has the same goals and ambitions as Iranian Mullahs and radical fundamentalists?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nuclear blast.
Thought so
-
The "next steps" would be UN/SC and Resolutions.
Where ya been?
-
Sound more like to me she is threatening them with an attack. We have all seen how well embargo's/sanctions work with the oil for food bonanza. Your right though they would be the "next step" just a funny way of saying it.
-
More info coming in... Unmanned drones making overflights from iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6960480/
washington post reporter though
-
America...
America...
America, **** YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother ****ing day yeah,
America, **** YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, **** YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, **** YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow
**** YEAH!
McDonalds, **** YEAH!
Wal-Mart, **** YEAH!
The Gap, **** YEAH!
Baseball, **** YEAH!
NFL, ****, YEAH!
Rock and roll, **** YEAH!
The Internet, **** YEAH!
Slavery, **** YEAH!
**** YEAH!
Starbucks, **** YEAH!
Disney world, **** YEAH!
Porno, **** YEAH!
Valium, **** YEAH!
Reeboks, **** YEAH!
Fake Tits, **** YEAH!
Sushi, **** YEAH!
Taco Bell, **** YEAH!
Rodeos, **** YEAH!
Bed bath and beyond (**** yeah, **** yeah)
Liberty, **** YEAH!
White Slips, **** YEAH!
The Alamo, **** YEAH!
Band-aids, **** YEAH!
Las Vegas, **** YEAH!
Christmas, **** YEAH!
Immigrants, **** YEAH!
Columbine, **** YEAH!
Democrats, **** YEAH!
Republicans (republicans)
(**** yeah, **** yeah)
Sportsmanship
Books