Don't impeach Cheney and Bush..
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
Nark, if simply "pointing" weapons at another country justifies a pre-emptive attack, then there are a lot of countries in the world that have the right to unilaterally attack the US. There is no country in the world pointing more weapons at others, and the US has no more right to do so than does Iran, or any other country.
-
sky's the limit
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 4614
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
- Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???
Wilbur wrote:Nark, if simply "pointing" weapons at another country justifies a pre-emptive attack, then there are a lot of countries in the world that have the right to unilaterally attack the US. There is no country in the world pointing more weapons at others, and the US has no more right to do so than does Iran, or any other country.
Wilbur,
It's the Great American Double Standard at work. What's good for them, is no good for anyone else, particularly non-english speaking non-white parts of the planet. But, the Yanks time at the top is quickly coming to a close, and it's the state of their economy that'll bring it all down. What happens next should be interesting.
stl
Scary you mean. The USD is rapidly becoming a shadow of its former self under the morons running the White House. It's only a matter of time before the Euro supplants the USD as the "world" currency and the Americans start to feel threatened economically. An increasingly imperialistic America feeling threatened is a dangerous thing for the world.sky's the limit wrote:Wilbur wrote:Nark, if simply "pointing" weapons at another country justifies a pre-emptive attack, then there are a lot of countries in the world that have the right to unilaterally attack the US. There is no country in the world pointing more weapons at others, and the US has no more right to do so than does Iran, or any other country.
Wilbur,
It's the Great American Double Standard at work. What's good for them, is no good for anyone else, particularly non-english speaking non-white parts of the planet. But, the Yanks time at the top is quickly coming to a close, and it's the state of their economy that'll bring it all down. What happens next should be interesting.
stl
Mutual Assured Destruction is a thing of the past. So the double standard hardly applies in this case.
Iran makes good on it's threats. Thats why we see FARSI speaking detainee's in Iraq.
IRAN has funded several different groups in Lebanon who have caused many booms and bangs.
IRAN has been behind several kidnappings of US officials since the late 70's. Outside of Iran.
So when someone commit's a hostile threat (pointing the weapon) I can blow his ass away. Iran doesn't have that preverbal shotgun, yet. Thats why we are trying to stop them from picking it up, because their threats aren't empty.
We have been "talking" to them the last several years to stop, all the while they've been getting closer and closer to achieving a weapon.
I'm not an economist, and I personally don't really care about how well the greenback is doing against the euro. I live a great life in the US (when I'm there for more than a month).
Politics is a game of covering your own ass, not looking out for other people. Perhaps that says something...
Iran makes good on it's threats. Thats why we see FARSI speaking detainee's in Iraq.
IRAN has funded several different groups in Lebanon who have caused many booms and bangs.
IRAN has been behind several kidnappings of US officials since the late 70's. Outside of Iran.
So when someone commit's a hostile threat (pointing the weapon) I can blow his ass away. Iran doesn't have that preverbal shotgun, yet. Thats why we are trying to stop them from picking it up, because their threats aren't empty.
We have been "talking" to them the last several years to stop, all the while they've been getting closer and closer to achieving a weapon.
I'm not an economist, and I personally don't really care about how well the greenback is doing against the euro. I live a great life in the US (when I'm there for more than a month).
Politics is a game of covering your own ass, not looking out for other people. Perhaps that says something...
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
With all due respect Nark, this is a common condition in the USA. Americans don't know or care what goes on outside their borders and don't think of themselves as part of the world community. It matters very much how the USD is faring against the EURO, and the reasons the dollar is doing so poorly matter even more. This fixation on incompetently fighting wars to the exclusion of any domestic governence, incompetent or otherwise, is killing your country economically and destroying America's place of respect on the world stage. Bush and company are an unmitigated disaster for your nation and the faster you get rid of them the better off Americans and the rest of the world will be.Nark wrote:I'm not an economist, and I personally don't really care about how well the greenback is doing against the euro. I live a great life in the US (when I'm there for more than a month).
Politics is a game of covering your own ass, not looking out for other people. Perhaps that says something...
Give me a break Nark. Every evil deed you attribute to Iran has also been committed by the US, many times over.
Rockie has said it perfectly regarding the place America could, or should, be occupying. To add to what he said, Americans are going to realize fairly soon that their economy does not operate in isolation from the rest of the world. At one point in history it could, but not anymore. Your President is racking up debt at an unprecidented rate. That money is being borrowed from all over the world and will have to be repaid one day by you and your countrymen. That's probably the principal reason your dollar has shed almost 30% of its value over the last couple years. Your government, just like you the individual, does not have a limitless capacity to spend money. Although the US is nowhere near bancruptcy, it is at a point where the quality of life for Americans is going to begin degrading. The cost of imported goods and services and travelling outside the US, will higher because your dollar is worth less, the government will be paying a bigger portion of your tax dollars as interest payments on borrowed money, leaving less to fund important programs unless they increase taxes, etc.
Americans have a bad habit of believing their own bullshit about their self declared omnipotence in all matters of financial, military, and political endevours. To bad the idiot in the white house has demonstrated himself to be the complete opposite. He squandered the global political good will, support and sympathy your country had immediately following 9/11, he is decimating your economy and leaving you and your kids with a massive debt you will have to repay, and through lies and stupidity he plunged your military into the quagmire of Iraq.
Keep believing; I'm looking forward to taking cheap winter vacations in Florida.
Rockie has said it perfectly regarding the place America could, or should, be occupying. To add to what he said, Americans are going to realize fairly soon that their economy does not operate in isolation from the rest of the world. At one point in history it could, but not anymore. Your President is racking up debt at an unprecidented rate. That money is being borrowed from all over the world and will have to be repaid one day by you and your countrymen. That's probably the principal reason your dollar has shed almost 30% of its value over the last couple years. Your government, just like you the individual, does not have a limitless capacity to spend money. Although the US is nowhere near bancruptcy, it is at a point where the quality of life for Americans is going to begin degrading. The cost of imported goods and services and travelling outside the US, will higher because your dollar is worth less, the government will be paying a bigger portion of your tax dollars as interest payments on borrowed money, leaving less to fund important programs unless they increase taxes, etc.
Americans have a bad habit of believing their own bullshit about their self declared omnipotence in all matters of financial, military, and political endevours. To bad the idiot in the white house has demonstrated himself to be the complete opposite. He squandered the global political good will, support and sympathy your country had immediately following 9/11, he is decimating your economy and leaving you and your kids with a massive debt you will have to repay, and through lies and stupidity he plunged your military into the quagmire of Iraq.
Keep believing; I'm looking forward to taking cheap winter vacations in Florida.
-
sky's the limit
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 4614
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
- Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???
And that, is about what it boils down to unfortunately.Wilbur wrote: Americans have a bad habit of believing their own bullshit about their self declared omnipotence in all matters of financial, military, and political endevours.
The Yank economy is is real trouble, and we're all going to hurt for a while when it does finally falter, until then, buying on Ebay sure is a lot better...
I stand by what I said earlier: The biggest threat to the planet right now, is the U.S., it's egocentric Leadership, and the completely ignorant 51% of the population who keep putting it in power.
stl
Bush, Cheney, Rice et al need to shut their yaps with the bellicose rhetoric, or put their money where their yaps are. According to the UN, there exists no evidence that Iran has begun, or is planning a nuclear weapons program. A war started against Iran anytime soon would be an exact copy of the Iraq conflict, it would be a war of absolute aggression and empire building.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/iran_nuc ... cs_iaea_us
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/iran_nuc ... cs_iaea_us
I'm givin er all she's got..
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
Those who do not learn from history... I recall a lecture on the alliances formed prior to the first (and to a lesser degree second) world war. Seems to me that all this has already happened, and will happen again. You can blame whom ever you like, but this idea that the US economy will fall seems unlikely to me. As of the present day, the US government backs its dollar (the gold standard no longer applies) and thus the US military (which, like it or not, is probably the strongest in the world) back the economy. As such, if the debt collectors come calling, they will be met by someone in tactical gear. Brinksmanship is a fickle game.
(Not that it will ever come to that, because as previously stated the world economy is totally integrated so shutting down the US would wreak havoc on everyone's economies... the world simply won't allow it.)
(Not that it will ever come to that, because as previously stated the world economy is totally integrated so shutting down the US would wreak havoc on everyone's economies... the world simply won't allow it.)
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
-
shitdisturber
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
If you meet the debt collectors with tactical gear; your economy grinds to a halt. Nobody will buy from you, and nobody will sell to you.mellow_pilot wrote:Those who do not learn from history... I recall a lecture on the alliances formed prior to the first (and to a lesser degree second) world war. Seems to me that all this has already happened, and will happen again. You can blame whom ever you like, but this idea that the US economy will fall seems unlikely to me. As of the present day, the US government backs its dollar (the gold standard no longer applies) and thus the US military (which, like it or not, is probably the strongest in the world) back the economy. As such, if the debt collectors come calling, they will be met by someone in tactical gear. Brinksmanship is a fickle game.
(Not that it will ever come to that, because as previously stated the world economy is totally integrated so shutting down the US would wreak havoc on everyone's economies... the world simply won't allow it.)
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
My point is that if all of a sudden all the US's creditors said pay up, the White House would tell them to get bent, and there's nothing they (the creditors) could do. It would be impossible to collect. Yes, it would mean that the global economy would cease to function as it currently does. It would mean that anything the US wanted to import from a creditor nation that didn't want to sell would have to be taken by force, but that's kinda the point isn't. They have the power to steal your lunch money, and you can't do shit to stop it.
I'm fully aware of how complex the reality is, and how simplified this conversation is, but in the end, it's all brinksmanship (if you want to go that far) and no one will go up against someone with lots of nukes and shortly, nuke defence. If it happened, the US would then either become a pariah, or would gain allies who want to be on the winning end when the dust settles.
So in a round about way, the US military can defend the nation from economic dangers. If you have the power to destroy a nation physically, why would said nation risk provoking a conflict?
All this is ofcourse moot when one considers that whenever a nation has gone bankrupt in the past, either a new government, or new occupier takes over and most, if not all the debt is wiped clean. Or some other market force stablizes the situation. Axis post-WWII for example.
I'm fully aware of how complex the reality is, and how simplified this conversation is, but in the end, it's all brinksmanship (if you want to go that far) and no one will go up against someone with lots of nukes and shortly, nuke defence. If it happened, the US would then either become a pariah, or would gain allies who want to be on the winning end when the dust settles.
So in a round about way, the US military can defend the nation from economic dangers. If you have the power to destroy a nation physically, why would said nation risk provoking a conflict?
All this is ofcourse moot when one considers that whenever a nation has gone bankrupt in the past, either a new government, or new occupier takes over and most, if not all the debt is wiped clean. Or some other market force stablizes the situation. Axis post-WWII for example.
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
I think the immediate threat to US interests from Iran in regards to the nuclear issue has to do with reprocessing uranium for munitions and armour. An overwhelmingly large advantage the US has on the battle field is its depleted uranium munitions and armour. Once Iran fortifies their munitions and armour with depleted uranium this advantage will clearly be gone. This would make it even more difficult for the US to impose policy in the middle east. Iran nuclear bomb would be around 4 or more years away without UN oversight. DU capability is very much NOW!
The issue won't be a bunch of nations calling in their IOU's and the US military then attacking and taking what they want. Their economy is nowhere near bankruptcy. It will simply be their standard of living taking a hit and the government's spending options becoming limited as a much bigger chunk of government revenue goes to interest payments.
I received this in an email in 2003. I thought I would share in this thread as it follows the lines of "here we go again".
............................
A DIALOG OF THE DEAF BETWEEN REASON AND PASSION
REASON: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
PASSION: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.
REASON: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
PASSION: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
REASON: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
PASSION: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
REASON: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
PASSION: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
REASON: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
PASSION: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.
REASON: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
PASSION: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
REASON: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
PASSION: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to al-Qaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
REASON: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
PASSION: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
REASON: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
PASSION: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
REASON: He did?
PASSION: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an al-Qaida poison factory in Iraq.
REASON: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
PASSION: And a British intelligence report...
REASON: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
PASSION: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
REASON: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
PASSION: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
REASON: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
PASSION: Yes, but there is plently of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
REASON: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
PASSION: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.
REASON: So what is the point?
PASSION: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.
REASON: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
PASSION: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
REASON: And what if it does rule against us?
PASSION: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
REASON: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
PASSION: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
REASON: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
PASSION: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
REASON: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
PASSION: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
REASON: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
PASSION: Yes.
REASON: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-
PASSION: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
REASON: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
PASSION: I never said that.
REASON: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
PASSION: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
REASON: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
PASSION: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
REASON: You know this? How?
PASSION: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
REASON: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
PASSION: Precisely.
REASON: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
PASSION: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
REASON: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
PASSION: Exactly.
REASON: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
PASSION: That's a diplomatic issue.
REASON: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
PASSION: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
REASON: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
PASSION: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
REASON: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
PASSION: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
REASON: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
PASSION: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
REASON: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
PASSION: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
REASON: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
PASSION: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
REASON: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
PASSION: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
REASON: So, we have an an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
PASSION: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
REASON: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
PASSION: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
REASON: In which case?
PASSION: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
REASON: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
PASSION: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
REASON: That makes no sense.
PASSION: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
REASON: I give up!
............................
A DIALOG OF THE DEAF BETWEEN REASON AND PASSION
REASON: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
PASSION: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.
REASON: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
PASSION: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
REASON: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
PASSION: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
REASON: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
PASSION: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
REASON: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
PASSION: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.
REASON: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
PASSION: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
REASON: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
PASSION: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to al-Qaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
REASON: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
PASSION: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
REASON: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
PASSION: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
REASON: He did?
PASSION: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an al-Qaida poison factory in Iraq.
REASON: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
PASSION: And a British intelligence report...
REASON: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
PASSION: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
REASON: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
PASSION: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
REASON: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
PASSION: Yes, but there is plently of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
REASON: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
PASSION: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.
REASON: So what is the point?
PASSION: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.
REASON: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
PASSION: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
REASON: And what if it does rule against us?
PASSION: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
REASON: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
PASSION: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
REASON: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
PASSION: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
REASON: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
PASSION: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
REASON: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
PASSION: Yes.
REASON: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-
PASSION: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
REASON: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
PASSION: I never said that.
REASON: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
PASSION: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
REASON: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
PASSION: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
REASON: You know this? How?
PASSION: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
REASON: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
PASSION: Precisely.
REASON: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
PASSION: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
REASON: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
PASSION: Exactly.
REASON: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
PASSION: That's a diplomatic issue.
REASON: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
PASSION: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
REASON: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
PASSION: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
REASON: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
PASSION: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
REASON: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
PASSION: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
REASON: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
PASSION: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
REASON: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
PASSION: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
REASON: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
PASSION: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
REASON: So, we have an an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
PASSION: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
REASON: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
PASSION: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
REASON: In which case?
PASSION: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
REASON: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
PASSION: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
REASON: That makes no sense.
PASSION: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
REASON: I give up!
bmc
JBL:
It's still there however the general public's ADD has kicked in and moved on to the next hot topic.
I haven't had the pleasure of seeing a newscast in a little while, but have access to the internet in short does's. War's a hell of a thing.
It's still there however the general public's ADD has kicked in and moved on to the next hot topic.
I haven't had the pleasure of seeing a newscast in a little while, but have access to the internet in short does's. War's a hell of a thing.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
I gotta agree with Nark here. I suspect there will be war with Iran inside 6 months, 18 months tops. Everything is amost in place anyways, under the guise of the troop surge.
Now, I hope to god it doesn't come to it, but think it will. My big question is: What does Iran have to gain here? What's with the bellicose rhetoric? Saddam tried that angle, and it didn't work out for him. So Tehran thinks they should double-down?? They could be a successful, and rich 1st-world country if they would just play ball for a while.
I know most of you will blame the US (or just Bush) here, but consider: If Iran gets the bomb, it's war with Isreal. And Isreal will not wait around for it. They bombed a nuke site in Syria 2 months ago. And of course, the Osirik plant in Iraq back in '81 (or '83?). And seeing as Ahmedinejad wants to destroy Isreal, the Isrealis will be fully justified in attacking first.
This of course, is worst case scenario, but again; even the French are warning of war. All Tehran needs to do to avoid it is back down. And what do they lose? Nothing. In fact, the west would probably pay them off big time. If they just sit back and sell oil they'd be rich beyond their dreams. But noooooooo, better to bring on the end of the world....
Now, I hope to god it doesn't come to it, but think it will. My big question is: What does Iran have to gain here? What's with the bellicose rhetoric? Saddam tried that angle, and it didn't work out for him. So Tehran thinks they should double-down?? They could be a successful, and rich 1st-world country if they would just play ball for a while.
I know most of you will blame the US (or just Bush) here, but consider: If Iran gets the bomb, it's war with Isreal. And Isreal will not wait around for it. They bombed a nuke site in Syria 2 months ago. And of course, the Osirik plant in Iraq back in '81 (or '83?). And seeing as Ahmedinejad wants to destroy Isreal, the Isrealis will be fully justified in attacking first.
This of course, is worst case scenario, but again; even the French are warning of war. All Tehran needs to do to avoid it is back down. And what do they lose? Nothing. In fact, the west would probably pay them off big time. If they just sit back and sell oil they'd be rich beyond their dreams. But noooooooo, better to bring on the end of the world....
Oh. Your. God.
- Bender
- Bender
-
Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
They'd lose face if they openly back down. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all the ins and outs of Persian / Islamic culture, but there is a different style of politics in the Middle East than in Western nations. If they bow down to the Americans, they look weak to their neighbours - Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria... - if they look weak, they lose the upper hand in any negotians or trade with those countries... there's more to it than just brinksmanship with the US. The key here, in my opinion (take it for what it's worth) is low-key diplomacy, but Bush doesn't seem to care much for subtlety... hell, he doesn't want anything to do with diplomacy... you'd need an embassy in Iran for that. Idiots.Phaedrus wrote: All Tehran needs to do to avoid it is back down. And what do they lose? Nothing. In fact, the west would probably pay them off big time. If they just sit back and sell oil they'd be rich beyond their dreams. But noooooooo, better to bring on the end of the world....
-
the original tony
- Rank 4
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:18 pm
i havent been on here in a while and now i see why.
Here goes nothing.
KILL IRAN, KILL THE REST OF IRAQ, @#$! SYRIA, AND MAYBE PARTS OF LEBANON THAT WERE LEFT AFTER THE ONE SIDED WAR A FEW SUMMERS AGO.
Now that should make everybody happy. israel cannot be touched, look at the fucking show they put on over two useless soldiers!! how many died because of that? Everyone is affraid of Iran attacking israel, why?
they are the only ones allowed to have nukes (which they don't have on the record)
Very one sided. When you back an animal into a corner it fights. The war in Iraq was 100% unnecessary. Yet the stupid yanks want thanks for liberating the Iraqis. From what?!?! sure they have elections, and they also get shot going to the elections, sounds like the united states to me.
The reason the americans and isrealis need so many weapons is they are the two most hated nations onthe planet. What WE say goes, or get bombed. The minute someone defies this ideology they are a threat to national security the fucking useless israelis.
I would like to see the same thing happen to israel that they inflicted on Lebanon, and the states say nothing as they did in that situation. The jews are just defending themselves,from what? some rockets that hit the side of a hill with nobody around???? Or the airstrikes from the 3billion dollar american funded machine in lebanon. ONE SIDED.
The same old story, as long as the states and the jews don't get hurt, who fucking cares.
when this changes, caution and respect for all civilians is taken into consideration.....................we may have a chance at something civilized.
Tony
Here goes nothing.
KILL IRAN, KILL THE REST OF IRAQ, @#$! SYRIA, AND MAYBE PARTS OF LEBANON THAT WERE LEFT AFTER THE ONE SIDED WAR A FEW SUMMERS AGO.
Now that should make everybody happy. israel cannot be touched, look at the fucking show they put on over two useless soldiers!! how many died because of that? Everyone is affraid of Iran attacking israel, why?
they are the only ones allowed to have nukes (which they don't have on the record)
Very one sided. When you back an animal into a corner it fights. The war in Iraq was 100% unnecessary. Yet the stupid yanks want thanks for liberating the Iraqis. From what?!?! sure they have elections, and they also get shot going to the elections, sounds like the united states to me.
The reason the americans and isrealis need so many weapons is they are the two most hated nations onthe planet. What WE say goes, or get bombed. The minute someone defies this ideology they are a threat to national security the fucking useless israelis.
I would like to see the same thing happen to israel that they inflicted on Lebanon, and the states say nothing as they did in that situation. The jews are just defending themselves,from what? some rockets that hit the side of a hill with nobody around???? Or the airstrikes from the 3billion dollar american funded machine in lebanon. ONE SIDED.
The same old story, as long as the states and the jews don't get hurt, who fucking cares.
when this changes, caution and respect for all civilians is taken into consideration.....................we may have a chance at something civilized.
Tony
