sometimes , smart people lack common sense. regardless of your 'news' affiliation.
to be honest, this republican here watches CNN to view the 'slant' of the story. what is driving the story from behind. i hardly ever watch fox news. its disturbing watching liberal media move the liberal, and uninformed masses to their side. my mother in law is a sponge for that kind of misguided propaganda that is CNN.
of course its not wise to attack iran at this time. 2 tyranical countries were enough for GWBush and our military at this junction.
You said it would be easy to attack Iran. Unless you're planning on the US military becoming the global thugs I'd say any kind of invasion (let alone occupation) would be military, economic and political suicide. Even a "simple" persistent attack would still be the latter two and would be surprisingly detrimental military-wise. Your assessment about Iran being at the center of the destructive dynamic in the middle-east is also very mistaken, but understandable considering Fox "news".
Oh and don't pretend those are "your arms" because you wouldn't do the fighting, now would you? You'd be far too busy earning more money and being more intelligent than the average soldier to ever let your precious self come into harms way.
Your post irritates me because it is pessimistic and outright bitchy.
We could easily attack Iran. Is Iran the world's #1 superpower? We should have attacked Iran and Iraq the moment that they nationalized the oil fields that we spent our money to build. Or should we no longer recognize the right of ownership? Since they live on the land, we must be obligated to build them free multi-billion dollar infrastructure to lift their oil!
Would attacking Iran make the US 'thugs'? Not really, considering that Iran has been supplying the insurgents who kill our soldiers (not that you care about the lives of a few of our countrymen). If we were a smaller country, we would have had excellent justification to declare war on Iran long ago.
Sure, attacking Iran might be a bad idea. There are many other ways to hurt Iran. One would be to pressure them diplomatically and economically. However, if they choose to provoke us, the option to attack them should always be considered.
I don't watch fox news. I have probably watched fox news twice in my life. I don't see why you are lumping anyone who disagrees wtih you into a common group.
Your argument about who should control the use of 'arms' is completely fallacious, considering that the majority of the nation is not in the military. I give up money to taxes, and expect that I have some say in what that tax money is used for. That's the basis for democracy. Everyone gets to decide what we use the military for.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that Iran is 'at the center' of the destructive dynamic in the middle east. There are plenty of other fish to fry. What I wrote (intended quite literally) was that Iran is at the center GEOGRAPHICALLY. It wouldn't be a far distance to travel if we were to attack Iran. If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be somewhat more difficult to attack.
You said it would be easy to attack Iran. Unless you're planning on the US military becoming the global thugs I'd say any kind of invasion (let alone occupation) would be military, economic and political suicide. Even a "simple" persistent attack would still be the latter two and would be surprisingly detrimental military-wise. Your assessment about Iran being at the center of the destructive dynamic in the middle-east is also very mistaken, but understandable considering Fox "news".
Oh and don't pretend those are "your arms" because you wouldn't do the fighting, now would you? You'd be far too busy earning more money and being more intelligent than the average soldier to ever let your precious self come into harms way.
Your post irritates me because it is pessimistic and outright bitchy.
I'm sorry. I was meaning to sound realistic and arrogant. My apologies. BTW, are you often irritated by forum posts? Have you consulted a doctor about this ailment? Perhaps you should as it could be you have a very, very, very, very low emotional threshold. You never know. Better safe than sorry.
We should have attacked Iran and Iraq the moment that they nationalized the oil fields that we spent our money to build. Or should we no longer recognize the right of ownership? Since they live on the land, we must be obligated to build them free multi-billion dollar infrastructure to lift their oil!
So you're saying the US has never profited from Iraqi and Iranian oil fields? Strange.
Would attacking Iran make the US 'thugs'? Not really, considering that Iran has been supplying the insurgents who kill our soldiers (not that you care about the lives of a few of our countrymen).
Honest question: Is there as much proof for Iranian backed insurgents as there was for Iraqi WOMD?
You wouldn't be asking for an attack on Iran if you cared about the lives of your countrymen.
If we were a smaller country, we would have had excellent justification to declare war on Iran long ago.
Why have actual justification? Just fabricate it like Vietnam and Iraq.
Sure, attacking Iran might be a bad idea.
Yup. Very bad idea.
There are many other ways to hurt Iran. One would be to pressure them diplomatically and economically.
Yup. And they could do the same thing back.
However, if they choose to provoke us, the option to attack them should always be considered.
Provoke. Like stationing a carrier group of the US coast? Would that be considered provocative?
I don't watch fox news. I have probably watched fox news twice in my life. I don't see why you are lumping anyone who disagrees wtih you into a common group.
It's one way how I describe a certain mindset.
Your argument about who should control the use of 'arms' is completely fallacious, considering that the majority of the nation is not in the military. I give up money to taxes, and expect that I have some say in what that tax money is used for.
Tell me, how much of your taxes is a human life worth? 10%? 20%?
That's the basis for democracy. Everyone gets to decide what we use the military for.
Ask gnomexxx why the US isn't a democracy but a republic. And show him some respect while you're talking to him. If I'm not mistaken he has done what you want to do to others.
My answer to this comment: Thank god there's no direct democracy in the US.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that Iran is 'at the center' of the destructive dynamic in the middle east.
Apology accepted.
There are plenty of other fish to fry.
Busy, busy, busy. God, I mean The Holy United States Of America (And The Rest Of The Known Universe To Be Honest), doesn't have a moments rest, now has it? Weighing lives, judging entire populations, ... Busy, busy, busy.
What I wrote (intended quite literally) was that Iran is at the center GEOGRAPHICALLY.
Aw. Bad luck for them.
It wouldn't be a far distance to travel if we were to attack Iran.
Pfew. Wait. Do Canada first. They're even closer. perhaps you could participate in the battles then? Jolly good fun.
If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be somewhat more difficult to attack.
Yea, you're right. That's probably the reason why the US hasn't attacked North-Korea. Man, I bet those North-Koreans and South-Africans feel soooooo lucky! Tho it would be entirely their fault if they were to live underneath the footsteps of the Giant we lovingly call Good Ol' US Of A.
For not being an American or ever lived here, having skewed biased views of our policies, people and history due to your vast research on the intergeek web or accurate European socialist media, you sure have plenty of opinions on how we should be living, Madace...forgive me, I mean antisocial, anarchist, crackpot.
Now go hide under a rock Madace, awaiting our ultimate demise. I'm sure you'll be dancing in the streets with all the Muslim extremists. What a sad, frightened, deluded life you must live in probably a tiny little apt, only your computer to hug and kiss goodnight and all that knowledge of how we're supposed to be running things over here.
You want to change something? In America you actually can if you bother to try. But its far easier to sit in your dark little room telling everyone how bad it is for us. How sad for you. Do you stand on street corners with signs around your neck, yelling how the world is going to end some day and its all the human's fault? Check that...its all Amercia's fault, because w're the root of all evil, aren't we crackpot;)
If you want to know what the life of someone who wants me dead is worth in taxes...I'd say 2 pennies maybe;) If they're willing to strap bombs to babies and women or fly planes into buildings to kill me, how much should their lives be worth?
For not being an American or ever lived here, having skewed biased views of our policies, people and history due to your vast research on the intergeek web or accurate European socialist media, you sure have plenty of opinions on how we should be living, Madace...forgive me, I mean antisocial, anarchist, crackpot. Wait. Wasn't I the guy who believed blindly in the power of the government(think it was gnomexxx who said that, and some other people, don't care who)? Isn't that very much the opposite of an anarchist? If you're going to make an attempt (practice makes perfect, and you really need to practice a lot) at insulting me, then perhaps you should coordinate before you guys confuse me. Tell me what exactly is antisocial about advocating peace and understanding. Is it the fact that I'm rocking your world by suggesting you should let the next anti-commie/Islam/socialism/Obama/whatever bandwagon pass without clinging on to it? I know you'll miss the company of your fellow anti-whateveraslongasitsproUSA goons, but I think calling it antisocial is perhaps overdoing it. Perhaps you should go visit some Iraqi hospitals for some much needed company, if the loneliness becomes too unbearable. Shouldn't you be spreading some more democracy around the world? I hear Somalia needs a few more AC-130 attacks. I'm sure you'd give anything for the opportunity to push the button that fires those guns. Now go hide under a rock Madace, awaiting our ultimate demise. I'm sure you'll be dancing in the streets with all the Muslim extremists. I feel sorry for you that I don't answer to the view you'd prefer to have of me. Which of course doesn't mean you have to change that view. I wouldn't want you to break a brain stem by questioning your black/white and good/evil views of the world. Perhaps you'll snap out of it without further damage when you reach that oh so special mental age. You know, that same age in which children finally get rid of those tantrums. I bet the people around you will be overjoyed when that time has come. What a sad, frightened, deluded life you must live in probably a tiny little apt, only your computer to hug and kiss goodnight and all that knowledge of how we're supposed to be running things over here. I'm not telling you how to run things. I'm telling you where you're wrong. Big difference. Shouldn't you be spreading some more freedom somewhere? Go on, sell some more planes to Israel. And make haste, before those Palestinians throw a rock. You want to change something? I don't have to. In America you actually can if you bother to try. Ah, there's that unfunded arrogance again. Why do you specify "in America". Why do you assume it's the only country where that's possible? But its far easier to sit in your dark little room telling everyone how bad it is for us. I'm not telling everyone. I'm telling people like you. And only because you need to hear it. But I'm sure you're message is much more important. I think. I bet I'll find the important part any minute now. I'm sure you have enough dignity to write a post with more than some poor excuses for insults. How sad for you. Not that sad. Typing a reply to your ramblings only takes a minute. And I it's truly lifting my spirit when I think how happy you'll be when you read my reply and realize I've given you this abundance of attention. Do you stand on street corners with signs around your neck, yelling how the world is going to end some day and its all the human's fault? No, I think using phrases like "you're awaiting your ultimate demise" overly dramatic and very childish, if not backed up by some cold hard facts. And I don't bother talking to people who won't throw a fit and make a fool out of themselves while attempting to construct a response. That's the upside of the Internet. You see people pull off the verbal equivalent of enuresis all the time, like you were doing by typing your little post. Check that...its all Amercia's fault, because w're the root of all evil, aren't we crackpot;) No. That would be too simple. Fault is too simple. You know that black/white and good/evil ideology I was talking about? You know? That ideology that went out of style millennia ago? Yea, that's the one. So don't use that "evil" word anymore. Makes you look... Well, yea... Nah, don't apologize. If you want to know what the life of someone who wants me dead is worth in taxes... Well, luckily for you no one finds you relevant enough to want you dead. Isn't that a relief? I'd say 2 pennies maybe;) Less than the price of a bullet. If they're willing to strap bombs to babies and women or fly planes into buildings to kill me, how much should their lives be worth? Who's "they"? You'll have to spell it out for me. My family got rid of this whole "them" and "they" way of thinking around the time when we killed that last mammoth.
Is Iran the world's #1 superpower? No. Is the US? No.
So you're saying the US has never profited from Iraqi and Iranian oil fields? Strange. Would attacking Iran make the US 'thugs'? Not really, considering that Iran has been supplying the insurgents who kill our soldiers (not that you care about the lives of a few of our countrymen). Honest question: Is there as much proof for Iranian backed insurgents as there was for Iraqi WOMD? You wouldn't be asking for an attack on Iran if you cared about the lives of your countrymen.
There are many other ways to hurt Iran. One would be to pressure them diplomatically and economically. Yup. And they could do the same thing back.
Tell me, how much of your taxes is a human life worth? 10%? 20%?
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that Iran is 'at the center' of the destructive dynamic in the middle east.
If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be somewhat more difficult to attack. Yea, you're right. That's probably the reason why the US hasn't attacked North-Korea. Man, I bet those North-Koreans and South-Africans feel soooooo lucky! Tho it would be entirely their fault if they were to live underneath the footsteps of the Giant we lovingly call Good Ol' US Of A. America, HELL YEA!
Some comments to add here.
The price of human life averages at 25p per person per day. If you think you can't put a price on human life, then you come from a rich area of the world.
The U.S. is the worlds no.1 superpower. I don't see EU or UN or RF or Chinese fleets all round the world. I don't see pounds being the global standard currency or French being the first language of the world.
I have no idea what nation you were thinking has more power than the U.S., but there isn't any. No nation no organisation, nothing. No one even comes close in the power stakes.
Which brings me on to my next correction, so what if Iran uses diplomatic measures against the U.S. It is a diplomatic minnow. An economic minnow too.
And no, the U.S. has not profited from Iranian and Iraqi oil. Don't you know anything? America is evil is just your default position Madace. You make the assumption it is evil and then invent stories about it to reinforce your opinion.
Traditionally Iran sells it's oil to China and Russia and Iraq sells it oils to Russia, Germany, France, Turkey and the U.K.
What makes you think U.S. servicemen would die attacking Iran? Cruise missles are unmanned. The Iranian airforce and air defences are utterly outclassed. Or were you thinking the American's were unable to attack Iran without driving their Humvees along the same piece of road, day after day for 5 years until they explode?
There has been plenty of evidence to directly implicate the Iranian government in Iraqi insurgency. Not least the capture of .50 calibre Steyr rifles with serial numbers sold to the Iranians. Why anyone would imagine that the Iranians would have no involvement is beyond me. Oh yes I forgot, it's because American's are only involved because they are evil. Other races aren't evil.
If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be even easier to attack. Closer to the U.S. in range of more of it's weeapon systems, with a smaller logistical train.
And America has attacked North Korea and the North Koreans don't feel "lucky", they feel scared. Paranoid even.
Currently I think it would be wrong to suggest that Iran is at the centre of the destruction in the middle east. While it is certainly a significant and active player, that title is reserved for America. It is in a league of it's own there. All the horrors and destruction in the middle east combined could all be fit into a tiny corner of the previously very stable country of Iraq.
Is Iran the world's #1 superpower? No. Is the US? No.
So you're saying the US has never profited from Iraqi and Iranian oil fields? Strange. Would attacking Iran make the US 'thugs'? Not really, considering that Iran has been supplying the insurgents who kill our soldiers (not that you care about the lives of a few of our countrymen). Honest question: Is there as much proof for Iranian backed insurgents as there was for Iraqi WOMD? You wouldn't be asking for an attack on Iran if you cared about the lives of your countrymen.
There are many other ways to hurt Iran. One would be to pressure them diplomatically and economically. Yup. And they could do the same thing back.
Tell me, how much of your taxes is a human life worth? 10%? 20%?
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that Iran is 'at the center' of the destructive dynamic in the middle east.
If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be somewhat more difficult to attack. Yea, you're right. That's probably the reason why the US hasn't attacked North-Korea. Man, I bet those North-Koreans and South-Africans feel soooooo lucky! Tho it would be entirely their fault if they were to live underneath the footsteps of the Giant we lovingly call Good Ol' US Of A. America, HELL YEA!
Some comments to add here.
The price of human life averages at 25p per person per day. If you think you can't put a price on human life, then you come from a rich area of the world.
I never said human lives had no price. I always read that the chemicals inside the human body when sold separately would yield about € 250. Which is approximately $ 375.
But you're talking about the laboring power probably. I don't know the average of that, but considering we're all living on the same planet and are all part (even the laziest bum in some shape or form, even if its simply being a warning or taking up spots in the lowest social class or being a symptom for the state of the nation's economy) of the globalized economy I'd say it's about [all the money created each day] / [amount of people who contribute to any economy] per day. Don't know how much that is.
The U.S. is the worlds no.1 superpower.
That completely depends on which criteria you use. According to my criteria there isn't a world power anymore, and I doubt there ever was one.
I don't see EU or UN or RF or Chinese fleets all round the world.
So is that the criterium? The military projection power of a nation? Considering the US failed its objectives in Iraq I'd say it isn't a very effective projection power. And the question remains if the US navy is fit for duty in the 21th century. The Millennium Challenge in 2002 said otherwise.
I'd say if you're absolutely desperate to have a realistic definition of "superpower" in the 21th century then you should look beyond costly and cumbersome militaries and consider which countries/unions/whatevers have the power to exercise their will on the global political theater.
I don't see pounds being the global standard currency or French being the first language of the world.
English, BTW, isn't the first language of the world. It's the most popular second language. And the US shouldn't get all the credit for spreading English. The British Empire helped.
I have no idea what nation you were thinking has more power than the U.S.,
None, also none have less. Power, unless defined like I attempted above, is non-existent.
Perhaps the idea of nation-states has been outdated too.
but there isn't any.
That's relative.
No nation no organisation, nothing.
Again, relative.
No one even comes close in the power stakes.
Define power.
Which brings me on to my next correction, so what if Iran uses diplomatic measures against the U.S. It is a diplomatic minnow. An economic minnow too.
I wanted Josher and tylerthedrui to make that point. But you'll do just fine too. If Iran is as irrelevant as you claim it to be... Then why attack/invade it?
Apart from the country holding 10% of the world's oil reserves, and being the world's 4th oil produces (which isn't that minnow when you think about it).
And no, the U.S. has not profited from Iranian and Iraqi oil. Don't you know anything? Traditionally Iran sells it's oil to China and Russia and Iraq sells it oils to Russia, Germany, France, Turkey and the U.K. If China and Russia (and those other nations you named) don't buy oil from Iran then they buy it from the same sources as the US does, thus increasing the price for the US. Isn't that logical? I guess it's not, somehow... America is evil is just your default position Madace. You make the assumption it is evil and then invent stories about it to reinforce your opinion. I've explained what I think of that whole "good" and "evil" business.
What makes you think U.S. servicemen would die attacking Iran? See 2002 Millennium challenge. And I bet those Iranians would be pissed. Pissed enough to actively embrace terrorism. And terrorism really hurts the Americans. Look what fucked up stuff they did after 9/11. I think I'm not mistaken by saying that the Afghanistan and Iraq war cost more than 9/11. A lot more. Not to mention all the terror alarms and such. Cruise missles are unmanned. The ships from which they are launched not. The Iranian airforce and air defences are utterly outclassed. True. But everyone makes a lucky shot sometimes. And I wonder how the US will be able to bring sufficient fighters and bombers to the scene. Or were you thinking the American's were unable to attack Iran without driving their Humvees along the same piece of road, day after day for 5 years until they explode? So now you want boots on the ground? There has been plenty of evidence to directly implicate the Iranian government in Iraqi insurgency. Not least the capture of .50 calibre Steyr rifles with serial numbers sold to the Iranians. Why anyone would imagine that the Iranians would have no involvement is beyond me. Oh yes I forgot, it's because American's are only involved because they are evil. Other races aren't evil. So Americans are a race now all of a sudden? Watched too much Star Trek, have you? And come on... The Americans are so mighty and so powerful. What should they have to worry about some .50 cal machine guns. Or are you somehow using double standards?
If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be even easier to attack. Tell that to my buddy tylerthedrui. I knew that, but hey, I'm too nice for this world.
Closer to the U.S. in range of more of it's weeapon systems, with a smaller logistical train. You think? I'm not sure (for once, I'm really not sure). I wonder what's most efficient: supplying over land and air (Iraq, Iran) or by sea (South-Africa). And America has attacked North Korea and the North Koreans don't feel "lucky", they feel scared. Paranoid even. Was that a recent attack? I'd like to know when. And who knows what the North-Koreans think. I always thought thinking was outlawed over there. Currently I think it would be wrong to suggest that Iran is at the centre of the destruction in the middle east. So do I. While it is certainly a significant and active player, that title is reserved for America. Possibly. It is in a league of it's own there. Is it? All the horrors and destruction in the middle east combined could all be fit into a tiny corner of the previously very stable country of Iraq. Ah well ...
We could easily attack Iran. Is Iran the world's #1 superpower? We should have attacked Iran and Iraq the moment that they nationalized the oil fields that we spent our money to build. Or should we no longer recognize the right of ownership? Since they live on the land, we must be obligated to build them free multi-billion dollar infrastructure to lift their oil!
Yes the US “could” attack Iran, just as Austria-Hungary “could” attack Serbia in 1914.
US ownership laws do not extend beyond it’s own borders. In fact unless you are willing to give people around the world a say in the outcome of US elections trying to apply any US law internationally is a fundamental violation of one of the longstanding rules of democracy. A principle that originated in the US with the whole I should add.
US businesses (actually more British) chose to invest in Iraq and Iran, and the risk that they may be nationalized is part of the cost of doing business. If they did not account for that risk when they made the decision to invest there then it’s their loss and the US government owns them no bailout. This is even more true when the payout comes in blood rather then money.
For not being an American or ever lived here, having skewed biased views of our policies, people and history due to your vast research on the intergeek web or accurate European socialist media, you sure have plenty of opinions on how we should be living, Madace...forgive me, I mean antisocial, anarchist, crackpot.
I think you need to learn what Socialist media actually means.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
So are the French and the Scottish. The world is full of different races.
A 50 calibre machine gun, is something every man should be afraid of. It can kill you whatever your nationality. The Austrian made .50 I refer to however is an anti material rifle. It shoots through Humvee's and body armour from a mile away. It's a very dangerous and sophisticated weapon.
A cruise missile is unmanned, and the ships that fire them do so from 600 miles away. Do you know of any Iranian weapon system capable of sinking a ship from 600 miles away? Please tell us more.
A lucky shot? Is that it? You think Iran can defend itself from the U.S. because it might get a lucky shot and kill one U.S. service man.
You think the U.S. doesn't have the airpower already in place to make the strike tomorrow? Madace, they are ready. Iran is literally surrounded by allied airstrips. 360 degree's. Anyone of carriers in theatre alone has the numbers to overwhelm Iran's air defences single handledly.
Iraq is supplied by air and sea. Land, air and sea. Air and sea is easier, especially if it is through international waters and air space only and especially if it is thousands of miles closer. The current biggest killer of allied personal is the roadside bomb. Removing the element of "Land" from the logistics train removes completely the opportunity for low tech attack. There can be no insurgency at sea.
25p a day is the cost of human life. That's what the average person lives on.
Why do you say the American's have failed in Iraq? Has the war ended and no one told me?
Enough with your wish fullfillment. You need to learn the difference between fantasy and actuality. What you want to happen and what actually has occoured. You present futures you wish for as already established facts. You are a fantasist.
If you don't have any criteria for superpowers, why attempt to discuss it. If you don't believe rthat there is such a thing as a super power, why keep going on about them?
Super powers exist. If you don't understand what the term means, look it up.
Every country has less power than the U.S. All of them. The concept of "nation stated hood" has nothing to do with it. Call it anything you like and it has less power than the U.S. invent your own systems of government or allegiance or anything else. The U.S. is still more powerful than anything else on the planet.
Did you really think that the U.S.'s only ability to affect things internationally was through it's military?
The U.S. is the worlds most powerful superpower. The no.1. You don't get to "opt out" on what a super-power means and suddenly there aren't any; just because you don't like that your nation isn't one or that another nations is more important than your own.
Ultimately Madace relabeling things that don't suit him makes no difference. You don't believe in nation states? It makes no difference. They Exist. You don't believe in super-powers, it makes no difference. They exist.
While the Euro may one day overtake the Dollar as the international currency of trade, currently it does not.
How many notes you have in circualtion is utterly irrelevant. If Britain prints more notes than anyone else will the Pound become the most readily accepted currency in the world?
You can't seem to divorce fantasy from reality. You wish the EU to be the most important currency on the planet and your desire for it to be so leads you on to promote it as such. Maybe it will be one day. Personally, I'd like to see the pound get back on top. But fantasy is fantasy. The past has gone and future is unwritten.
Today it is the dollar.
English is the most widely spoken language in the world. (Maybe Chinese is the second?)
Yes the British Empire should take most of the credit for this not the U.S. However, the capital of the Anglo Empire isn't London anymore it's Washington. The centre of Anglo culture has moved.
Terrorism?
You think the Afghan and Iraq wars have promoted terrorism? You think they have made matters worse than 9/11?
Perhaps you would like to give an example of any terrorist attacks since that event that have been worse. Why not give us some examples of how much this increased terrorism has cost the U.S.
Just more fantasy I'm afraid. Terrorism has been greatly reduced in my country and totally disappeared in the U.S. Although to be fair they never really suffered from it in the first place. Just the one attack.
Iran is important regionally. It is important to attack Iran now, while it is still a diplomatic, military and economic, minnow, because other wise it won't stay one.
If I have to have enemies, I prefer them weak.
As a little nudge, I try and write a single reply to an entire post, rather than dissect and refute each sentence. I find that it helps me to order my thoughts and instead of a load of lazy and undeveloped one liner retorts I may be able to provide a more insightful response to the issues under discussion.
I find it helps to have my own thoughts on a subject rather than just perpetually react to those of others, if you see what I'm saying. Instead of discussing issues around the subject this kind of approach just gets us drawn into the minutae. Arguing over the semantics. A quick witty one liner about American's not being a race and a remarkably unintresting argument follows.
Don't do it mate. Don't waste my time. Lets hear what you think about the issues rather than just the constant baiting. You know we are all intrested. Your smart comment one liner retorts might sound witty to you, but to everyone else reading it, it's just dismissive. Every time you dismiss our opinions with one, we dismiss you.
We could easily attack Iran. Is Iran the world's #1 superpower? We should have attacked Iran and Iraq the moment that they nationalized the oil fields that we spent our money to build. Or should we no longer recognize the right of ownership? Since they live on the land, we must be obligated to build them free multi-billion dollar infrastructure to lift their oil!
Yes the US “could” attack Iran, just as Austria-Hungary “could” attack Serbia in 1914.
US ownership laws do not extend beyond it’s own borders. In fact unless you are willing to give people around the world a say in the outcome of US elections trying to apply any US law internationally is a fundamental violation of one of the longstanding rules of democracy. A principle that originated in the US with the whole I should add.
US businesses (actually more British) chose to invest in Iraq and Iran, and the risk that they may be nationalized is part of the cost of doing business. If they did not account for that risk when they made the decision to invest there then it’s their loss and the US government owns them no bailout. This is even more true when the payout comes in blood rather then money.
Wrong. It is the responsability of the government to protect the national intrests of it's citizens.
Trade routes and foreign investments need protection or the threat of protection, otherwise someone else will simply take them. Every time.
The government doesn't have to, but then if it does not, our citizens will have to find someone who will.
The U.S. government is honour-bound to protect the foreign assets of it's citizens. Why do you think we bought them all those fleets?
So if the government isn't up to the task, we will do like we did on the old days. Hire private armies. Pay pirate fleets. And then from time to time we'll take over our own countries with our own armies, because we can.
Soldiers all think they are in a sacred trust. they aren't. There is a queue of people all ready to do the same job. If you don;t want the work, no problem. We can pay someone else.
We could easily attack Iran. Is Iran the world's #1 superpower? We should have attacked Iran and Iraq the moment that they nationalized the oil fields that we spent our money to build. Or should we no longer recognize the right of ownership? Since they live on the land, we must be obligated to build them free multi-billion dollar infrastructure to lift their oil!
Yes the US “could” attack Iran, just as Austria-Hungary “could” attack Serbia in 1914.
US ownership laws do not extend beyond it’s own borders. In fact unless you are willing to give people around the world a say in the outcome of US elections trying to apply any US law internationally is a fundamental violation of one of the longstanding rules of democracy. A principle that originated in the US with the whole I should add.
US businesses (actually more British) chose to invest in Iraq and Iran, and the risk that they may be nationalized is part of the cost of doing business. If they did not account for that risk when they made the decision to invest there then it’s their loss and the US government owns them no bailout. This is even more true when the payout comes in blood rather then money.
Wrong. It is the responsability of the government to protect the national intrests of it's citizens.
Trade routes and foreign investments need protection or the threat of protection, otherwise someone else will simply take them. Every time.
The government doesn't have to, but then if it does not, our citizens will have to find someone who will.
The U.S. government is honour-bound to protect the foreign assets of it's citizens. Why do you think we bought them all those fleets?
So if the government isn't up to the task, we will do like we did on the old days. Hire private armies. Pay pirate fleets. And then from time to time we'll take over our own countries with our own armies, because we can.
Soldiers all think they are in a sacred trust. they aren't. There is a queue of people all ready to do the same job. If you don;t want the work, no problem. We can pay someone else.
So you would support the China setting trade policies for the UK, ordering the UK to give preference to Chinese companies, and having laws made in the China supersede laws made by your own government? Because realistically this is what you are saying.
Your post irritates me because it is pessimistic and outright bitchy. I'm sorry. I was meaning to sound realistic and arrogant. My apologies. BTW, are you often irritated by forum posts? Have you consulted a doctor about this ailment? Perhaps you should as it could be you have a very, very, very, very low emotional threshold. You never know. Better safe than sorry. We could easily attack Iran. Who's "we"? I bet it's not you. Is Iran the world's #1 superpower? No. Is the US? No. We should have attacked Iran and Iraq the moment that they nationalized the oil fields that we spent our money to build. Or should we no longer recognize the right of ownership? Since they live on the land, we must be obligated to build them free multi-billion dollar infrastructure to lift their oil! So you're saying the US has never profited from Iraqi and Iranian oil fields? Strange. Would attacking Iran make the US 'thugs'? Not really, considering that Iran has been supplying the insurgents who kill our soldiers (not that you care about the lives of a few of our countrymen). Honest question: Is there as much proof for Iranian backed insurgents as there was for Iraqi WOMD? You wouldn't be asking for an attack on Iran if you cared about the lives of your countrymen. If we were a smaller country, we would have had excellent justification to declare war on Iran long ago. Why have actual justification? Just fabricate it like Vietnam and Iraq. Sure, attacking Iran might be a bad idea. Yup. Very bad idea. There are many other ways to hurt Iran. One would be to pressure them diplomatically and economically. Yup. And they could do the same thing back. However, if they choose to provoke us, the option to attack them should always be considered. Provoke. Like stationing a carrier group of the US coast? Would that be considered provocative? I don't watch fox news. I have probably watched fox news twice in my life. I don't see why you are lumping anyone who disagrees wtih you into a common group. It's one way how I describe a certain mindset. Your argument about who should control the use of 'arms' is completely fallacious, considering that the majority of the nation is not in the military. I give up money to taxes, and expect that I have some say in what that tax money is used for. Tell me, how much of your taxes is a human life worth? 10%? 20%? That's the basis for democracy. Everyone gets to decide what we use the military for. Ask gnomexxx why the US isn't a democracy but a republic. And show him some respect while you're talking to him. If I'm not mistaken he has done what you want to do to others.
My answer to this comment: Thank god there's no direct democracy in the US. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that Iran is 'at the center' of the destructive dynamic in the middle east. Apology accepted. There are plenty of other fish to fry. Busy, busy, busy. God, I mean The Holy United States Of America (And The Rest Of The Known Universe To Be Honest), doesn't have a moments rest, now has it? Weighing lives, judging entire populations, ... Busy, busy, busy. What I wrote (intended quite literally) was that Iran is at the center GEOGRAPHICALLY. Aw. Bad luck for them. It wouldn't be a far distance to travel if we were to attack Iran. Pfew. Wait. Do Canada first. They're even closer. perhaps you could participate in the battles then? Jolly good fun. If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be somewhat more difficult to attack. Yea, you're right. That's probably the reason why the US hasn't attacked North-Korea. Man, I bet those North-Koreans and South-Africans feel soooooo lucky! Tho it would be entirely their fault if they were to live underneath the footsteps of the Giant we lovingly call Good Ol' US Of A. America, HELL YEA!
Do you folks really desire to topple the government and create anarchy?
As far as geography goes, I think I just realized that you could not interpret what I was saying about Iran's location because you have no idea what the middle east looks like. That's okay, you can talk about world issues from your desk in your little town in Kentucky, without ever having seen the greater part of Kentucky, or even another country, for that matter.
1. Why is the US not the world's #1 superpower? Who is stronger? The EU?
You mentioned that attacking Iran will cost more US lives. If you don't remember, we hadn't occupied any foreign country when the world trade center was destroyed. If we back down and allow the insurgency to materialize into something more organized, it will only make it easier for them to strike the US. Many more Americans will die in terror attacks if we don't keep Al Qaeda on the run. Like most extreme liberals, you show no compassion for your countrymen, and the institution that protects you and sends your welfare check.
You also mentioned that we should not pressure Iran diplomatically or economically, because they can do it back. Do you honestly think Iran can even compete with the US in terms of diplomatic and economic power? You've got to be kidding if you think a shitty embargo from Syria, Jordan, Iran, and whatever other non-producing palestinean state will even pinprick the might of the American economy. Let's not forget that American goods permeate almost every market of every developed/developing country. You will find USA-manufactured items almost everywhere, even in Iran.
You spent some time explaining that the US doesn't have the right to 'weigh lives' and exact judgment upon others. I agree. Nobody has that right. However, if we are attacked by a foreign nation or their agents, we have every right to wage war against them.
I don't even want to talk about the 'blood for oil' thing. Mainly because it's obsolete and most liberals no longer use the argument, given the fact that it has been disproven so many times. Somehow this is reminiscent of Chile's copper mining nationalization, where we lost FAR more money that we lost when Iraq nationalized their oilfields. Of course, we never attacked Chile; although by your logic, we would have.
For not being an American or ever lived here, having skewed biased views of our policies, people and history due to your vast research on the intergeek web or accurate European socialist media, you sure have plenty of opinions on how we should be living, Madace...forgive me, I mean antisocial, anarchist, crackpot. Now go hide under a rock Madace, awaiting our ultimate demise. I'm sure you'll be dancing in the streets with all the Muslim extremists. What a sad, frightened, deluded life you must live in probably a tiny little apt, only your computer to hug and kiss goodnight and all that knowledge of how we're supposed to be running things over here. You want to change something? In America you actually can if you bother to try. But its far easier to sit in your dark little room telling everyone how bad it is for us. How sad for you. Do you stand on street corners with signs around your neck, yelling how the world is going to end some day and its all the human's fault? Check that...its all Amercia's fault, because w're the root of all evil, aren't we crackpot;) If you want to know what the life of someone who wants me dead is worth in taxes...I'd say 2 pennies maybe;) If they're willing to strap bombs to babies and women or fly planes into buildings to kill me, how much should their lives be worth?
Your words are falling on deaf ears, Josher. This person, like so many others on this forum, believes that the government is a conspiracy. It is his own justification for having such a pessimistic attitude, and losing at everything he does. He can simply turn it around and blame it on the bourgeouis (spelling?).
Yes the US “could” attack Iran, just as Austria-Hungary “could” attack Serbia in 1914.
US ownership laws do not extend beyond it’s own borders. In fact unless you are willing to give people around the world a say in the outcome of US elections trying to apply any US law internationally is a fundamental violation of one of the longstanding rules of democracy. A principle that originated in the US with the whole I should add.
US businesses (actually more British) chose to invest in Iraq and Iran, and the risk that they may be nationalized is part of the cost of doing business. If they did not account for that risk when they made the decision to invest there then it’s their loss and the US government owns them no bailout. This is even more true when the payout comes in blood rather then money.
Excellent! That means we can freeze all venezuelan/chilean/iraqi assets here in the US. No, even better, we can nationalize them!
There still are fundamental rights that apply universally among humans. You shouldn't have a clear head after taking the capital that someone has invested in you. You seem to have no qualms with this, which is disturbing....
Does that mean your hero, Saddam Hussein, had the right to attack kuwait and nationalize their oil fields?
Why do you want your country to hurt, Iomiller? Why do you want us to lose money and lives? That is the fundamental question that extreme liberals can't seem to answer.
Respecting the right to property is what seperates us from the animals who live in this country. I challenge you liberals to travel to a third world country that is hostile to the US, as I have, and talk to these people who you hold in such high regard. I want you to see the intelligence of the anti-US bandwagon firsthand.
Yes, Americans are a race. Is that news to you or something? So are the French and the Scottish. The world is full of different races.
A 50 calibre machine gun, is something every man should be afraid of. It can kill you whatever your nationality. The Austrian made .50 I refer to however is an anti material rifle. It shoots through Humvee's and body armour from a mile away. It's a very dangerous and sophisticated weapon. A cruise missile is unmanned, and the ships that fire them do so from 600 miles away. Do you know of any Iranian weapon system capable of sinking a ship from 600 miles away? Please tell us more. A lucky shot? Is that it? You think Iran can defend itself from the U.S. because it might get a lucky shot and kill one U.S. service man. You think the U.S. doesn't have the airpower already in place to make the strike tomorrow? Madace, they are ready. Iran is literally surrounded by allied airstrips. 360 degree's. Anyone of carriers in theatre alone has the numbers to overwhelm Iran's air defences single handledly. Iraq is supplied by air and sea. Land, air and sea. Air and sea is easier, especially if it is through international waters and air space only and especially if it is thousands of miles closer. The current biggest killer of allied personal is the roadside bomb. Removing the element of "Land" from the logistics train removes completely the opportunity for low tech attack. There can be no insurgency at sea.
25p a day is the cost of human life. That's what the average person lives on.
Why do you say the American's have failed in Iraq? Has the war ended and no one told me? Enough with your wish fullfillment. You need to learn the difference between fantasy and actuality. What you want to happen and what actually has occoured. You present futures you wish for as already established facts. You are a fantasist.
If you don't have any criteria for superpowers, why attempt to discuss it. If you don't believe rthat there is such a thing as a super power, why keep going on about them? Super powers exist. If you don't understand what the term means, look it up. Every country has less power than the U.S. All of them. The concept of "nation stated hood" has nothing to do with it. Call it anything you like and it has less power than the U.S. invent your own systems of government or allegiance or anything else. The U.S. is still more powerful than anything else on the planet.
Did you really think that the U.S.'s only ability to affect things internationally was through it's military? The U.S. is the worlds most powerful superpower. The no.1. You don't get to "opt out" on what a super-power means and suddenly there aren't any; just because you don't like that your nation isn't one or that another nations is more important than your own. Ultimately Madace relabeling things that don't suit him makes no difference. You don't believe in nation states? It makes no difference. They Exist. You don't believe in super-powers, it makes no difference. They exist.
While the Euro may one day overtake the Dollar as the international currency of trade, currently it does not. How many notes you have in circualtion is utterly irrelevant. If Britain prints more notes than anyone else will the Pound become the most readily accepted currency in the world? You can't seem to divorce fantasy from reality. You wish the EU to be the most important currency on the planet and your desire for it to be so leads you on to promote it as such. Maybe it will be one day. Personally, I'd like to see the pound get back on top. But fantasy is fantasy. The past has gone and future is unwritten. Today it is the dollar.
English is the most widely spoken language in the world. (Maybe Chinese is the second?) Yes the British Empire should take most of the credit for this not the U.S. However, the capital of the Anglo Empire isn't London anymore it's Washington. The centre of Anglo culture has moved.
Terrorism? You think the Afghan and Iraq wars have promoted terrorism? You think they have made matters worse than 9/11? Perhaps you would like to give an example of any terrorist attacks since that event that have been worse. Why not give us some examples of how much this increased terrorism has cost the U.S. Just more fantasy I'm afraid. Terrorism has been greatly reduced in my country and totally disappeared in the U.S. Although to be fair they never really suffered from it in the first place. Just the one attack.
Iran is important regionally. It is important to attack Iran now, while it is still a diplomatic, military and economic, minnow, because other wise it won't stay one. If I have to have enemies, I prefer them weak.
As a little nudge, I try and write a single reply to an entire post, rather than dissect and refute each sentence. I find that it helps me to order my thoughts and instead of a load of lazy and undeveloped one liner retorts I may be able to provide a more insightful response to the issues under discussion. I find it helps to have my own thoughts on a subject rather than just perpetually react to those of others, if you see what I'm saying. Instead of discussing issues around the subject this kind of approach just gets us drawn into the minutae. Arguing over the semantics. A quick witty one liner about American's not being a race and a remarkably unintresting argument follows. Don't do it mate. Don't waste my time. Lets hear what you think about the issues rather than just the constant baiting. You know we are all intrested. Your smart comment one liner retorts might sound witty to you, but to everyone else reading it, it's just dismissive. Every time you dismiss our opinions with one, we dismiss you.
Excellent post.
I like that you pointed out that fact that MadAce argues through dismissive one-liners. He simply doesn't have counterarguments for any valid points that we bring forth.
Yeah America is basically where republicans work their asses off and try to protect the nation and our allies from outside attackers. Meanwhile, democrats don't have jobs and the republicans have to pay for them and their screwups. The democrats hate america and want to see us all fall into a miserable hole of poverty and destitution.
While the dems were jumping and crying with joy while the trade towers fell, the republicans had to mobilize the army and stop the terrorists from returning and killing even more people.
They are always hatching a new plot to destroy america, but the republicans always find a way to stop them. Once, they created a confederacy and tried to split the country in two, but we beat them. Once, they tried to stop the US from attacking hitler because they wanted the Nazis to rule europe and conquer england, but the republicans finally managed to start the war, with the help of a japanese attack.
Current problems that the republicans have to solve:
-The democrats want to pull the troops back to america, which will give extremists in the middle east time to forge WMDs or otherwise horrifying weapons, which will result in the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of americans.
-The democrats want to open the southern borders of the USA and allow all the drug lords and other undesirables into the US, and give them tax-free jobs and free healthcare/education. Also, they want to make these illegal immigrants immune to the law, and unable to be thrown in jail.
EDIT: I'm a moderate, but I'm really starting to lean towards the republicans. Sure, McCain won't be the FuN~! president, like Obama, but he sure as hell knows how to run a government.
Yes, Americans are a race. No, they're not. You can convince me by quoting any credible biological classification. Is that news to you or something? It's untrue so it doesn't matter. So are the French and the Scottish. The world is full of different races. Neither of them are races. They're nationalities. Sad you don't know the difference between a race and a nationality. Or perhaps it was a freudian slip? A 50 calibre machine gun, is something every man should be afraid of. It can kill you whatever your nationality. The Austrian made .50 I refer to however is an anti material rifle. It shoots through Humvee's and body armour from a mile away. It's a very dangerous and sophisticated weapon. I didn't deny that. But according to you, the US is the world's sole superpower. Should they be afraid of some .50 cal machine guns? And if they, despite their billions upon billions of defence spending were to spend billions upon billions upon billions upon billions invading (the only way you're going to stop Iranian weapon deliveries) to stop a few weapons deliveries Iran then they're not much of a superpower, are they? Since Iran with a few dozen million dollars (very comfortable estimate on the total costs of their deliveries, considering anything needed for a succesful insurgency is already in Iraq) made the US spend billions upon billions. BTW, you yet have to provide me with some proof about those Iranian arms deliveries. A cruise missile is unmanned, and the ships that fire them do so from 600 miles away. Do you know of any Iranian weapon system capable of sinking a ship from 600 miles away? Please tell us more. Unless you're somehow a better strategist than the US navy during their 2002 war game then I take it you understand not all weapon/.planes will be fired from a comfortable distance and US assets in the region WILL be vulnerable. A lucky shot? Is that it? You think Iran can defend itself from the U.S. because it might get a lucky shot and kill one U.S. service man. I never said Iran would defend itself with lucky shots. You don't read my words well enough to twist them, so don't attempt to do so. You claimed that there would be no dead US servicemen. I said that even in the best case scenario they could still get a "lucky" shot and kill a US serviceman. Not to mention their ability to strike inside Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. You think the U.S. doesn't have the airpower already in place to make the strike tomorrow? Madace, they are ready. Iran is literally surrounded by allied airstrips. 360 degree's. Anyone of carriers in theatre alone has the numbers to overwhelm Iran's air defences single handledly. Is that so? One carrier. Let's see the USS Ronald Reagan. The ability to carry 90 fixed wing aircraft. In pure numbers they're outnumbered. We both know that despite the obvious US air supremacy they'd have to commit more than just one carrier. And even wit this full commitment they're vulnerable. Aain I'm forced to refer to the Millenium Challenge war game which apparently isn't outdated. Remember those incidents where Iranian speed boats presumably tried to provoke the US naval presence near Iran? Pretty similar, isn't it? Iraq is supplied by air and sea. Land, air and sea. Air and sea is easier, especially if it is through international waters and air space only and especially if it is thousands of miles closer. The current biggest killer of allied personal is the roadside bomb. Removing the element of "Land" from the logistics train removes completely the opportunity for low tech attack. There can be no insurgency at sea. So air and sea is easier. I didn't know that and was too lazy to look it up. Thanks for the info. 25p a day is the cost of human life. That's what the average person lives on. Oooooh. That way. I think my math is more accurate. But your math is a lot more cynical. I like it. Some economist said that fixing all the worlds problems would only cost 65 (or thereabouts) billions dollars a year. So you could argue that a few billions lives (at least the quality of life of them) would be worth 65 billion dollars. Why do you say the American's have failed in Iraq? Has the war ended and no one told me? Remember this: Note the banner.
if I'm not mistaken one of the intial objectives of the war was to make it pay for itself. This failed miserably. Enough with your wish fullfillment. You need to learn the difference between fantasy and actuality. What you want to happen and what actually has occoured. You present futures you wish for as already established facts. You are a fantasist. So far you haven't been able to disprove (perhaps because of a total lack of any proof) any of my points while I'm not even sure what your points are. Am I correct in assuming your points are the following: Iran should be attacked. The US is capable of doing so.
My reply to this is: Iran should not be attacked. The US would suffer unacceptable damage (possibly in the short run, certainly in the long run) when attacking Iran. Can you sum your points up real fast? Thanks. If you don't have any criteria for superpowers, why attempt to discuss it. If you don't believe rthat there is such a thing as a super power, why keep going on about them? I personally have a few reasons why I personally think superpowers don't exist. And as long as someone else mentions the concept of a superpower then I'm free to disagree with them. Super powers exist. If you don't understand what the term means, look it up. I did. There isn't a set definition. I'm not the only one doubting the existence of superpowers. Every country has less power than the U.S. Define power. All of them. The concept of "nation stated hood" has nothing to do with it. Yes, it does. The importance of nations has only diminished in the past years. Call it anything you like and it has less power than the U.S. invent your own systems of government or allegiance or anything else. The U.S. is still more powerful than anything else on the planet. Define powerful. Did you really think that the U.S.'s only ability to affect things internationally was through it's military? No, of course not. You were the one who was so desperate as to refer to the US navy. The U.S. is the worlds most powerful superpower. Define superpower. Who knows, perhaps I have to agree with you according to your definition. The no.1. At what? Military wise? Yes. But what is the worth of that. Technologically. Most certainly in a lot of fields. So? You don't get to "opt out" on what a super-power means and suddenly there aren't any; just because you don't like that your nation isn't one or that another nations is more important than your own. There isn't a clear definition of superpower (or at least there isn't one that isn't under debate). So it might very well be there are only great powers, or no powers at all. Depends on how much you believe in interdependency among other things.
Ultimately Madace relabeling things that don't suit him makes no difference. You don't believe in nation states? I never said I didn't. I simply doubt their viability in the future, except for a few isolated cases like the US, India and China. Tho the US doesn't really belong in that group due to its "low" population. It makes no difference. They Exist. Of course they do. (no sarcasm) You don't believe in super-powers, it makes no difference. They exist. According to what definition, that is the question.
While the Euro may one day overtake the Dollar as the international currency of trade, currently it does not. I never said the US Dollar wasn't the currency of trade. I said that its power was fading away. If you're so eager to defend the US dollar than why not simply say it's still the prime reserve currency in the world? You don't have to thank me for my help. How many notes you have in circualtion is utterly irrelevant. It's not the amount of notes, it's the amount of money. If Britain prints more notes than anyone else will the Pound become the most readily accepted currency in the world? If the pound then occupies a significant part of all cash money in the world, then yes, of course. Causality, you know. You can't seem to divorce fantasy from reality. You wish the EU to be the most important currency on the planet and your desire for it to be so leads you on to promote it as such. I don't care which currency is the most important currency on the planet. And the "EU" isn't a currency at all (next time do your homework). In a few years time it might be very likely that the Renminbi willbe one of, if not the major currency of the world. Why should I care?
English is the most widely spoken language in the world. (Maybe Chinese is the second?) That's not what you said. This is a list of the most widely spoken languages:
101 million native (95 million Standard German [2004 CIA], 5 million Swiss German), 60 million second language in EU[8] + 5 - 20 million worldwide. 101 million native, ~70 million second language, ~170 million total
115 million "real speakers" (includes some second-language speakers),[10] 250 million second language (worldwide including Africa and North Africa) = 365 million total and up to 500 million total with significant knowledge of the language[11]
61–62 million (2000 WCD) (taken together with Eastern Punjabi (28 million) and Siraiki (14 million): 104 million total)
2
But since 52 countries use English (graçias British Empire) it's still the most widely spoken second language. Yes the British Empire should take most of the credit for this not the U.S. However, the capital of the Anglo Empire isn't London anymore it's Washington. The centre of Anglo culture has moved. You've got to be kidding me. In my humblest of opinions there is a MASSIVE difference between US and UK culture (and yes, despite what some like to think, the US does have a culture). Honestly. I'd even say that the Anglo culture has become multi-polar.
Terrorism? You think the Afghan and Iraq wars have promoted terrorism? You think they have made matters worse than 9/11? I think the US reaction to 9/11 has cost more in terms of lives and money than the initial 9/11 attack, yes.
Terrorism has been greatly reduced in my country and totally disappeared in the U.S. Although to be fair they never really suffered from it in the first place. Just the one attack. Terrorism was never a problem to begin with...
I'd think smoking does a whole lot more damage than terrorism. Iran is important regionally. It is important to attack Iran now, while it is still a diplomatic, military and economic, minnow, because other wise it won't stay one. If I have to have enemies, I prefer them weak. Oh, in stead of inventing a threat you decide invent it in the future. Innocent until proven guilty. Yea, sure.
Ah well, that approach has worked in the past when all those Iraqi WOMD turned up.. As a little nudge, I try and write a single reply to an entire post, rather than dissect and refute each sentence. I find that it helps me to order my thoughts and instead of a load of lazy and undeveloped one liner retorts I may be able to provide a more insightful response to the issues under discussion. That's your way, not mine. I prefer to work on fact-by-fact basis. Each their own I say.
I find it helps to have my own thoughts on a subject rather than just perpetually react to those of others, if you see what I'm saying. Instead of discussing issues around the subject this kind of approach just gets us drawn into the minutae. Arguing over the semantics. A quick witty one liner about American's not being a race and a remarkably unintresting argument follows.
Contrary to what you might think, credibility matters. I'm perfectly okay with you making a little semantic mistake. And if you admit it then I'll forget it. In return I expect you to do the same for me. (neither of us is perfect) But if you keep pretending one of your previously faulty statements was correct then what credibility do all of your arguments have?
Don't do it mate. Don't waste my time. Lets hear what you think about the issues rather than just the constant baiting. You know we are all intrested. Your smart comment one liner retorts might sound witty to you, but to everyone else reading it, it's just dismissive. Every time you dismiss our opinions with one, we dismiss you. It's your time to waste. And your choice.
If you think my replies are smart, good (tho I doubt you mean it in a positive way). But I'd much rather see you examine them for factual errors and discuss those. But Ive noticed in the past you don't really like dueling with facts.
Originally posted by tylerthedrui
Originally posted by MadAce
Originally posted by tylerthedrui
Your post irritates me because it is pessimistic and outright bitchy. I'm sorry. I was meaning to sound realistic and arrogant. My apologies. BTW, are you often irritated by forum posts? Have you consulted a doctor about this ailment? Perhaps you should as it could be you have a very, very, very, very low emotional threshold. You never know. Better safe than sorry. We could easily attack Iran. Who's "we"? I bet it's not you. Is Iran the world's #1 superpower? No. Is the US? No. We should have attacked Iran and Iraq the moment that they nationalized the oil fields that we spent our money to build. Or should we no longer recognize the right of ownership? Since they live on the land, we must be obligated to build them free multi-billion dollar infrastructure to lift their oil! So you're saying the US has never profited from Iraqi and Iranian oil fields? Strange. Would attacking Iran make the US 'thugs'? Not really, considering that Iran has been supplying the insurgents who kill our soldiers (not that you care about the lives of a few of our countrymen). Honest question: Is there as much proof for Iranian backed insurgents as there was for Iraqi WOMD? You wouldn't be asking for an attack on Iran if you cared about the lives of your countrymen. If we were a smaller country, we would have had excellent justification to declare war on Iran long ago. Why have actual justification? Just fabricate it like Vietnam and Iraq. Sure, attacking Iran might be a bad idea. Yup. Very bad idea. There are many other ways to hurt Iran. One would be to pressure them diplomatically and economically. Yup. And they could do the same thing back. However, if they choose to provoke us, the option to attack them should always be considered. Provoke. Like stationing a carrier group of the US coast? Would that be considered provocative? I don't watch fox news. I have probably watched fox news twice in my life. I don't see why you are lumping anyone who disagrees wtih you into a common group. It's one way how I describe a certain mindset. Your argument about who should control the use of 'arms' is completely fallacious, considering that the majority of the nation is not in the military. I give up money to taxes, and expect that I have some say in what that tax money is used for. Tell me, how much of your taxes is a human life worth? 10%? 20%? That's the basis for democracy. Everyone gets to decide what we use the military for. Ask gnomexxx why the US isn't a democracy but a republic. And show him some respect while you're talking to him. If I'm not mistaken he has done what you want to do to others.
My answer to this comment: Thank god there's no direct democracy in the US. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that Iran is 'at the center' of the destructive dynamic in the middle east. Apology accepted. There are plenty of other fish to fry. Busy, busy, busy. God, I mean The Holy United States Of America (And The Rest Of The Known Universe To Be Honest), doesn't have a moments rest, now has it? Weighing lives, judging entire populations, ... Busy, busy, busy. What I wrote (intended quite literally) was that Iran is at the center GEOGRAPHICALLY. Aw. Bad luck for them. It wouldn't be a far distance to travel if we were to attack Iran. Pfew. Wait. Do Canada first. They're even closer. perhaps you could participate in the battles then? Jolly good fun. If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be somewhat more difficult to attack. Yea, you're right. That's probably the reason why the US hasn't attacked North-Korea. Man, I bet those North-Koreans and South-Africans feel soooooo lucky! Tho it would be entirely their fault if they were to live underneath the footsteps of the Giant we lovingly call Good Ol' US Of A. America, HELL YEA!
Do you folks really desire to topple the government and create anarchy?
Why do you assume I'm an antiwar protester? I'm one of those people who thinks that violence DOES solve problems. In certain situations.
What's a more pressing question: What's your problem with free speech? If a few antiwar protesters can topple the government then there was something wrong with the government. That's how it works in the US of A. Ask gnomexxx (who seems to become more and more reasonable as I read your stuff).
It's creepy how you would take away the right of people to question their government.
As far as geography goes, I think I just realized that you could not interpret what I was saying about Iran's location because you have no idea what the middle east looks like. That's okay, you can talk about world issues from your desk in your little town in Kentucky, without ever having seen the greater part of Kentucky, or even another country, for that matter. I have a very, very, very good idea of what the middle east looks like. I'm a geography buff, should you care.
And were you to know anything about Iran's location then you would realize it's a very bad idea attacking them with an already overstretched military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. 1. Why is the US not the world's #1 superpower? Who is stronger? The EU? My personal opinion is that there are no superpowers (one of the reasons is interdependency). But you're free to disagree with me on that as there apparently is no clear definition of what a superpower exactly is.
You mentioned that attacking Iran will cost more US lives. If you don't remember, we hadn't occupied any foreign country when the world trade center was destroyed. It depends what you consider occupation. Notice the middle east:
That's all the causa belli Al-Qaeda needed. If we back down and allow the insurgency to materialize into something more organized, it will only make it easier for them to strike the US. Oh dear. Okay. Let me spell it out for you. There is a difference between insurgencies and terrorism. Terrorism is (almost by definition) pretty unorganized. Meaning that a terrorist organization doesn't require anything which looks even remotely like a conventional army, to do damage. Many more Americans will die in terror attacks if we don't keep Al Qaeda on the run. It's very doubtful whether or not Al-Qaeda exists. It's probably only a seal of approval for individual terrorist cells. Like most extreme liberals, you show no compassion for your countrymen, and the institution that protects you and sends your welfare check. I'm not a liberal. If you're not even able to judge me (a very humble and simple person) how the hell could you ever be able to judge the global situation? You also mentioned that we should not pressure Iran diplomatically or economically, because they can do it back. Do you honestly think Iran can even compete with the US in terms of diplomatic and economic power? I'm saying that the benefits wouldn't justify the costs. You've got to be kidding if you think a shitty embargo from Syria, Jordan, Iran, and whatever other non-producing palestinean state will even pinprick the might of the American economy. Oil? Oil. Oil! (seen that movie Being John Malkovich?) Let's not forget that American goods permeate almost every market of every developed/developing country. You will find USA-manufactured items almost everywhere, even in Iran. Of course you will. Just as you'll find Chinese goods everywhere. So? You spent some time explaining that the US doesn't have the right to 'weigh lives' and exact judgment upon others. I agree. Nobody has that right. However, if we are attacked by a foreign nation or their agents, we have every right to wage war against them. Which nation? Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist attack. Iran? Not without the costs greatly outweighing the benefits. And for someone who doesn't have the right to weigh lives I'd say you're sure easy to spend the lives of the soldiers of your country. I don't even want to talk about the 'blood for oil' thing. Mainly because it's obsolete and most liberals no longer use the argument, given the fact that it has been disproven so many times. Indeed. It's not that simple. Somehow this is reminiscent of Chile's copper mining nationalization, where we lost FAR more money that we lost when Iraq nationalized their oilfields. Of course, we never attacked Chile; although by your logic, we would have. What is my logic according to you?
Originally posted by tylerthedrui
Originally posted by Josher
For not being an American or ever lived here, having skewed biased views of our policies, people and history due to your vast research on the intergeek web or accurate European socialist media, you sure have plenty of opinions on how we should be living, Madace...forgive me, I mean antisocial, anarchist, crackpot. Now go hide under a rock Madace, awaiting our ultimate demise. I'm sure you'll be dancing in the streets with all the Muslim extremists. What a sad, frightened, deluded life you must live in probably a tiny little apt, only your computer to hug and kiss goodnight and all that knowledge of how we're supposed to be running things over here. You want to change something? In America you actually can if you bother to try. But its far easier to sit in your dark little room telling everyone how bad it is for us. How sad for you. Do you stand on street corners with signs around your neck, yelling how the world is going to end some day and its all the human's fault? Check that...its all Amercia's fault, because w're the root of all evil, aren't we crackpot;) If you want to know what the life of someone who wants me dead is worth in taxes...I'd say 2 pennies maybe;) If they're willing to strap bombs to babies and women or fly planes into buildings to kill me, how much should their lives be worth?
Your words are falling on deaf ears, Josher. This person, like so many others on this forum, believes that the government is a conspiracy. It is his own justification for having such a pessimistic attitude, and losing at everything he does. He can simply turn it around and blame it on the bourgeouis (spelling?).
Dude, seriously. If you'd read some more posts of me you'd know I think conspiracy theories are bullshit.
Originally posted by tylerthedrui
Originally posted by Upload
Thank god I love in Europe, America sucks
LOL! I wanted to see some European opinions.
America politics 101
Yeah America is basically where republicans work their asses off and try to protect the nation and our allies from outside attackers. Meanwhile, democrats don't have jobs and the republicans have to pay for them and their screwups. The democrats hate america and want to see us all fall into a miserable hole of poverty and destitution.
While the dems were jumping and crying with joy while the trade towers fell, the republicans had to mobilize the army and stop the terrorists from returning and killing even more people.
They are always hatching a new plot to destroy america, but the republicans always find a way to stop them. Once, they created a confederacy and tried to split the country in two, but we beat them. Once, they tried to stop the US from attacking hitler because they wanted the Nazis to rule europe and conquer england, but the republicans finally managed to start the war, with the help of a japanese attack.
Current problems that the republicans have to solve:
-The democrats want to pull the troops back to america, which will give extremists in the middle east time to forge WMDs or otherwise horrifying weapons, which will result in the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of americans.
-The democrats want to open the southern borders of the USA and allow all the drug lords and other undesirables into the US, and give them tax-free jobs and free healthcare/education. Also, they want to make these illegal immigrants immune to the law, and unable to be thrown in jail.
EDIT: I'm a moderate, but I'm really starting to lean towards the republicans. Sure, McCain won't be the FuN~! president, like Obama, but he sure as hell knows how to run a government.
A lot of what you say looks a lot like some crackpot conspiracy theory.
Yes the US “could” attack Iran, just as Austria-Hungary “could” attack Serbia in 1914.
US ownership laws do not extend beyond it’s own borders. In fact unless you are willing to give people around the world a say in the outcome of US elections trying to apply any US law internationally is a fundamental violation of one of the longstanding rules of democracy. A principle that originated in the US with the whole I should add.
US businesses (actually more British) chose to invest in Iraq and Iran, and the risk that they may be nationalized is part of the cost of doing business. If they did not account for that risk when they made the decision to invest there then it’s their loss and the US government owns them no bailout. This is even more true when the payout comes in blood rather then money.
Excellent! That means we can freeze all venezuelan/chilean/iraqi assets here in the US. No, even better, we can nationalize them!
There still are fundamental rights that apply universally among humans. You shouldn't have a clear head after taking the capital that someone has invested in you. You seem to have no qualms with this, which is disturbing....
Does that mean your hero, Saddam Hussein, had the right to attack kuwait and nationalize their oil fields?
Why do you want your country to hurt, Iomiller? Why do you want us to lose money and lives? That is the fundamental question that extreme liberals can't seem to answer.
Respecting the right to property is what seperates us from the animals who live in this country. I challenge you liberals to travel to a third world country that is hostile to the US, as I have, and talk to these people who you hold in such high regard. I want you to see the intelligence of the anti-US bandwagon firsthand.
Iraqi assets were frozen for a decade after GW1, the US could certainly freeze or nationalize Venezuelan assets of it wanted, but it may have a hard time getting oil after that. $20 a gallon gas would change US policy pretty quickly.
How on earth do you get from me saying that countries don’t have the right to impose their law on other nations to suggesting Saddam had a right to invade Kuwait?
I’m actually slightly right of center, but no doubt anything this side of fascism seems liberal to you In this case, I side with the left specifically because the US right is advocating the waste of money and lives in order to undermine democracy worldwide.
And no property is not what separates us from the animals.
Which brings me on to my next correction, so what if Iran uses diplomatic measures against the U.S. It is a diplomatic minnow. An economic minnow too.
I wanted Josher and tylerthedrui to make that point. But you'll do just fine too. If Iran is as irrelevant as you claim it to be... Then why attack/invade it?
Apart from the country holding 10% of the world's oil reserves, and being the world's 4th oil produces (which isn't that minnow when you think about it).
This one is easy to answer. We would attack Iran to deter them from launching an attack on us, and to send a message to potential attackers. Certainly, it would not benefit the USA as a whole, but we are not a totalitarian regime (as you seem to think we are) and our goal is to prevent the loss of any american life. Just because they can't kill very many Americans doesn't mean that we shouldn't spend time trying to stop them.
Also research the difference between 'reserve' and 'deposit'. Iran has about 1% of the world's oil RESERVES and they are beginning to dry up.
However, Iran does have some oil, I won't dispute that. Iraq has even less oil than Iran. Why are we not invading Saudi Arabia 'for oil'?
The Iranian airforce and air defences are utterly outclassed.
True. But everyone makes a lucky shot sometimes. And I wonder how the US will be able to bring sufficient fighters and bombers to the scene.
The US has sufficient fighters and bombers. Let's not forget what I mentioned about Iran's geographic location. Let's consider that Iraq and Afghanistan both border Iran. Maybe after 8 posts you will finally comprehend what I was saying about Iran's geographic location. However, since you do not know the layout of the middle east, you might still be in the dark.
If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be even easier to attack.
Tell that to my buddy tylerthedrui. I knew that, but hey, I'm too nice for this world.
Certainly. It might be much easier to attack. However, considering that Iran is located next to the largest buildup of American fighting forces on the planet, it might be easier (at the moment) to attack Iran. Maybe? Perhaps?
I don't know the logistics behind supplying a military force, but it makes sense to me that Iran is closer to Iraq and afghanistan than it is to the southern tip of africa. If it is easier to send another carrier to the southern tip of Africa, then I am completely mistaken. It's a point I never should have made, because I really don't care whether or not it's easier to attack Iran because we are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is nothing wrong with protesting. However, blocking the entrance to the IRS office, setting cars on fire, etc ; not a good way to protest. But since you hold anarchy so highly, I suppose you condone that sort of thing.
Which brings me on to my next correction, so what if Iran uses diplomatic measures against the U.S. It is a diplomatic minnow. An economic minnow too. I wanted Josher and tylerthedrui to make that point. But you'll do just fine too. If Iran is as irrelevant as you claim it to be... Then why attack/invade it?
Apart from the country holding 10% of the world's oil reserves, and being the world's 4th oil produces (which isn't that minnow when you think about it). This one is easy to answer. We would attack Iran to deter them from launching an attack on us, and to send a message to potential attackers. Certainly, it would not benefit the USA as a whole, but we are not a totalitarian regime (as you seem to think we are) and our goal is to prevent the loss of any american life. Just because they can't kill very many Americans doesn't mean that we shouldn't spend time trying to stop them. If you'd attack Iran they'd have a reason and a justification (and millions of people supporting them in their future ventures) to attack the US. Currently this is not the case. If you truly want to prevent loss of American life then you shouldn't attack Iran, or any other country except when there is no other option. It's like shouting "You're gonna attack me!" to someone on the street and then attacking that person. Afterwards he might fight back and you're all "See? I told you he was going to attack me!". Very weird (lack of) logic. Feel free to look up oil information on http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/petroleum.html
Also research the difference between 'reserve' and 'deposit'. Iran has about 1% of the world's oil RESERVES and they are beginning to dry up. However, Iran does have some oil, I won't dispute that. Iraq has even less oil than Iran. Why are we not invading Saudi Arabia 'for oil'? Wow. That's a very interesting source you gave me there. Thanks a lot. It clearly says that Iran has 10% of the world's oil reserves. Just as I said: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/pdf.pdf The Iranian airforce and air defences are utterly outclassed. True. But everyone makes a lucky shot sometimes. And I wonder how the US will be able to bring sufficient fighters and bombers to the scene. The US has sufficient fighters and bombers. Let's not forget what I mentioned about Iran's geographic location. Let's consider that Iraq and Afghanistan both border Iran. Maybe after 8 posts you will finally comprehend what I was saying about Iran's geographic location. However, since you do not know the layout of the middle east, you might still be in the dark. The US has more than enough planes and bombers. However getting sufficient amounts in the region will be a logistical challenge. Remember that this would be the first time that the US would have to face any kind of air force since World War 2. After that I can't remember a single occasion where it didn't have immediate air superiority. Having complete mastery of the skies would be impossible against Iran. They've been focussing on the development and production of homegrown medium range artillery missiles. Most of them have a range up to 1000 km. The amounts Iran have are rumored to be enough to level US bases in Iran and Afghanistan. And most importantly: The Lebanon war of 2006 has taught us that even a country with a top-notch and well-trained military like Israel can't stop missiles from being launched. Even when launched from a neighboring country. They also have an unknown amount of SAM missiles. When fired is sufficient quantities (a theory supported by the Millennium Challenge wargame of 2002) they'll be able to overwhelm US air defenses. Going into Iran with a ground force would be... Not healthy to say the least. Contrary to Iraq's army in 2003 Iran does have a well-trained and well-equipped military. And the numbers. Oh, the numbers.
Even with total air supremacy the US would have to commit immense numbers in any ground invasion. Hell, they'd probably be fighting a defensive war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So in conclusion I'd say the US would win any kind of conflict against Iran. But the costs would be many times greater than anything Iran could ever do to the US. Ever. If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be even easier to attack. Tell that to my buddy tylerthedrui. I knew that, but hey, I'm too nice for this world. Certainly. It might be much easier to attack. However, considering that Iran is located next to the largest buildup of American fighting forces on the planet, it might be easier (at the moment) to attack Iran. Maybe? Perhaps? I don't know the logistics behind supplying a military force, but it makes sense to me that Iran is closer to Iraq and afghanistan than it is to the southern tip of africa. If it is easier to send another carrier to the southern tip of Africa, then I am completely mistaken. It's a point I never should have made, because I really don't care whether or not it's easier to attack Iran because we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Good lord. I think you've been playing too many bad wargames or something. Civ 4? It's not because the US has troops in Iraq or Afghanistan that they would be anywhere NEAR mounting an invasion. I'd even say that the unstable situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are a dream to bring the fighting to the US side. The US force in Iraq wold collapse in no time as hundreds (thousands?) of artillery missiles rain down on US bases. Combine this with a fully supported (well there would be no reason for Iran to hold back and not give those insurgents some fine guns)and possibly even a ground assault and you've got Iraq out of the picture. Tho I'd imagine that Iran wouldn't even want to hold Iraq (just do damage there so the US would waste money and resources and have its supply lines for any kind of invasion completely busted. Iran wouldn't want to upset Israel and Turkey by holding on to Iraq. It doesn't have to. Go in and scorch the earth. Get out. Afghanistan is slightly different because it has a NATO and not a coalition force. But I'd imagine NATO would never want to have part in an attack against Iran. So they'd get out of Afghanistan and leave the whole Taliban ridden country to the US. That's a slightly more realistic assessment of the value of Iraq and Afghanistan in an Iranian war.
And in any case the US supply lines would be easily many times longer than the Iranian supply lines. Remember that the Iranians are fighting a home match.
Originally posted by tylerthedrui
@MadAce There is nothing wrong with protesting. However, blocking the entrance to the IRS office, setting cars on fire, etc ; not a good way to protest. But since you hold anarchy so highly, I suppose you condone that sort of thing.
I know that's not the way to protest. It's not very constructive. But you were questioning their right of exercising their for free speech. If it were up to you they wouldn't have it anymore. I bet you made Osama Bin Laden smile.
Madace, you arguments are well reasoned and backed by facts and statistics. The problem is you are arguing with someone who prefers to gloss over facts and simply make statements that are poorly reasoned. At one point I thought it was worthwhile to try and enlighten people with facts but then I realized that not everyone is interested in reason or facts in a discussion and will close their minds off to them. It simply isn't worth the effort with such people and they are not worth continued responses.
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
Madace, you arguments are well reasoned and backed by facts and statistics. The problem is you are arguing with someone who prefers to gloss over facts and simply make statements that are poorly reasoned. At one point I thought it was worthwhile to try and enlighten people with facts but then I realized that not everyone is interested in reason or facts in a discussion and will close their minds off to them. It simply isn't worth the effort with such people and they are not worth continued responses.
"Discussions" with these people are a very good way of motivating me to increase my knowledge of certain things. For example: I was pretty up to date with Iranian air and missile capabilities but during my research today I came across some interesting information about possible SU-25 purchases. Also I never realized until today that a very large part of the Iranian ground forces is mobile this completely contrary to anything Iraq managed to muster.
You see, every time I say something, I check it. As best as I can. Sometimes I say things from memory and will only bother to look it up when questioned about it. But this happens less and less as I become more and more adept at research.
So it's a personal journey for me. So far the only one I deem worthy of genuine attention (in the sense that I think he's capable of understanding arguments) has been gnomexxx. All the rest is just there for shitz 'n gigglez. (so far, I haven't rally participated in religious discussions tho I might)
Comments
sometimes , smart people lack common sense. regardless of your 'news' affiliation.
to be honest, this republican here watches CNN to view the 'slant' of the story. what is driving the story from behind. i hardly ever watch fox news. its disturbing watching liberal media move the liberal, and uninformed masses to their side. my mother in law is a sponge for that kind of misguided propaganda that is CNN.
of course its not wise to attack iran at this time. 2 tyranical countries were enough for GWBush and our military at this junction.
chips, dips chains & whips.
Your post irritates me because it is pessimistic and outright bitchy.
We could easily attack Iran. Is Iran the world's #1 superpower? We should have attacked Iran and Iraq the moment that they nationalized the oil fields that we spent our money to build. Or should we no longer recognize the right of ownership? Since they live on the land, we must be obligated to build them free multi-billion dollar infrastructure to lift their oil!
Would attacking Iran make the US 'thugs'? Not really, considering that Iran has been supplying the insurgents who kill our soldiers (not that you care about the lives of a few of our countrymen). If we were a smaller country, we would have had excellent justification to declare war on Iran long ago.
Sure, attacking Iran might be a bad idea. There are many other ways to hurt Iran. One would be to pressure them diplomatically and economically. However, if they choose to provoke us, the option to attack them should always be considered.
I don't watch fox news. I have probably watched fox news twice in my life. I don't see why you are lumping anyone who disagrees wtih you into a common group.
Your argument about who should control the use of 'arms' is completely fallacious, considering that the majority of the nation is not in the military. I give up money to taxes, and expect that I have some say in what that tax money is used for. That's the basis for democracy. Everyone gets to decide what we use the military for.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that Iran is 'at the center' of the destructive dynamic in the middle east. There are plenty of other fish to fry. What I wrote (intended quite literally) was that Iran is at the center GEOGRAPHICALLY. It wouldn't be a far distance to travel if we were to attack Iran. If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be somewhat more difficult to attack.
Your post irritates me because it is pessimistic and outright bitchy.
I'm sorry. I was meaning to sound realistic and arrogant. My apologies. BTW, are you often irritated by forum posts? Have you consulted a doctor about this ailment? Perhaps you should as it could be you have a very, very, very, very low emotional threshold. You never know. Better safe than sorry.
We could easily attack Iran.
Who's "we"? I bet it's not you.
Is Iran the world's #1 superpower?
No. Is the US? No.
We should have attacked Iran and Iraq the moment that they nationalized the oil fields that we spent our money to build. Or should we no longer recognize the right of ownership? Since they live on the land, we must be obligated to build them free multi-billion dollar infrastructure to lift their oil!
So you're saying the US has never profited from Iraqi and Iranian oil fields? Strange.
Would attacking Iran make the US 'thugs'? Not really, considering that Iran has been supplying the insurgents who kill our soldiers (not that you care about the lives of a few of our countrymen).
Honest question: Is there as much proof for Iranian backed insurgents as there was for Iraqi WOMD?
You wouldn't be asking for an attack on Iran if you cared about the lives of your countrymen.
If we were a smaller country, we would have had excellent justification to declare war on Iran long ago.
Why have actual justification? Just fabricate it like Vietnam and Iraq.
Sure, attacking Iran might be a bad idea.
Yup. Very bad idea.
There are many other ways to hurt Iran. One would be to pressure them diplomatically and economically.
Yup. And they could do the same thing back.
However, if they choose to provoke us, the option to attack them should always be considered.
Provoke. Like stationing a carrier group of the US coast? Would that be considered provocative?
I don't watch fox news. I have probably watched fox news twice in my life. I don't see why you are lumping anyone who disagrees wtih you into a common group.
It's one way how I describe a certain mindset.
Your argument about who should control the use of 'arms' is completely fallacious, considering that the majority of the nation is not in the military. I give up money to taxes, and expect that I have some say in what that tax money is used for.
Tell me, how much of your taxes is a human life worth? 10%? 20%?
That's the basis for democracy. Everyone gets to decide what we use the military for.
Ask gnomexxx why the US isn't a democracy but a republic. And show him some respect while you're talking to him. If I'm not mistaken he has done what you want to do to others.
My answer to this comment: Thank god there's no direct democracy in the US.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that Iran is 'at the center' of the destructive dynamic in the middle east.
Apology accepted.
There are plenty of other fish to fry.
Busy, busy, busy. God, I mean The Holy United States Of America (And The Rest Of The Known Universe To Be Honest), doesn't have a moments rest, now has it? Weighing lives, judging entire populations, ... Busy, busy, busy.
What I wrote (intended quite literally) was that Iran is at the center GEOGRAPHICALLY.
Aw. Bad luck for them.
It wouldn't be a far distance to travel if we were to attack Iran.
Pfew. Wait. Do Canada first. They're even closer. perhaps you could participate in the battles then? Jolly good fun.
If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be somewhat more difficult to attack.
Yea, you're right. That's probably the reason why the US hasn't attacked North-Korea. Man, I bet those North-Koreans and South-Africans feel soooooo lucky! Tho it would be entirely their fault if they were to live underneath the footsteps of the Giant we lovingly call Good Ol' US Of A.
America, HELL YEA!
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
For not being an American or ever lived here, having skewed biased views of our policies, people and history due to your vast research on the intergeek web or accurate European socialist media, you sure have plenty of opinions on how we should be living, Madace...forgive me, I mean antisocial, anarchist, crackpot.
Now go hide under a rock Madace, awaiting our ultimate demise. I'm sure you'll be dancing in the streets with all the Muslim extremists. What a sad, frightened, deluded life you must live in probably a tiny little apt, only your computer to hug and kiss goodnight and all that knowledge of how we're supposed to be running things over here.
You want to change something? In America you actually can if you bother to try. But its far easier to sit in your dark little room telling everyone how bad it is for us. How sad for you. Do you stand on street corners with signs around your neck, yelling how the world is going to end some day and its all the human's fault? Check that...its all Amercia's fault, because w're the root of all evil, aren't we crackpot;)
If you want to know what the life of someone who wants me dead is worth in taxes...I'd say 2 pennies maybe;) If they're willing to strap bombs to babies and women or fly planes into buildings to kill me, how much should their lives be worth?
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Some comments to add here.The price of human life averages at 25p per person per day. If you think you can't put a price on human life, then you come from a rich area of the world.
The U.S. is the worlds no.1 superpower. I don't see EU or UN or RF or Chinese fleets all round the world. I don't see pounds being the global standard currency or French being the first language of the world.
I have no idea what nation you were thinking has more power than the U.S., but there isn't any. No nation no organisation, nothing. No one even comes close in the power stakes.
Which brings me on to my next correction, so what if Iran uses diplomatic measures against the U.S. It is a diplomatic minnow. An economic minnow too.
And no, the U.S. has not profited from Iranian and Iraqi oil. Don't you know anything? America is evil is just your default position Madace. You make the assumption it is evil and then invent stories about it to reinforce your opinion.
Traditionally Iran sells it's oil to China and Russia and Iraq sells it oils to Russia, Germany, France, Turkey and the U.K.
What makes you think U.S. servicemen would die attacking Iran? Cruise missles are unmanned. The Iranian airforce and air defences are utterly outclassed. Or were you thinking the American's were unable to attack Iran without driving their Humvees along the same piece of road, day after day for 5 years until they explode?
There has been plenty of evidence to directly implicate the Iranian government in Iraqi insurgency. Not least the capture of .50 calibre Steyr rifles with serial numbers sold to the Iranians. Why anyone would imagine that the Iranians would have no involvement is beyond me. Oh yes I forgot, it's because American's are only involved because they are evil. Other races aren't evil.
If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be even easier to attack. Closer to the U.S. in range of more of it's weeapon systems, with a smaller logistical train.
And America has attacked North Korea and the North Koreans don't feel "lucky", they feel scared. Paranoid even.
Currently I think it would be wrong to suggest that Iran is at the centre of the destruction in the middle east. While it is certainly a significant and active player, that title is reserved for America. It is in a league of it's own there. All the horrors and destruction in the middle east combined could all be fit into a tiny corner of the previously very stable country of Iraq.
Some comments to add here.The price of human life averages at 25p per person per day. If you think you can't put a price on human life, then you come from a rich area of the world.
I never said human lives had no price. I always read that the chemicals inside the human body when sold separately would yield about € 250. Which is approximately $ 375.
But you're talking about the laboring power probably. I don't know the average of that, but considering we're all living on the same planet and are all part (even the laziest bum in some shape or form, even if its simply being a warning or taking up spots in the lowest social class or being a symptom for the state of the nation's economy) of the globalized economy I'd say it's about [all the money created each day] / [amount of people who contribute to any economy] per day. Don't know how much that is.
The U.S. is the worlds no.1 superpower.
That completely depends on which criteria you use. According to my criteria there isn't a world power anymore, and I doubt there ever was one.
I don't see EU or UN or RF or Chinese fleets all round the world.
So is that the criterium? The military projection power of a nation? Considering the US failed its objectives in Iraq I'd say it isn't a very effective projection power. And the question remains if the US navy is fit for duty in the 21th century. The Millennium Challenge in 2002 said otherwise.
I'd say if you're absolutely desperate to have a realistic definition of "superpower" in the 21th century then you should look beyond costly and cumbersome militaries and consider which countries/unions/whatevers have the power to exercise their will on the global political theater.
I don't see pounds being the global standard currency or French being the first language of the world.
You know as well as I do that the position of the dollar is in serious decline. In December 2006 the Euro overtook the dollar in terms of total amount of cash in circulation.
English, BTW, isn't the first language of the world. It's the most popular second language. And the US shouldn't get all the credit for spreading English. The British Empire helped.
I have no idea what nation you were thinking has more power than the U.S.,
None, also none have less. Power, unless defined like I attempted above, is non-existent.
Perhaps the idea of nation-states has been outdated too.
but there isn't any.
That's relative.
No nation no organisation, nothing.
Again, relative.
No one even comes close in the power stakes.
Define power.
Which brings me on to my next correction, so what if Iran uses diplomatic measures against the U.S. It is a diplomatic minnow. An economic minnow too.
I wanted Josher and tylerthedrui to make that point. But you'll do just fine too. If Iran is as irrelevant as you claim it to be... Then why attack/invade it?
Apart from the country holding 10% of the world's oil reserves, and being the world's 4th oil produces (which isn't that minnow when you think about it).And no, the U.S. has not profited from Iranian and Iraqi oil. Don't you know anything? Traditionally Iran sells it's oil to China and Russia and Iraq sells it oils to Russia, Germany, France, Turkey and the U.K.
If China and Russia (and those other nations you named) don't buy oil from Iran then they buy it from the same sources as the US does, thus increasing the price for the US. Isn't that logical?
I guess it's not, somehow...
America is evil is just your default position Madace. You make the assumption it is evil and then invent stories about it to reinforce your opinion.
I've explained what I think of that whole "good" and "evil" business.
What makes you think U.S. servicemen would die attacking Iran?
See 2002 Millennium challenge. And I bet those Iranians would be pissed. Pissed enough to actively embrace terrorism. And terrorism really hurts the Americans. Look what fucked up stuff they did after 9/11. I think I'm not mistaken by saying that the Afghanistan and Iraq war cost more than 9/11. A lot more. Not to mention all the terror alarms and such.
Cruise missles are unmanned.
The ships from which they are launched not.
The Iranian airforce and air defences are utterly outclassed.
True. But everyone makes a lucky shot sometimes. And I wonder how the US will be able to bring sufficient fighters and bombers to the scene.
Or were you thinking the American's were unable to attack Iran without driving their Humvees along the same piece of road, day after day for 5 years until they explode?
So now you want boots on the ground?
There has been plenty of evidence to directly implicate the Iranian government in Iraqi insurgency. Not least the capture of .50 calibre Steyr rifles with serial numbers sold to the Iranians. Why anyone would imagine that the Iranians would have no involvement is beyond me. Oh yes I forgot, it's because American's are only involved because they are evil. Other races aren't evil.
So Americans are a race now all of a sudden? Watched too much Star Trek, have you? And come on... The Americans are so mighty and so powerful. What should they have to worry about some .50 cal machine guns. Or are you somehow using double standards?
If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be even easier to attack.
Tell that to my buddy tylerthedrui. I knew that, but hey, I'm too nice for this world.
Closer to the U.S. in range of more of it's weeapon systems, with a smaller logistical train.
You think? I'm not sure (for once, I'm really not sure). I wonder what's most efficient: supplying over land and air (Iraq, Iran) or by sea (South-Africa).
And America has attacked North Korea and the North Koreans don't feel "lucky", they feel scared. Paranoid even.
Was that a recent attack? I'd like to know when. And who knows what the North-Koreans think. I always thought thinking was outlawed over there.
Currently I think it would be wrong to suggest that Iran is at the centre of the destruction in the middle east.
So do I.
While it is certainly a significant and active player, that title is reserved for America.
Possibly.
It is in a league of it's own there.
Is it?
All the horrors and destruction in the middle east combined could all be fit into a tiny corner of the previously very stable country of Iraq.
Ah well ...
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
US ownership laws do not extend beyond it’s own borders. In fact unless you are willing to give people around the world a say in the outcome of US elections trying to apply any US law internationally is a fundamental violation of one of the longstanding rules of democracy. A principle that originated in the US with the whole I should add.
I think you need to learn what Socialist media actually means.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
@madace
Yes, Americans are a race.
Is that news to you or something?
So are the French and the Scottish. The world is full of different races.
A 50 calibre machine gun, is something every man should be afraid of. It can kill you whatever your nationality. The Austrian made .50 I refer to however is an anti material rifle. It shoots through Humvee's and body armour from a mile away. It's a very dangerous and sophisticated weapon.
A cruise missile is unmanned, and the ships that fire them do so from 600 miles away. Do you know of any Iranian weapon system capable of sinking a ship from 600 miles away? Please tell us more.
A lucky shot? Is that it? You think Iran can defend itself from the U.S. because it might get a lucky shot and kill one U.S. service man.
You think the U.S. doesn't have the airpower already in place to make the strike tomorrow? Madace, they are ready. Iran is literally surrounded by allied airstrips. 360 degree's. Anyone of carriers in theatre alone has the numbers to overwhelm Iran's air defences single handledly.
Iraq is supplied by air and sea. Land, air and sea. Air and sea is easier, especially if it is through international waters and air space only and especially if it is thousands of miles closer. The current biggest killer of allied personal is the roadside bomb. Removing the element of "Land" from the logistics train removes completely the opportunity for low tech attack. There can be no insurgency at sea.
25p a day is the cost of human life. That's what the average person lives on.
Why do you say the American's have failed in Iraq? Has the war ended and no one told me?
Enough with your wish fullfillment. You need to learn the difference between fantasy and actuality. What you want to happen and what actually has occoured. You present futures you wish for as already established facts. You are a fantasist.
If you don't have any criteria for superpowers, why attempt to discuss it. If you don't believe rthat there is such a thing as a super power, why keep going on about them?
Super powers exist. If you don't understand what the term means, look it up.
Every country has less power than the U.S. All of them. The concept of "nation stated hood" has nothing to do with it. Call it anything you like and it has less power than the U.S. invent your own systems of government or allegiance or anything else. The U.S. is still more powerful than anything else on the planet.
Did you really think that the U.S.'s only ability to affect things internationally was through it's military?
The U.S. is the worlds most powerful superpower. The no.1. You don't get to "opt out" on what a super-power means and suddenly there aren't any; just because you don't like that your nation isn't one or that another nations is more important than your own.
Ultimately Madace relabeling things that don't suit him makes no difference. You don't believe in nation states? It makes no difference. They Exist. You don't believe in super-powers, it makes no difference. They exist.
While the Euro may one day overtake the Dollar as the international currency of trade, currently it does not.
How many notes you have in circualtion is utterly irrelevant. If Britain prints more notes than anyone else will the Pound become the most readily accepted currency in the world?
You can't seem to divorce fantasy from reality. You wish the EU to be the most important currency on the planet and your desire for it to be so leads you on to promote it as such. Maybe it will be one day. Personally, I'd like to see the pound get back on top. But fantasy is fantasy. The past has gone and future is unwritten.
Today it is the dollar.
English is the most widely spoken language in the world. (Maybe Chinese is the second?)
Yes the British Empire should take most of the credit for this not the U.S. However, the capital of the Anglo Empire isn't London anymore it's Washington. The centre of Anglo culture has moved.
Terrorism?
You think the Afghan and Iraq wars have promoted terrorism? You think they have made matters worse than 9/11?
Perhaps you would like to give an example of any terrorist attacks since that event that have been worse. Why not give us some examples of how much this increased terrorism has cost the U.S.
Just more fantasy I'm afraid. Terrorism has been greatly reduced in my country and totally disappeared in the U.S. Although to be fair they never really suffered from it in the first place. Just the one attack.
Iran is important regionally. It is important to attack Iran now, while it is still a diplomatic, military and economic, minnow, because other wise it won't stay one.
If I have to have enemies, I prefer them weak.
As a little nudge, I try and write a single reply to an entire post, rather than dissect and refute each sentence. I find that it helps me to order my thoughts and instead of a load of lazy and undeveloped one liner retorts I may be able to provide a more insightful response to the issues under discussion.
I find it helps to have my own thoughts on a subject rather than just perpetually react to those of others, if you see what I'm saying. Instead of discussing issues around the subject this kind of approach just gets us drawn into the minutae. Arguing over the semantics. A quick witty one liner about American's not being a race and a remarkably unintresting argument follows.
Don't do it mate. Don't waste my time. Lets hear what you think about the issues rather than just the constant baiting. You know we are all intrested. Your smart comment one liner retorts might sound witty to you, but to everyone else reading it, it's just dismissive. Every time you dismiss our opinions with one, we dismiss you.
US ownership laws do not extend beyond it’s own borders. In fact unless you are willing to give people around the world a say in the outcome of US elections trying to apply any US law internationally is a fundamental violation of one of the longstanding rules of democracy. A principle that originated in the US with the whole I should add.
Wrong. It is the responsability of the government to protect the national intrests of it's citizens.
Trade routes and foreign investments need protection or the threat of protection, otherwise someone else will simply take them. Every time.
The government doesn't have to, but then if it does not, our citizens will have to find someone who will.
The U.S. government is honour-bound to protect the foreign assets of it's citizens. Why do you think we bought them all those fleets?
So if the government isn't up to the task, we will do like we did on the old days. Hire private armies. Pay pirate fleets. And then from time to time we'll take over our own countries with our own armies, because we can.
Soldiers all think they are in a sacred trust. they aren't. There is a queue of people all ready to do the same job. If you don;t want the work, no problem. We can pay someone else.
US ownership laws do not extend beyond it’s own borders. In fact unless you are willing to give people around the world a say in the outcome of US elections trying to apply any US law internationally is a fundamental violation of one of the longstanding rules of democracy. A principle that originated in the US with the whole I should add.
Wrong. It is the responsability of the government to protect the national intrests of it's citizens.
Trade routes and foreign investments need protection or the threat of protection, otherwise someone else will simply take them. Every time.
The government doesn't have to, but then if it does not, our citizens will have to find someone who will.
The U.S. government is honour-bound to protect the foreign assets of it's citizens. Why do you think we bought them all those fleets?
So if the government isn't up to the task, we will do like we did on the old days. Hire private armies. Pay pirate fleets. And then from time to time we'll take over our own countries with our own armies, because we can.
Soldiers all think they are in a sacred trust. they aren't. There is a queue of people all ready to do the same job. If you don;t want the work, no problem. We can pay someone else.
From everything you say, it's almost like you desire more destruction. Look at the antiwar protestors that blocked the entrance to the IRS. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_war_protests;_ylt=AtNB22FF5fKmFe2A6TR0HPEGw_IEDo you folks really desire to topple the government and create anarchy?
As far as geography goes, I think I just realized that you could not interpret what I was saying about Iran's location because you have no idea what the middle east looks like. That's okay, you can talk about world issues from your desk in your little town in Kentucky, without ever having seen the greater part of Kentucky, or even another country, for that matter.
1. Why is the US not the world's #1 superpower? Who is stronger? The EU?
You mentioned that attacking Iran will cost more US lives. If you don't remember, we hadn't occupied any foreign country when the world trade center was destroyed. If we back down and allow the insurgency to materialize into something more organized, it will only make it easier for them to strike the US. Many more Americans will die in terror attacks if we don't keep Al Qaeda on the run. Like most extreme liberals, you show no compassion for your countrymen, and the institution that protects you and sends your welfare check.
You also mentioned that we should not pressure Iran diplomatically or economically, because they can do it back. Do you honestly think Iran can even compete with the US in terms of diplomatic and economic power? You've got to be kidding if you think a shitty embargo from Syria, Jordan, Iran, and whatever other non-producing palestinean state will even pinprick the might of the American economy. Let's not forget that American goods permeate almost every market of every developed/developing country. You will find USA-manufactured items almost everywhere, even in Iran.
You spent some time explaining that the US doesn't have the right to 'weigh lives' and exact judgment upon others. I agree. Nobody has that right. However, if we are attacked by a foreign nation or their agents, we have every right to wage war against them.
I don't even want to talk about the 'blood for oil' thing. Mainly because it's obsolete and most liberals no longer use the argument, given the fact that it has been disproven so many times. Somehow this is reminiscent of Chile's copper mining nationalization, where we lost FAR more money that we lost when Iraq nationalized their oilfields. Of course, we never attacked Chile; although by your logic, we would have.
Your words are falling on deaf ears, Josher. This person, like so many others on this forum, believes that the government is a conspiracy. It is his own justification for having such a pessimistic attitude, and losing at everything he does. He can simply turn it around and blame it on the bourgeouis (spelling?).
Excellent! That means we can freeze all venezuelan/chilean/iraqi assets here in the US. No, even better, we can nationalize them!
There still are fundamental rights that apply universally among humans. You shouldn't have a clear head after taking the capital that someone has invested in you. You seem to have no qualms with this, which is disturbing....
Does that mean your hero, Saddam Hussein, had the right to attack kuwait and nationalize their oil fields?
Why do you want your country to hurt, Iomiller? Why do you want us to lose money and lives? That is the fundamental question that extreme liberals can't seem to answer.
Respecting the right to property is what seperates us from the animals who live in this country. I challenge you liberals to travel to a third world country that is hostile to the US, as I have, and talk to these people who you hold in such high regard. I want you to see the intelligence of the anti-US bandwagon firsthand.
Excellent post.
I like that you pointed out that fact that MadAce argues through dismissive one-liners. He simply doesn't have counterarguments for any valid points that we bring forth.
LOL! I wanted to see some European opinions.
America politics 101
Yeah America is basically where republicans work their asses off and try to protect the nation and our allies from outside attackers. Meanwhile, democrats don't have jobs and the republicans have to pay for them and their screwups. The democrats hate america and want to see us all fall into a miserable hole of poverty and destitution.
While the dems were jumping and crying with joy while the trade towers fell, the republicans had to mobilize the army and stop the terrorists from returning and killing even more people.
They are always hatching a new plot to destroy america, but the republicans always find a way to stop them. Once, they created a confederacy and tried to split the country in two, but we beat them. Once, they tried to stop the US from attacking hitler because they wanted the Nazis to rule europe and conquer england, but the republicans finally managed to start the war, with the help of a japanese attack.
Current problems that the republicans have to solve:
-The democrats want to pull the troops back to america, which will give extremists in the middle east time to forge WMDs or otherwise horrifying weapons, which will result in the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of americans.
-The democrats want to open the southern borders of the USA and allow all the drug lords and other undesirables into the US, and give them tax-free jobs and free healthcare/education. Also, they want to make these illegal immigrants immune to the law, and unable to be thrown in jail.
EDIT: I'm a moderate, but I'm really starting to lean towards the republicans. Sure, McCain won't be the FuN~! president, like Obama, but he sure as hell knows how to run a government.
From everything you say, it's almost like you desire more destruction. Look at the antiwar protestors that blocked the entrance to the IRS. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_war_protests;_ylt=AtNB22FF5fKmFe2A6TR0HPEGw_IEDo you folks really desire to topple the government and create anarchy?
Your words are falling on deaf ears, Josher. This person, like so many others on this forum, believes that the government is a conspiracy. It is his own justification for having such a pessimistic attitude, and losing at everything he does. He can simply turn it around and blame it on the bourgeouis (spelling?).
Dude, seriously. If you'd read some more posts of me you'd know I think conspiracy theories are bullshit.
LOL! I wanted to see some European opinions.
America politics 101
Yeah America is basically where republicans work their asses off and try to protect the nation and our allies from outside attackers. Meanwhile, democrats don't have jobs and the republicans have to pay for them and their screwups. The democrats hate america and want to see us all fall into a miserable hole of poverty and destitution.
While the dems were jumping and crying with joy while the trade towers fell, the republicans had to mobilize the army and stop the terrorists from returning and killing even more people.
They are always hatching a new plot to destroy america, but the republicans always find a way to stop them. Once, they created a confederacy and tried to split the country in two, but we beat them. Once, they tried to stop the US from attacking hitler because they wanted the Nazis to rule europe and conquer england, but the republicans finally managed to start the war, with the help of a japanese attack.
Current problems that the republicans have to solve:
-The democrats want to pull the troops back to america, which will give extremists in the middle east time to forge WMDs or otherwise horrifying weapons, which will result in the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of americans.
-The democrats want to open the southern borders of the USA and allow all the drug lords and other undesirables into the US, and give them tax-free jobs and free healthcare/education. Also, they want to make these illegal immigrants immune to the law, and unable to be thrown in jail.
EDIT: I'm a moderate, but I'm really starting to lean towards the republicans. Sure, McCain won't be the FuN~! president, like Obama, but he sure as hell knows how to run a government.
A lot of what you say looks a lot like some crackpot conspiracy theory.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Excellent! That means we can freeze all venezuelan/chilean/iraqi assets here in the US. No, even better, we can nationalize them!
There still are fundamental rights that apply universally among humans. You shouldn't have a clear head after taking the capital that someone has invested in you. You seem to have no qualms with this, which is disturbing....
Does that mean your hero, Saddam Hussein, had the right to attack kuwait and nationalize their oil fields?
Why do you want your country to hurt, Iomiller? Why do you want us to lose money and lives? That is the fundamental question that extreme liberals can't seem to answer.
Respecting the right to property is what seperates us from the animals who live in this country. I challenge you liberals to travel to a third world country that is hostile to the US, as I have, and talk to these people who you hold in such high regard. I want you to see the intelligence of the anti-US bandwagon firsthand.
Iraqi assets were frozen for a decade after GW1, the US could certainly freeze or nationalize Venezuelan assets of it wanted, but it may have a hard time getting oil after that. $20 a gallon gas would change US policy pretty quickly.
How on earth do you get from me saying that countries don’t have the right to impose their law on other nations to suggesting Saddam had a right to invade Kuwait?
I’m actually slightly right of center, but no doubt anything this side of fascism seems liberal to you
In this case, I side with the left specifically because the US right is advocating the waste of money and lives in order to undermine democracy worldwide.
And no property is not what separates us from the animals.
Which brings me on to my next correction, so what if Iran uses diplomatic measures against the U.S. It is a diplomatic minnow. An economic minnow too.
I wanted Josher and tylerthedrui to make that point. But you'll do just fine too. If Iran is as irrelevant as you claim it to be... Then why attack/invade it?
Apart from the country holding 10% of the world's oil reserves, and being the world's 4th oil produces (which isn't that minnow when you think about it).
This one is easy to answer. We would attack Iran to deter them from launching an attack on us, and to send a message to potential attackers. Certainly, it would not benefit the USA as a whole, but we are not a totalitarian regime (as you seem to think we are) and our goal is to prevent the loss of any american life. Just because they can't kill very many Americans doesn't mean that we shouldn't spend time trying to stop them.
Feel free to look up oil information on http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/petroleum.html
Also research the difference between 'reserve' and 'deposit'. Iran has about 1% of the world's oil RESERVES and they are beginning to dry up.
However, Iran does have some oil, I won't dispute that. Iraq has even less oil than Iran. Why are we not invading Saudi Arabia 'for oil'?
The Iranian airforce and air defences are utterly outclassed.
True. But everyone makes a lucky shot sometimes. And I wonder how the US will be able to bring sufficient fighters and bombers to the scene.
The US has sufficient fighters and bombers. Let's not forget what I mentioned about Iran's geographic location. Let's consider that Iraq and Afghanistan both border Iran. Maybe after 8 posts you will finally comprehend what I was saying about Iran's geographic location. However, since you do not know the layout of the middle east, you might still be in the dark.
If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be even easier to attack.
Tell that to my buddy tylerthedrui. I knew that, but hey, I'm too nice for this world.
Certainly. It might be much easier to attack. However, considering that Iran is located next to the largest buildup of American fighting forces on the planet, it might be easier (at the moment) to attack Iran. Maybe? Perhaps?
I don't know the logistics behind supplying a military force, but it makes sense to me that Iran is closer to Iraq and afghanistan than it is to the southern tip of africa. If it is easier to send another carrier to the southern tip of Africa, then I am completely mistaken. It's a point I never should have made, because I really don't care whether or not it's easier to attack Iran because we are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
@MadAce
There is nothing wrong with protesting. However, blocking the entrance to the IRS office, setting cars on fire, etc ; not a good way to protest. But since you hold anarchy so highly, I suppose you condone that sort of thing.
I know that's not the way to protest. It's not very constructive. But you were questioning their right of exercising their for free speech. If it were up to you they wouldn't have it anymore. I bet you made Osama Bin Laden smile.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Madace, you arguments are well reasoned and backed by facts and statistics. The problem is you are arguing with someone who prefers to gloss over facts and simply make statements that are poorly reasoned. At one point I thought it was worthwhile to try and enlighten people with facts but then I realized that not everyone is interested in reason or facts in a discussion and will close their minds off to them. It simply isn't worth the effort with such people and they are not worth continued responses.
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
"Discussions" with these people are a very good way of motivating me to increase my knowledge of certain things. For example: I was pretty up to date with Iranian air and missile capabilities but during my research today I came across some interesting information about possible SU-25 purchases. Also I never realized until today that a very large part of the Iranian ground forces is mobile this completely contrary to anything Iraq managed to muster.
You see, every time I say something, I check it. As best as I can. Sometimes I say things from memory and will only bother to look it up when questioned about it. But this happens less and less as I become more and more adept at research.
So it's a personal journey for me. So far the only one I deem worthy of genuine attention (in the sense that I think he's capable of understanding arguments) has been gnomexxx. All the rest is just there for shitz 'n gigglez. (so far, I haven't rally participated in religious discussions tho I might)
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
All hail the greatest invention....THE COUCH
peace=D