War in Iran

[oldwirehands]

Will it happen?

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/07/iranian_missile_tests_not_what.html

Who knows?

[Machu505]

Hopefully not. If so, fuck Iran, Israel, and USA.

Palestine and Canada ftw.

[oldwirehands]

I really hope not. Obama wants to strengthen sanctions though. Its not a good sign.

[thespearkid]

It'd suck for sure but I could see it happening.

[BruisedxBroken]

Palestine and Canada ftw.

Yes.

[somers1581]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.iran.html


watch the videos of them speak about Iran. Either way, this probably won't be good.

[sayyes]

Come on...Bush has been in office almost 8 years and hasn't gotten to push the "red" button yet.

[saysmydoctor]

Oh my God, those are SO heading for Israel. We are so fucked.

[Wildness774]

i mean we're inevidably gonna go to war after iraq is done
maybe not for a few years but its gonna happen
theres just too much evil in the world it seems like
whether its in the middle east, or in africa
theres so many problems in africa
its sad really
i mean corrupt leaders, people dying of horrible diseases, starvation
its really a shame

[open mind]

i mean were inevidably gonna go to war after iraq is done
maybe not for a few years but its gonna happen
theres just too much evil in the world it seems like
whether its in the middle east, or in africa
theres so many problems in africa
its sad really
i mean corrupt leaders, people dying of horrible diseases, starvation
its really a shame

it's not inevitable.
the general populace of iran is auctually relatively moderate, so going in would be a huge mistake.

[FadedFocus]

it's not inevitable.
the general populace of iran is auctually relatively moderate, so going in would be a huge mistake.
Agreed. You hear very little how the actual people of Iran are not on board with their President. Just like at the height of the flag waving orgy over here that you heard next to nothing about dissent against the war.

[lepunk]

i hope usa will blow up.

[oldwirehands]

Yeah, lets put sanctions on Iran to deprive the innocent people there. That'll make Iran think twice about attacking anyone. :rolleyes:

[Sic Transit Zeb]

I really hope not. Obama wants to strengthen sanctions though. Its not a good sign.

He wants to strengthen sanctions because he has to do somethign with Iran and he does not want to go to war. Iran is a problem because even the UN security council wants them to stop with the nuke research but Iran says fuck off basically. that leaves the US in a tough spot, especially with our policy we had with North Korea/Iraq.

If we go to war with Iran, like we did with Iraq, then as a nation we are fucking stupid. I hope to god we don't.

[oldwirehands]

He wants to strengthen sanctions because he has to do somethign with Iran and he does not want to go to war. Iran is a problem because even the UN security council wants them to stop with the nuke research but Iran says fuck off basically. that leaves the US in a tough spot, especially with our policy we had with North Korea/Iraq.

If we go to war with Iran, like we did with Iraq, then as a nation we are fucking stupid. I hope to god we don't.

Sanctions are not the answer. Though I am not entirely sure if I believe Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons, we must communicate with them efficiently and work out trading agreements. Its called compromising. Tensions in this country itself along with the war are getting higher and higher. the next six months are going to be an important time in in history.

[Biliard]

Iran has said they will not stop enriching uranium no matter what compromise is offered by the international community.

[oldwirehands]

Iran has said they will not stop enriching uranium no matter what compromise is offered by the international community.

Well if we're going to go by what Iran is saying, then they are only using nuclear energy as a source of power, not to make nuclear weapons.

[Biliard]

Well if we're going to go by what Iran is saying, then they are only using nuclear energy as a source of power, not to make nuclear weapons.

How much can we trust them?

[oldwirehands]

How much can we trust them?

Well we can try compromising with them, regardless of what they say, or just leave them alone and stop siding with Israel. Either way, America has just been fueling the violence in the middle east much more than solving any of its problems.

[Biliard]

Well we can try compromising with them, regardless of what they say, or just leave them alone and stop siding with Israel. Either way, America has just been fueling the violence in the middle east much more than solving any of its problems.

The problem with compromising with them is we (the international community) keep giving and Iran keeps on taking, but fails to live up to their end of the agreement.

I do not think we can simply leave them alone. Something needs to be done. I have no idea what, though.

[oldwirehands]

The problem with compromising with them is we (the international community) keep giving and Iran keeps on taking, but fails to live up to their end of the agreement.

I do not think we can simply leave them alone. Something needs to be done. I have no idea what, though.

Show me some evidence that Iran has been taking and breaking agreements. We shouldn't be backing up Israel for starting shit with other countries. This all comes back to religion and its so irritating.

[Biliard]

Show me some evidence that Iran has been taking and breaking agreements. We shouldn't be backing up Israel for starting shit with other countries. This all comes back to religion and its so irritating.

My apologies, I misread. We have been offering them all sorts of compromises that would aid the country, but they are not willing to work with any of them because they will not give up their uranium enrichment program. They have the right to pursue nuclear energy, I am not trying to deny them that.

Yes, it is all about religion and there is nothing we can do about it. We should let them solve their own problems.

[anamericangod]

I just think it's interesting how so many people are ok with allowing a country that has openly preached the complete annihilation of the West to develop nuclear weapons.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

Sanctions are not the answer. Though I am not entirely sure if I believe Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons, we must communicate with them efficiently and work out trading agreements. Its called compromising. Tensions in this country itself along with the war are getting higher and higher. the next six months are going to be an important time in in history.

I wasn't really advocating sanctions. I was just saying Obama, or McCain have to do something because of our former dealings/sanctions/actions with previous countries trying to get nukes. To say they are not trying to get nukes is not quite right. I remember reading a quote from their 'president' as to why he is ignoring the UNs requests. he said he wants Iran to become a super power. Obviously, a way to do that is by nukes since they garner instant respect.

The problem is, is the president of the US has to do something. Whether it's a war(i sure hope not) or strict sanctions for they are bound by precedents set by former presidents and the UN. Even the UN wants Iran to stop with its nuke testing.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

My apologies, I misread. We have been offering them all sorts of compromises that would aid the country, but they are not willing to work with any of them because they will not give up their uranium enrichment program. They have the right to pursue nuclear energy, I am not trying to deny them that.

Yes, it is all about religion and there is nothing we can do about it. We should let them solve their own problems.

The problem is, that nuclear energy is close to nuclear weapons. Yes it takes more work but the foundation is there.

I for one do not want Iran to have any nuke program whatsoever. The country is not stable at all. Come on now man. OF course they deserve energy as a country, but not from a weapon taht can directly effect me, or any other country to a mass extent.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

I just think it's interesting how so many people are ok with allowing a country that has openly preached the complete annihilation of the West to develop nuclear weapons.


I agree with you there

The problem is people are not thinking in terms of nuke weapons they are solely thinking of nuclear energy. Which, of course, Iran says it 'deserves' however, it's obviously a foundation to a nuke program which they do not, ever, ever, deserve until they can be stable.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

Show me some evidence that Iran has been taking and breaking agreements. We shouldn't be backing up Israel for starting shit with other countries. This all comes back to religion and its so irritating.

Iran and the other Muslim countries always break agreements with Israel, just like Israel breaks agreements with them. Both sides want the other dead. It is cuz of religion, which is retarded I agree, but come on. Israel's beliefs coincide with the US majority a lot more than Muslim you gotta think of that point. People vote on presidents based on religious ideals. Gay rights/abortion etc. It's fucking stupid I agree.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

Well we can try compromising with them, regardless of what they say, or just leave them alone and stop siding with Israel. Either way, America has just been fueling the violence in the middle east much more than solving any of its problems.

Haha sorry for quoting you so much but I like this discussion.

Well, we can't leave alone the middle east because the potential to do us harm,a nd other western countries is so great. Now, I AM NOT saying we should go to war, however, I am saying a complete abandonment is not the right route at all. the US and the UN do try to keep things as stable as tehy can be without trying to control everything. Does it work 100%? No. Would I want to just let the middle east do its own thing. Hell no. Most of the muslims hate us due to old religious wars and more current wars. Stupid? Yes. However, I do want them to just build up bullshit again. The Middle East is a mess and we gotta accept that. no matter what that area is gonna be fucked up with hate and stupid shit, however, we gotta try to keep our side safe.

[oldwirehands]

Iran and the other Muslim countries always break agreements with Israel, just like Israel breaks agreements with them. Both sides want the other dead. It is cuz of religion, which is retarded I agree, but come on. Israel's beliefs coincide with the US majority a lot more than Muslim you gotta think of that point. People vote on presidents based on religious ideals. Gay rights/abortion etc. It's fucking stupid I agree.

None of what you said makes it right for our country to be in the middle east.

Here's another reason why we should just get out.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/01-19-05.asp

[open mind]

Show me some evidence that Iran has been taking and breaking agreements. We shouldn't be backing up Israel for starting shit with other countries. This all comes back to religion and its so irritating.

just because the divisions are among religious lines doesn't mean that religion is the source of the problem.

[oldwirehands]

Haha sorry for quoting you so much but I like this discussion.

Well, we can't leave alone the middle east because the potential to do us harm,a nd other western countries is so great. Now, I AM NOT saying we should go to war, however, I am saying a complete abandonment is not the right route at all. the US and the UN do try to keep things as stable as tehy can be without trying to control everything. Does it work 100%? No. Would I want to just let the middle east do its own thing. Hell no. Most of the muslims hate us due to old religious wars and more current wars. Stupid? Yes. However, I do want them to just build up bullshit again. The Middle East is a mess and we gotta accept that. no matter what that area is gonna be fucked up with hate and stupid shit, however, we gotta try to keep our side safe.

The countries of the Middle East are thousands and thousands of miles away. They can not get to us. For Iran to get a nuclear weapon over to this country would be nearly impossible. If we just stopped our globalization, they wouldn't have anything to be pissed about because we'd be leaving them alone. Our country should stop trying to control everything.

[oldwirehands]

just because the divisions are among religious lines doesn't mean that religion is the source of the problem.

"Liberating America From Israel" is a good read. You might want to check it out.

http://www.rense.com/general29/lib.htm

Its written by former Congressman Paul Findley.

[offtheropes]

does anyone remember the whole fiasco with north korea a year or two ago? they were claiming to have nuclear firepower and had carried out wargames in the japanese sea i believe. even the u.s. had done the same, but through negotiations, the scare was deflated and now, we don't really hear about north korea in the news, except that they're not in the axis of evil anymore.
what's funny is our willingness to negotiate with some countries, but not others. it almost seems like we feared north korea enough to negotiate, but with iran, it seems as if the only option we have is to place sanctions, then attack.

[offtheropes]

also, are our religions so different? extremism is extremism. a muslim suicide bomber is the same as a christian who bombs abortion clinics. people who kill in the name of religion are the same.

[open mind]

"Liberating America From Israel" is a good read. You might want to check it out.

http://www.rense.com/general29/lib.htm

Its written by former Congressman Paul Findley.

i agree that there are some nutty religious people spreading crazy ideas that contribute to the ongoing violence.........but they wouldn't have a real leg to stand on if it wasn't for genocide, denial of human rights, disagreements over land claims, terrorism, and the exploitation of large numbers of people.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

The countries of the Middle East are thousands and thousands of miles away. They can not get to us. For Iran to get a nuclear weapon over to this country would be nearly impossible. If we just stopped our globalization, they wouldn't have anything to be pissed about because we'd be leaving them alone. Our country should stop trying to control everything.

Are you serious here? Really? Come on now man, this post was not the most researched or well thought out post.

Globalization IS NOT THE DEVIL. Globalization is INEVITABLE, and GOOD. Without it, we would not be where we are today, nor the HISTORY OF THE WORLD woudl be the same. Humans are not isolationists in nature.

Secondly, it's not that hard to get weapons over here. They could easily buy missiles that CAN REACH us, or even put it in briefcases, yes it exists, Russia has had them for a long time now. All they have to do TO BUY THE MEANS to get the weapons here. Being that they have one of the largest oil reserves in the world, I don't think money would be a tough issue for them to get.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

does anyone remember the whole fiasco with north korea a year or two ago? they were claiming to have nuclear firepower and had carried out wargames in the japanese sea i believe. even the u.s. had done the same, but through negotiations, the scare was deflated and now, we don't really hear about north korea in the news, except that they're not in the axis of evil anymore.
what's funny is our willingness to negotiate with some countries, but not others. it almost seems like we feared north korea enough to negotiate, but with iran, it seems as if the only option we have is to place sanctions, then attack.

We are using the same policy to Iran as we did to North Korea. We have recently lifted our sanctions with North Korea BECAUSE they have said they will stop trying to get nuclear weapons and have taken means already to show their faith in the deal. They recently blew up a silo they had built, and have vowed to stop enriching uranium, so we and other countries, held up our end and lifted some sanctions and provided relief to their country.

To say we are using a different policy is completely wrong.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

None of what you said makes it right for our country to be in the middle east.

Here's another reason why we should just get out.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/01-19-05.asp


No. Leaving is not the answer. just look at history through out any time period and all the super powers have done waht we do now. Secure their safety and goals. Tha's why we are in the middle east, and it's why we should stay. To say otherwise I just don't get your logic. Do you honestly think they'll stop hating us if we leave?? No, they won't. Don't be that naive. Western countries have been fucking with Muslims FOREVER and they have a built hate and dissent for Westerners. leaving will not solve anything to a great extent. leaving will only lead to more potential to do harm or have stronger anti-western powers.

[offtheropes]

We are using the same policy to Iran as we did to North Korea. We have recently lifted our sanctions with North Korea BECAUSE they have said they will stop trying to get nuclear weapons and have taken means already to show their faith in the deal. They recently blew up a silo they had built, and have vowed to stop enriching uranium, so we and other countries, held up our end and lifted some sanctions and provided relief to their country.

To say we are using a different policy is completely wrong.

right, but we were willingly to send ambassadors and others in the administration to speak directly to north korea, but with iran, we've taken talks off the table.

[open mind]

Are you serious here? Really? Come on now man, this post was not the most researched or well thought out post.

Globalization IS NOT THE DEVIL. Globalization is INEVITABLE, and GOOD. Without it, we would not be where we are today, nor the HISTORY OF THE WORLD woudl be the same. Humans are not isolationists in nature.

Secondly, it's not that hard to get weapons over here. They could easily buy missiles that CAN REACH us, or even put it in briefcases, yes it exists, Russia has had them for a long time now. All they have to do TO BUY THE MEANS to get the weapons here. Being that they have one of the largest oil reserves in the world, I don't think money would be a tough issue for them to get.

you both are making shaky arguments. it wouldn't be near impossible for iran to use a nuclear weapon against us, but globalization is not an inevitability and it's inherent goodness is definately debatable.

[oldwirehands]

Are you serious here? Really? Come on now man, this post was not the most researched or well thought out post.

Globalization IS NOT THE DEVIL. Globalization is INEVITABLE, and GOOD. Without it, we would not be where we are today, nor the HISTORY OF THE WORLD woudl be the same. Humans are not isolationists in nature.

Secondly, it's not that hard to get weapons over here. They could easily buy missiles that CAN REACH us, or even put it in briefcases, yes it exists, Russia has had them for a long time now. All they have to do TO BUY THE MEANS to get the weapons here. Being that they have one of the largest oil reserves in the world, I don't think money would be a tough issue for them to get.

If they had missiles that could reach, why wouldn't they have fired them at us already? If they get any weapons over here, our own government would have to facilitate them. Security wasn't that bad before 9/11 and its definitely heightened up to the point where it won't happen again.

India is actually the world's largest oil provider.

The problem with US globalization is by its military presence. We can't make everyone be like us. Especially the kind of place this country has become in the past 100 years. America is in for a huge wake up call while they watch India and China rise to become the new world powers.

[offtheropes]

there are obviously pros and cons to globalization, but globalization isn't the only issue here. exploitation is something the u.s. has been doing well since it's birth. don't worry, i'm not all anti-american, because i don't think there are any countries that haven't exploited some group. however, if we look at reasons for our stay in certain countries, it isn't for the benefit or well-being of that country, but for their resources. what can we get from country a, b, and c. to say that we are looking after their best interest isn't quite correct. people do things differently and not everyone is looking for democracy and capitalism.

[open mind]

No. Leaving is not the answer. just look at history through out any time period and all the super powers have done waht we do now. Secure their safety and goals. Tha's why we are in the middle east, and it's why we should stay. To say otherwise I just don't get your logic. Do you honestly think they'll stop hating us if we leave?? No, they won't. Don't be that naive. Western countries have been fucking with Muslims FOREVER and they have a built hate and dissent for Westerners. leaving will not solve anything to a great extent. leaving will only lead to more potential to do harm or have stronger anti-western powers.

there's a reason why those super powers are no longer super powers........and that reason has always been an over-extension of power.
not all of the middle east would stop hating us if we left, but taking away valid reasons for resentment of america would certainly help stop moderates from becoming extremists and effectively cripple the various terrorist groups recruitment ability.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

you both are making shaky arguments. it wouldn't be near impossible for iran to use a nuclear weapon against us, but globalization is not an inevitability and it's inherent goodness is definately debatable.

I say it's inevitable because ith as always existed throughout human history. Some sort of globalization has and will always be around. I jsut don't see how you can not say it won't exist in the future and hasn't in the past, thus making inevitable.

[Skadrist]

If they had missiles that could reach, why wouldn't they have fired them at us already? If they get any weapons over here, our own government would have to facilitate them. Security wasn't that bad before 9/11 and its definitely heightened up to the point where it won't happen again.

India is actually the world's largest oil provider.

The problem with US globalization is by its military presence. We can't make everyone be like us. Especially the kind of place this country has become in the past 100 years. America is in for a huge wake up call while they watch India and China rise to become the new world powers.



By India you mean Saudi Arabia right?

[Sic Transit Zeb]

If they had missiles that could reach, why wouldn't they have fired them at us already? If they get any weapons over here, our own government would have to facilitate them. Security wasn't that bad before 9/11 and its definitely heightened up to the point where it won't happen again.

India is actually the world's largest oil provider.

The problem with US globalization is by its military presence. We can't make everyone be like us. Especially the kind of place this country has become in the past 100 years. America is in for a huge wake up call while they watch India and China rise to become the new world powers.

I did say ONE of the largest not THE largest, but I digress there.

They don't have the nuclear weapons right now, which is why they are trying to get them, but it will not, and is not hard for them to get the means to send them over. It's not so much the use, it's the threat of the possibility that I do not want to have.

India will not be a huge super power. Too much of that country is illiterate right now.

China will be a superpower, but so far we have fairly good relations with China and it seems to be getting better because we both(countries) know how strong the other is/can be.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

right, but we were willingly to send ambassadors and others in the administration to speak directly to north korea, but with iran, we've taken talks off the table.

We have people talking to Iran, which why we know they reject our and the UNs proposals. North Korea rejected the proposals for so long and just have recent begun to change. that's all I'm saying, is the policy is the same.

[open mind]

I say it's inevitable because ith as always existed throughout human history. Some sort of globalization has and will always be around. I jsut don't see how you can not say it won't exist in the future and hasn't in the past, thus making inevitable.

trade has existed in the past, but globalization hasn't, and there have also been long periods in which trade was crippled (the dark ages come to mind).

[Sic Transit Zeb]

there's a reason why those super powers are no longer super powers........and that reason has always been an over-extension of power.
not all of the middle east would stop hating us if we left, but taking away valid reasons for resentment of america would certainly help stop moderates from becoming extremists and effectively cripple the various terrorist groups recruitment ability.

I'd argue that point. I'd say it's inevitable for any superpower to lost it's footing in the world, however, I don't see the US breaking down like Rome/Greece did back in teh day. I feel we are too stable in the World, DUE TO OUR involvement, to always be a key player.

I'd also argue your 2nd point. Because without involvement, a terroist group will take over control over a country, which they have and that is what WE are afraid of. Not rogue groups but a whole country united with means to do what they feel.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

trade has existed in the past, but globalization hasn't, and there have also been long periods in which trade was crippled (the dark ages come to mind).

You could easily call globalization trade. They use to call trade, "imperialism" back then.

And they call it the dark ages for a reason.

[Biliard]

None of what you said makes it right for our country to be in the middle east.

Here's another reason why we should just get out.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/01-19-05.asp

That is three years old in all fairness. France is currently taking steps to change relations with Syria, that is a big step. Especially with their more pro-American government.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07112008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/sarkos_quest_for_a_syrian_switch_11 9387.htm

[open mind]

If they had missiles that could reach, why wouldn't they have fired them at us already? If they get any weapons over here, our own government would have to facilitate them. Security wasn't that bad before 9/11 and its definitely heightened up to the point where it won't happen again.


iran doesn't have nuclear arms at this point, but technology has made the possibilty of a nuclear strike originating from the other side of the world a plausibility. why didn't the russians ever fire they're nuclear missles at us?
security is still a joke in the u.s.

[oldwirehands]

No. Leaving is not the answer. just look at history through out any time period and all the super powers have done waht we do now. Secure their safety and goals. Tha's why we are in the middle east, and it's why we should stay. To say otherwise I just don't get your logic. Do you honestly think they'll stop hating us if we leave?? No, they won't. Don't be that naive. Western countries have been fucking with Muslims FOREVER and they have a built hate and dissent for Westerners. leaving will not solve anything to a great extent. leaving will only lead to more potential to do harm or have stronger anti-western powers.

What are you so afraid of? Safety from what? All the past super powers failed. Why continue using a system that obviously doesn't work? Shouldn't we refine it or develop a new one?

How are we supposed to correct other country's problems when we can't even fix our own? We should have our troops here in this country, ready to defend THIS country.

This potential harm you're speaking of is just an illusion. If we simply leave them alone, they have less reason to hate us. Unless we are attacked or that there is proof a possible attack, we have no right to attack another country. That is the bottom line here.

[Biliard]

iran doesn't have nuclear arms at this point, but technology has made the possibilty of a nuclear strike originating from the other side of the world a plausibility. why didn't the russians ever fire they're nuclear missles at us?
security is still a joke in the u.s.

Iran has missiles capable of reaching parts of southern Europe at this point and most scientist feel with a two stage missile they could reach the East coast of the US.

[open mind]

I'd argue that point. I'd say it's inevitable for any superpower to lost it's footing in the world, however, I don't see the US breaking down like Rome/Greece did back in teh day. I feel we are too stable in the World, DUE TO OUR involvement, to always be a key player.

I'd also argue your 2nd point. Because without involvement, a terroist group will take over control over a country, which they have and that is what WE are afraid of. Not rogue groups but a whole country united with means to do what they feel.

we're far from stable enough to be immune to the effects of over-extension, and only the delusional would dare to think otherwise.
at least when it comes to a country like iran that's bullshit because the general populace is moderate. point to a middle eastern country that was taken over by terrorists and i'll point to a country that we used and abused then promptly forgot about once our goals had been met.

[open mind]

Iran has missiles capable of reaching parts of southern Europe at this point and most scientist feel with a two stage missile they could reach the East coast of the US.

why did you quote me on that? you didn't disagree with any of what i said.

[offtheropes]

superpowers don't last forever. the roman empire crumbled for several reasons, one of which was overextension. powers cannot win multi-fronted wars. nazi germany did the same in world war II.
not only do we face the risk of this overextension, our economy is hurting. you cannot fund a war which you cannot pay for. while the economy may recover in a few years, we cannot keep the same policy. if we are to stay as a power, the u.s. has to change their policy. life is all about cycles and before there is growth, there has to be death. america is currently bleeding.

[Biliard]

why did you quote me on that? you didn't disagree with any of what i said.

I could not remember where the post about Iran's missile capability was at and figured that supporting your point was just as effective.

[open mind]

You could easily call globalization trade. They use to call trade, "imperialism" back then.

And they call it the dark ages for a reason.

you could, but it would be a pretty inaccurate label since globalization is a relatively modern phenomona.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/globalization
imperialism hasn't always existed..........but let's suppose that i agree with you that globalization has always existed in some form........i'd still argue that just because something has always existed it doesn't automattically mean it always will or should.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

What are you so afraid of? Safety from what? All the past super powers failed. Why continue using a system that obviously doesn't work? Shouldn't we refine it or develop a new one?

How are we supposed to correct other country's problems when we can't even fix our own? We should have our troops here in this country, ready to defend THIS country.

This potential harm you're speaking of is just an illusion. If we simply leave them alone, they have less reason to hate us. Unless we are attacked or that there is proof a possible attack, we have no right to attack another country. That is the bottom line here.

There's a certain extent you can go back and look at history. Do you really feel the US is going to disappear as a super power? Our economy, though goin through a slow time now, is stable. Our military is the strongest in the world. The US will always be a major player for a long time coming.

Secondly, the potential to do harm is just atht. A potential. A potential that can easily be realized with a certain amount of sources. A potential that will only increase with the advent of nuclear weapons. Come on dude. That is Irans goal, read their comments.

[oldwirehands]

iran doesn't have nuclear arms at this point, but technology has made the possibilty of a nuclear strike originating from the other side of the world a plausibility. why didn't the russians ever fire they're nuclear missles at us?
security is still a joke in the u.s.

I'd have to disagree. Security is a major business now after the 9/11 attacks. So much money is being invested into security technology. So the security level here is fine in my opinion. I feel like it might become Authoritarian in the future.

That is three years old in all fairness. France is currently taking steps to change relations with Syria, that is a big step. Especially with their more pro-American government.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07112008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/sarkos_quest_for_a_syrian_switch_11 9387.htm

Just because its three years old doesn't mean its irrelevant.

I did say ONE of the largest not THE largest, but I digress there.

They don't have the nuclear weapons right now, which is why they are trying to get them, but it will not, and is not hard for them to get the means to send them over. It's not so much the use, it's the threat of the possibility that I do not want to have.

India will not be a huge super power. Too much of that country is illiterate right now.

China will be a superpower, but so far we have fairly good relations with China and it seems to be getting better because we both(countries) know how strong the other is/can be.

Where is this threat? Where is this evidence that Iran is planning to make nuclear weapons?

India and China will both become huge world powers. They hold 40% of the world's population together and have had a huge increase in the the middle class. Though China will more than likely be the stronger power as they have lots and lots of money. I mean, they've given our government a 1.4 trillion dollar loan that grows by one billion every month. Every American is living off of Chinese credit at this point. What will happen if they call in that loan?

[open mind]

There's a certain extent you can go back and look at history. Do you really feel the US is going to disappear as a super power? Our economy, though goin through a slow time now, is stable. Our military is the strongest in the world. The US will always be a major player for a long time coming.

Secondly, the potential to do harm is just atht. A potential. A potential that can easily be realized with a certain amount of sources. A potential that will only increase with the advent of nuclear weapons. Come on dude. That is Irans goal, read their comments.

economy isn't the only indicator of the health of a country. even a bad ass can be brought down by a pack of wolves.
the posturing of a government that feels threatened because it's surrounded by an enemy is just that, and basing our foreign policy on supposed potential harm doesn't work very well and has produced horrendous results (see iraq).

[open mind]

I'd have to disagree. Security is a major business now after the 9/11 attacks. So much money is being invested into security technology. So the security level here is fine in my opinion. I feel like it might become Authoritarian in the future.


since when does this governments pouring of vast amounts of money into something make it effective?
i'm personally fine with the level of security because i'd rather not sacrifice liberty for security.......but i know we don't have much more then the illusion of security.

[oldwirehands]

There's a certain extent you can go back and look at history. Do you really feel the US is going to disappear as a super power? Our economy, though goin through a slow time now, is stable. Our military is the strongest in the world. The US will always be a major player for a long time coming.

Secondly, the potential to do harm is just atht. A potential. A potential that can easily be realized with a certain amount of sources. A potential that will only increase with the advent of nuclear weapons. Come on dude. That is Irans goal, read their comments.

How can you say our economy is stable? The only reason we have the strongest military is because we spend an outrageous amount of our money on it compared to the rest of the world ($439.3bn compared to China's $59bn). I have a problem with that.

Like I said, provide me some sort of evidence that Iran really plans to create and use nuclear weapons.

[oldwirehands]

since when does this governments pouring of vast amounts of money into something make it effective?

The advancement in technology makes it more affective. Not to mention the increasing number of local police forces. I can say that I have seen a spike in that throughout the Chicagoland area.

[open mind]

The advancement in technology makes it more affective. Not to mention the increasing number of local police forces. I can say that I have seen a spike in that throughout the Chicagoland area.

technology hasn't advanced that much since 9/11, and police do not automattically equal security in my eyes.

[oldwirehands]

technology hasn't advanced that much since 9/11, and police do not automattically equal security in my eyes.

I'd like to think technology has advanced a lot since 2001. Its become smaller; making become more unnoticed. I just don't see how our security could be horrible. I mean if it were really that bad, wouldn't we see more attacks and chaos?

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/5562

Be afraid.

[open mind]

I'd like to think technology has advanced a lot since 2001. Its become smaller; making become more unnoticed. I just don't see how our security could be horrible. I mean if it were really that bad, wouldn't we see more attacks and chaos?

considering the fact that it takes years to plan and implement a domestic attack and that terrorists no longer need to come halfway around the world to cause chaos and attack us i don't think so.
we've still got gargantuan security holes when it comes our chemical stockpiles and our freight.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

How can you say our economy is stable? The only reason we have the strongest military is because we spend an outrageous amount of our money on it compared to the rest of the world ($439.3bn compared to China's $59bn). I have a problem with that.

Like I said, provide me some sort of evidence that Iran really plans to create and use nuclear weapons.

Our economy is stable because we don't have a huge depressions all the time. The last one was what, 70-80 years ago? Jesus christ dude.

And yes, our military is strong because we fund it, obviously. I hate when people think China can dominate us. They can't, it would be a huge, ugly fight where neither side would really win honestly.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

I'd like to think technology has advanced a lot since 2001. Its become smaller; making become more unnoticed. I just don't see how our security could be horrible. I mean if it were really that bad, wouldn't we see more attacks and chaos?

This is really stupid, sorry. I'm not trying to be a dick but this attitude is dumb.

Proactive is the word I'm looking for here rather than REACTIVE.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

considering the fact that it takes years to plan and implement a domestic attack and that terrorists no longer need to come halfway around the world to cause chaos and attack us i don't think so.
we've still got gargantuan security holes when it comes our chemical stockpiles and our freight.

i totally agree here

[se1046]

If America is stupid enough to go to war with Iran then they deserve to suffer to crushing defeat they would surely receive.

Thanks. I needed a good laugh.

[shit stroll]

Thanks. I needed a good laugh.
bahahahahabahahahah everything you post gives us a good laugh.

[se1046]

You honestly believe you would win in Iran? You can't even win in Iraq, fuck you can't even win in Afghanistan.

Oh well...I never liked western civilisation anyway.

lol... is that why the outbursts in Iraq have been down so much?

[se1046]

bahahahahabahahahah everything you post gives us a good laugh.

that's really cute. i knew you couldn't resist posting a response to what i say. got a little crush?

[shit stroll]

that's really cute. i knew you couldn't resist posting a response to what i say. got a little crush?
that's really cute. i knew you couldn't resist posting a response to what lunchforthesky has to say. got a little crush?

[oldwirehands]

This is really stupid, sorry. I'm not trying to be a dick but this attitude is dumb.

Proactive is the word I'm looking for here rather than REACTIVE.

The fact that we've advanced in technology is stupid? I don't get what you are saying. Your attitude throughout this whole thread has been stupid: attacking me as if I am less of a person than you. All because I believe the US military presence around the world is wrong. And that I am against another Iraq-type of war. If this is stupid, there are millions and millions more around the the world who are just as stupid. I'm ever so sorry for questioning your answers. You're right about everything.

Our economy is stable because we don't have a huge depressions all the time. The last one was what, 70-80 years ago? Jesus christ dude.

And yes, our military is strong because we fund it, obviously. I hate when people think China can dominate us. They can't, it would be a huge, ugly fight where neither side would really win honestly.

So because we haven't had a "depression", our economy is okay? I don't get your logic.

How do you define a stable economy? Is a stable economy one that cuts back on fossil fuel use (consumption of oil rate is at 1,000 barrels per second and burning another 1,500 per second.)? Maybe its one that shows government expenditures reflecting societal priorities (40% of our tax revenues is spent on the military while less than one percent on the environment.)? Or maybe a stable economy could mean there are available jobs that pay decent wages (Most of our states' minimum wage is below $7 and the lowest being Kansas' $2.65)?

The only way I could say this country's, or the world's, economy would be stable is if I define stable as finding good investment opportunities like: tar sand extraction, disaster preparedness, luxury items, security, and military hardware.

If that is what you call a stable economy then yes, everything is fine.

And whether you like it or not, we are in debt to China lots and lots of money. They wouldn't have to use much force to take over if our economy crumbles to nothing.

considering the fact that it takes years to plan and implement a domestic attack and that terrorists no longer need to come halfway around the world to cause chaos and attack us i don't think so.
we've still got gargantuan security holes when it comes our chemical stockpiles and our freight.

I was just asking because I honestly can't define the level of security we have in this country. All I know is that we haven't been attacked since 9/11. And I know we live in an open society. We're going to run the risk of being attacked. If everyone is afraid then it is more likely for us to become a closed-society dictatorship.

[oldwirehands]

When people talk about pulling out how do you mean it, returning home victorious? or running away because the war is unwinnable? I think the answer to that tells you whether you're winning or not.

Moreover Iraq was a ramshackle dictatorship which had zero allies and zero power. Iran is a powerful powerful nation with serious capabilities and serious allies in the Muslim world (hell they fund most of it). Just overthrowing the regime in Iran would be extremely difficult, but not only that once you go into Iran there's no pretense anymore , America will be at war with Islam and 1.5 billion Muslims are not just going to sit back and take it, believe you me.

Not to mention Russia, India, China, are in alliance with Iran as well...

[captainhampton]

Well if we're going to go by what Iran is saying, then they are only using nuclear energy as a source of power, not to make nuclear weapons.

so if we are going by what Iran is saying, shouldn't we take their threat of wiping Israel off the map seriously?

[open mind]

I was just asking because I honestly can't define the level of security we have in this country. All I know is that we haven't been attacked since 9/11. And I know we live in an open society. We're going to run the risk of being attacked. If everyone is afraid then it is more likely for us to become a closed-society dictatorship.

it's not really rational to say that our security must be better just because we haven't had a major domestic attack in the last few years.
i'm not afraid of terrorists as much as i'm scared of my government getting out of hand (i'm more likely to get fucked over by my government then killed by a terrorist), so the moves that have been made in the name of security since 9/11 have either made me feel less secure or just inconvenienced me.

[Nevuk]

so if we are going by what Iran is saying, shouldn't we take their threat of wiping Israel off the map seriously?
They never said that.

[captainhampton]

They never said that.

Well their President did.

[x togepi x]

Well their President did.

Their president doesn't have the power to do such a thing.

[se1046]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4276486.ece

[oldwirehands]

it's not really rational to say that our security must be better just because we haven't had a major domestic attack in the last few years.
i'm not afraid of terrorists as much as i'm scared of my government getting out of hand (i'm more likely to get fucked over by my government then killed by a terrorist), so the moves that have been made in the name of security since 9/11 have either made me feel less secure or just inconvenienced me.

How do you define security? Do you feel a terrorist is still just as likely to get away with an attack such as 9/11? Or do you mean your own personal security the government has been threatening?

[open mind]

How do you define security? Do you feel a terrorist is still just as likely to get away with an attack such as 9/11? Or do you mean your own personal security the government has been threatening?

i think we're just as likely to be attacked (just not in the same way) and the government is fucking with my personal security........so i'd say that overall we're all less secure then we were before 9/11.

[oldwirehands]

i think we're just as likely to be attacked (just not in the same way) and the government is fucking with my personal security........so i'd say that overall we're all less secure then we were before 9/11.

I agree that are personal security isn't really secure at all. Its a shame we have to live in fear of our government.

[Nevuk]

Well their President did.
No, he didn't. It was a mistranslation which was picked up by multiple sources. The closest translation to that was "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history". Not much different from what Bush said about Iraq or Iran or North Korea.

Here is a full quote from the implications this has :
A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out.
The same with regard to Israel. The Iranian president is undeniably an opponent of Zionism or, if you prefer the phrase, the Zionist regime. But so are substantial numbers of Israeli citizens, Jews as well as Arabs. The anti-Zionist and non-Zionist traditions in Israel are not insignificant. So we should not demonise Ahmadinejad on those grounds alone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155 (original person who brought it to notice).
Multiple people noticed.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

(There are many, many, MANY sources for this. It would be almost impossibl to argue)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4276486.ece
Link doesn't work.

[captainhampton]

that's actually the first time I've heard about the mistranslation. interesting. His rhetoric towards Israel still concerns me though and should not be taken lightly.

[oldwirehands]

No, he didn't. It was a mistranslation which was picked up by multiple sources. The closest translation to that was "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history". Not much different from what Bush said about Iraq or Iran or North Korea.

Here is a full quote from the implications this has :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155 (original person who brought it to notice).
Multiple people noticed.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

(There are many, many, MANY sources for this. It would be almost impossibl to argue)

Link doesn't work.

I love The Guardian UK.

[x togepi x]

that's actually the first time I've heard about the mistranslation. interesting. His rhetoric towards Israel still concerns me though and should not be taken lightly.

as i pointed out, and you carefully ignored, Iran's president has no say in these matters. it doesn't really matter what he thinks about Israel. it would be like attacking England because their head of agriculture said the US should be wiped off the map.

[captainhampton]

as i pointed out, and you carefully ignored, Iran's president has no say in these matters. it doesn't really matter what he thinks about Israel. it would be like attacking England because their head of agriculture said the US should be wiped off the map.

i understand your point. in fact I'll concede your point. but even if he doesn't have the power to do anything, doesn't he at least have some influence? What do you see happening with the current Iran and Israel situation?

[x togepi x]

i understand your point. in fact I'll concede your point. but even if he doesn't have the power to do anything, doesn't he at least have some influence? What do you see happening with the current Iran and Israel situation?

I think his influence is fairly minimal considering the stance of Iran's Supreme Leader: no nuclear weapons (such weapons are banned by Islam under his interpretation) and his stance that Iran won't be threatening Israel. When the president did the holocaust denial conference in Iran, the supreme leader's foreign policy adviser refused to go and the supreme leader himself made statement saying the holocaust was a genocide and really happened.

i'm pretty sure this is all just Iranian politics. the president makes inflammatory statements to rally up some public support in Iran for the government, while the people who actually have the power to do something about it aren't going to do anything.

[tfar06]

israel will attack their facillites. iran will attack us bases and israel.

[lepunk]

the real question is...who is the real terorist....

[saysmydoctor]

the real question is...who is the real terorist....
How vague.

[Wildness774]

i just hope we can do more in africa
i mean there are so many problems there

[lepunk]

''How vague.''

i don't think so

[Sic Transit Zeb]

as i pointed out, and you carefully ignored, Iran's president has no say in these matters. it doesn't really matter what he thinks about Israel. it would be like attacking England because their head of agriculture said the US should be wiped off the map.

What do you mean by this?

[Nevuk]

What do you mean by this?
Iran has a supreme leader who doesn't believe in nuclear attacks, and the supreme leader is more important than the presidency there (as in, actually has powers). Ahmadinejad is pretty much a figurehead.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

Iran has a supreme leader who doesn't believe in nuclear attacks, and the supreme leader is more important than the presidency there (as in, actually has powers). Ahmadinejad is pretty much a figurehead.

didn't know that, thanks for the info

[Post-me]

I just think it's interesting how so many people are ok with allowing a country that has openly preached the complete annihilation of the West to develop nuclear weapons.

Yeah, but must people are/were also ok with the fact that a lot of countries that are as "dangerous" as Iran can have nuclear weapons.(including USA)

[Blacking_out]

I saw this and thought it an interesting read.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWU1MDQ2OWQ1OGMzYjQ2NjY1ZjZlNzkz NDFkYTAxZGQ=

[Mitch]

Not enough people know about the true roles of the president of Iran and the Supreme Leader.

[Blacking_out]

How does it exactly work?