Originally posted by honzolo <<When the US invaded Iraq, the administration pumped up the entire situation, they release propeganda that Sadaam had weapons of Mass Destruction and was planning to use them. After the US supposedly let the UN have it sayso, the US decides that "they" were going to invade. Now behind the scenes the entire time, the Military minds in the Gov't see Iraq as a strategic strike point to what, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,fellas get a map and look at the location of IRAQ, its in the middle of the 5 arab states. IRAQ is a STRATEGIC STRONGEPOINT. Dont think that a bomb needs to be used in Iraq to control the situation, themselves they will destroy each other.........>>
The same 'propaganda' the administration prior to this one used as well. Obviously Iran has been the target... they are one of the main sources for radical islamic terrorism in the world. We're squeezng them on both sides (Iraq and Afghanistan) with the hopes that the people will rise up and overthrow their government. Time will tell, although with the lunatic they have leading them now, chances are we will not wait for the people to decide to take action... although they will defnitely play a part in any future action. The UN will do nothing as usual, as they are an impotent, useless organization. Chna and Russia will oppose any sanctions and/or action as they have oil interests there, ala France and Germany with regards to Iraq. They will nullify any attempt within the UN to take action. Then will come the question... do we dare? Do we dare not to? We definitely live in interesting times.
If violence interests you, then yeah, you could say we live in interesting times.
I could think of more interesting times to live in. Like times when we are progressing scientifically, socially, and philisophically. It seems that all of those have been put on hold or are moving backwards right now.
We're in the middle of a war, our country is split because of religion and politics, and no money is being put towards scientific or educational progress. It's all going to rebuilding another friggin country.
That doesn't interest me at all. I would rather be in another time in the future reading about this in a history book and enjoying my fellow man instead.
If violence interests you, then yeah, you could say we live in interesting times.
I could think of more interesting times to live in. Like times when we are progressing scientifically, socially, and philisophically. It seems that all of those have been put on hold or are moving backwards right now.
We're in the middle of a war, our country is split because of religion and politics, and no money is being put towards scientific or educational progress. It's all going to rebuilding another friggin country.
That doesn't interest me at all. I would rather be in another time in the future reading about this in a history book and enjoying my fellow man instead.
Rebuilding??!!! Man you're sooo mis-informed, the money is spent on the ARMY, to kill the innocent people and rape their women. do you remember the news about the mosque ( masjed ) that has been destroyed by supposedly sunnies in Iraq ?
man i wonder how and where did the sunnies get artiliry firepower, rather the US army got the mosque pretty good and blamed sunnies for it, it's pretty easy just get some cloths on.
it happened somewhere in the US, a guy from the catholic christian church got some arab cloths on, put some explosives and set them off in a mosque, they cought him later, but it was all his individual acts, nothing to do with the church.
and what's with the future thing ? with a future derived on wars, i don't think there will be any books to read about history from heh.
I have issue with this statement that was posted earlier:
i once recieved an email showing a WHOLE Iraqi sunni family which was killed by the US soldiers, they entered the house at 1 o'clock at night, killed all 11 family members, and air striked the house down to rubbles, i've seen the bodies of the dead children, and it happened as the neighbors describe it.
My first issue is that the poster states that the victims are Sunni. Why distinguish Sunni from Shiite in a forum where most don't know the difference? It says to me that you are Sunni yourself, and probably dislike Shiite's. I may be wrong, and if I am, please correct me. I will take no offense.
My second issue is if the inhabitants of the dwelling were already dead, and the area cleared, why launch an airstrike against the home? To cover it up? Even so, if that was the case, how could you tell the bodies were those of children, amongst others. If the intent was to cover it up, they would drop one hell of a bomb on the dwelling (fuel-air, maybe?), and you would have nothing but one inch pieces of human flesh to recover. There would be no bodies.
I, for one, dislike this war. I think its beginning and continuation is wrong. However, I also know that BOTH sides spread disinformation. Be careful of who you trust.
And now that I remember correctly, there was a story about what you are saying on the BBC about a week or so ago. Is that where you actually got your information?
As well, it is okay for those that follow Islam to lie if it is in the interest of the faith and the prophet. After all, didn't your prophet kill for the faith?
Don't get me wrong. Others have killed for their faith, too. Christians, Jews, Muslims, name it. I am just pointing out your inaccuracies, because I do not trust what you are saying based soley on your own comments.
If violence interests you, then yeah, you could say we live in interesting times.
I could think of more interesting times to live in. Like times when we are progressing scientifically, socially, and philisophically. It seems that all of those have been put on hold or are moving backwards right now.
We're in the middle of a war, our country is split because of religion and politics, and no money is being put towards scientific or educational progress. It's all going to rebuilding another friggin country.
That doesn't interest me at all. I would rather be in another time in the future reading about this in a history book and enjoying my fellow man instead.
Rebuilding??!!! Man you're sooo mis-informed, the money is spent on the ARMY, to kill the innocent people and rape their women. do you remember the news about the mosque ( masjed ) that has been destroyed by supposedly sunnies in Iraq ?
man i wonder how and where did the sunnies get artiliry firepower, rather the US army got the mosque pretty good and blamed sunnies for it, it's pretty easy just get some cloths on.
it happened somewhere in the US, a guy from the catholic christian church got some arab cloths on, put some explosives and set them off in a mosque, they cought him later, but it was all his individual acts, nothing to do with the church.
and what's with the future thing ? with a future derived on wars, i don't think there will be any books to read about history from heh.
I don't care where the money is being spent over there. I don't think it should be going anywhere until we fix the problems we're having.
And then they try to tug at my heart strings by saying we are trying to help that country out??? We can't help every country out, nor is it our responsibility to do so! Show me in the Constitution where it says our governments job is to clean up other countries.
I heard the other day that they were making it harder to get student loans in America. Yeah, that's great. Cut off the money going to education to fund a war to help another country. When you can prove to me that every kid in America has the same opportunity to go to college on their parents nickle then I'll back you on the student loan thing. But until then it's just a bunch of rich folks taking care of their own.
If they're going to take my money in taxes then they better learn how to manage it better. I don't trust them to do that, so I wish they'd quit stealing from my paycheck each week.
Ok i just thought i'd put forward a little bit of info, Iran is more then likly making nukes as well as power plants. this however means very little as the reason u make nukes is so that people will not attack you, they are no different to india and pakistian. who by the way both threaten to wipe each other off the map quite a few times. for this reason it is unlikly that there will be any actions taken against them by the majority of nations however the USA might as it is the excuse they have been looking for to take the 3rd largest oil deposit in the world. But unless they want another illegal war then it will not happen, yes the war in iraq was illegal as it was vetoed by france. the other threats being passed back and forth will more then likly lead to nothing at the moment. The only unsure factor is what isreal will do, another country to develope nukes illegaly.
Ok i just thought i'd put forward a little bit of info, Iran is more then likly making nukes as well as power plants. this however means very little as the reason u make nukes is so that people will not attack you, they are no different to india and pakistian. who by the way both threaten to wipe each other off the map quite a few times. for this reason it is unlikly that there will be any actions taken against them by the majority of nations however the USA might as it is the excuse they have been looking for to take the 3rd largest oil deposit in the world. But unless they want another illegal war then it will not happen, yes the war in iraq was illegal as it was vetoed by france. the other threats being passed back and forth will more then likly lead to nothing at the moment. The only unsure factor is what isreal will do, another country to develope nukes illegaly.>>
Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map daily. Their own president is making his intentions very clear.
The US is looking to take the oil? Geez, isn't that argument played out by now? According to you people, we went to Iraq for oil. I have yet to see any evidence which supported that. Have you checked the gas prices lately?
As far as the war being illegal.. it is no more illegal than any war. Hussein violated the ceasefire agreement he signed to halt the first Gulf War. Once he did that, the ceasefire was null and void. He actively tried to shoot down Coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones which he agreed to in the ceasefire. that is an act of war. We can argue the rest of the reasons for it until we're blue in the face, but those reasons are enough to justify the resumption of hostilities. France can go pound sand, and choke on the oil agreements they made under the UN Food for Oil scandal. For France it truly was 'no war... for oil'.
Originally posted by Tabish In my opinion I think that this is all just blood for oil, especially the Iraq crisis now. Ive been to a peace rally and that really opened up my eyes and its all actually just blood for oil. The US soldiers are drugged and they are killing innocent Iraqi's (women and children). The peace rally I went to was one where an Iraqi nurse that volunteered to help the US in Iraq. She realized what the soldiers were doing, they were pretty much torturing the country to get Oil. Also they were raping Iraqi women (soldiers dont have sex in training). The insurgents came AFTER the invasion of Iraq. And the warring of the different types of Iraqis is bull (sunnis and the other types). Thats just a cover up for what the Americans are really doing.
But then again, the Americans didnt really have much of a choice... alot of them were drafted, and that was just their orders, and some just did it due to racism.
MAN i was writing a whole book on who are the Sunni and who are the Shiite.
anyway in short, the Shiite are the deluded group of muslims who believe in things that never happened, stick lies to the prophet and declare the other muslims infidels.
they are the ones who named the other muslims Sunni, which means the people who follow the Sunna of the prophet and the Quran, ( Sunna means teachings ).
Shiite is also an arabic word which means Group, they call them selves the Shiite of Ali, which means the group of Imam Ali, and they at his time declared him Allah, which the Imam found outragous of them to make partners with Allah, he reasoned with them and it was all in vain, then he saught to declare war on them and wipe them, only few of them made it alive, which are the shiite of the current days.
they are violent to the Sunni, and they seek to kill them whenever they can, they slang cuss the other Califs of islam, and they even Violate the Honor of the prophet mohammad.
i don't hate them at all for this, but i'm realy happy for them, i'm happy thay these people are saying and doing this because the Shiite are deluded and misguided bunch of stupid people, and will eventually be thrown into hell for their grave sins, and i'm happy for the muslims who die by their hands and the US army hands, because thier death was in vain, and any muslim dieing in vain will be placed in heaven, and their killers in hell.
the Sunni on the other hand are the rest of the muslims whom the Shiite gave them that name, after the death of Imam Ali, they are strict on the teachings of the Qur'an and the prophet, and they don't violate other people, and when they are violated, they only seek fair judgement, or forgive ( some shiite also do that but these are very few ).
the Sofi on the other hand didn't exist until the early ages, this group of people came from Sufa, a place in Sham ( Syria and Lebanon, around there ) they make things of their own, and do worship to graves sites, and build mosques on graves, which violates the teachings of islam in general.
Hezb Al Ba'th however is the group of Saddam, they claim to be muslims, but do i need to tell more?
there are other various groups of muslims, AS there are various groups of christians and jews, but who's the correct group? it is the group who follow the true way of life, true islam, true monotholistic way of life, those who believe that there's no god besides God ( Allah ), and that Mosus, Jesus, Mohammad and Abraham and the rest of the prophets are the messengers and prophets of Allah, the only God, and follow their teachings. those are the true winners. and i bare witness that i do the same, and i am a MUSLIM, not a shiite, not a sunni, not a sufi, a muslim and muslims only.
now let's come to the meaning of islam, what is islam?
it's an arabic word, derived from the root word, Sa La Ma ( it's a 3 letter word in arabic, slm ) which means surrendered.
Islam as a word is the complete and perfect form of that root, which means 5 things, Surrender, Submission, Obeyment, Sincerity, and finlly peace.
but you have to do these things for someone, and that One is Allah, you surrender to him, Submit to him, obey him, and be sincere in doing that, and do it in peace, for the sake of Allah, that is true Islam.
if you break one of these then you're breaking the meaning of Islam, and therefore you're not a complete muslim, and therefore islam is not responsible for your actions, you get that? i hope so.
if you're passing by someone and ask him about the meaning of islam and he tells you it means PEACE, PEACE, then tell him that he's wrong, becaue peace in arabic means Salaam, not islam, and that's what we say when we greet each others, Assalaamu Alaykom, The Salaam Alaykom, Peace be upon you, and we don't say Islamu Alaykom.
i hope this clarify the confusion to all of you, and that you know that Iran has nothing to do with the teachings of Islam, hell, even Saudia arabia do not follow the teachings, they say this and that is from islam while it is NOT.
if you want we can make a new topic where we can discuss further things about islam, and i will be ready to answer your questions, and PLEASE questions about islam, i don't want someone to come to me and ask me about some guy called Hilberon Mckneely or something to test my historical knowledge cus i have nothing to do with western history.
All right here we go let me try to enlighten, entertain and inform and hopefully not step on everyone toes. I have been the US Military for 8 years now; 4 USMC and 4 USAF. If would imagine a few of you have as much if not more time in the military - but I will speak mainly to those who have not traveled to combat zones nor seen the horrors of war. I have been to Iraq, Afganistan and Korea. Japan and Germany - Thailand and Haiti. A few others of little mention. No one- and I do mean no one that currently serves in the US Military was drafted. There have been a few that miss their date by 6 months or so with stop loss but that hardly suffices as 'the draft'. We are all normal type folks - yes, even the Marines. We have families and jobs (reserves) and feelings and none enjoy killing. This is going to be a long post and while you may not agree with some of the things I tell - they are in fact true. Let us start with a little latin.
Cassus Belli is a latin term meaning cause for war. Cassus Belli is needed in order for a country to legitimatly go to war. Whether Cassus Belli is real or imagined, concocted or contrived makes no matter. Furthermore the burden of proof needed for Cassus Belli is not that of court, any court, it is one that is set only by those who have the power to do so. This being said what countries does the US currently have Cassus Belli against?
North Korea and Iran - since this thread is about Iran I will stick with that one.
It seems to be a crime to develop nuclear weapons these days. Whether or not you think it should be ( I personnally feel it shouldn't be) is quite a non-issue. It would be like telling the police officer that pulled you over doing 140mph that you didnt agree with the speeding laws. Try not paying the fines and they will put you in a cell (eventually) and this is a country acting against its own tax paying citizenry. How much more so with a potential threat from outside the citizenry? Will we eventually strike Iran - most probably - that or Israel will be forced to act. That is when we lose control of the situation. Think of the movie War Games minus the ICBMs. Israel strikes Iran - Syrian forces invade the West Bank. Eygpt pushes the Sinai The US has to back a horse in the fight and with the amount of Jewish influence in the US it is a quick pick. See what I mean?
You have to take a step back from emotion when dealing with world or what you think the world should do or your Nation. It is a game of Risk - highly complex with no re-rolls and no do overs. men fight and bleed and die - no amount of wishing will change that - ever. Open the tomes of history and see what you can try to keep from happening again. Since WWII the United States has almost single handedly prevented another major war. You say Korea! Vietnam! Those were slow drolling campaigns that killed a fair amount of people but the do not line up with the 50 million that died as a result of WWII. Again take a step back from emotion while dealing in world matters.
Now the anti-war people. God love thier hearts for they hate war. They think we can haul our troops home and close the borders and put thier fingers and thier ears and the enemies will all go away. History does not find this correct. They simply have too much free time on thier hands. Get a job, get a hobby, do something else - but marching never stopped a war. Vietnam; you cry? Hardly. Public opinion only allowed them to pull the plug on what was already a near unwinnable situation. If you think you hate war try going to one - then you can have full view on what you think you hate. You do not know hate.
The Price. The cost of preventing major wars is to have semi-constant small wars. Since WWII we have had a war simmering somewhere or getting ready to have one. This would lead some to believe that we are warring nation. If you open the tomes of history you will find that countries do well when they are at a state of war. Thier economies prosper and thier people build and rebuild. Then there is a recovery phase then back to war. This is of course dependent on the size of the war - too large and it will consume your country and too small is just right. The Romans were best at this - they only failed when their military and thier leaders began to fail. The fall of Rome was not a single event - it took many years and several invasions. So the cost of preventing large wars is small wars. This planet cannot know peace. If you are a scholar of history you know this already. If you are not let me be plain - no amount of wishing or protesting can make peace. The only thing that can even subdue, lessen, assuage, or otherwise inhibit war is war itself. Best you be the one to start it and have the strength to finish it. That way you fight it on thier soil and not your own. Cold? Yes. Heartless? Perhaps.
Iran. That place is rough. You have all seen footage of Afganistan and Iran is just a larger version of the place. The people yearn to be free, but they would fight us as the Iraqi do now were we to occupy. The military might of the nation would be squashed in a few weeks. No nation - as of this moment anyhow - can stand up to the complete and undivided might of the US. Nations of great size such as Russia and China would turn into great wars ala WWII. But penny anny nations such as North Korea and Iran would be turned to powder under the boot. With cost.
Military size. As it stands the Army has about 500k in active duty. Marines 250K. Navy 250K. USAF 250K. With reserves and all you are looking at nearly 2 million men in service. At the hieght of WWII we had 16 million men in uniform. We lost 250K in the process of WWII. Very few would argue now that it was in vain. Germany needed some correction and it was adminsitered. That was a great war. (I say great as in size, not as in (Great! Publishers Clearing house has a big check for me!)
Blood for oil. This is not far from the truth. As it stand roughly 2500 men have given all in OIF. Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pre-war Iraq produced 8% of US oil imports. Did Iraq have WMDs? Yes. I have seen them in person, but you wouldnt be impressed by the amount or the grade. To date I have seen 16 sarin gas 105mm shells coming out of Iraq. Mind you Sarin isnt the best of nerve agents, but it is a WMD by definition. Put them in NYC and people all the way to Jersey City would be doin the choke, choke, drop. Sound horrible? Good. Now you know what position governments are in.
A government has to daily make decisions that are catch-22s. They are good at it. Iraq has been called a bad decision and I would tend to agree with them. If I had a crystal ball... If I could say with any amount of certainty that those 105 shells I did in fact see had zero chance of ever showing up in a city in the US. So soldiers have died - boohoo. I may yet be claimed by this struggle. That is what we are paid to do. Car accidents kill roughly 40,000 people a year. I still get in cars. Stairs have killed more people in the past two yares than Iraq. Should you march against stairs too? Bath tubs? Cars? Loss of life is tragic, but it is an immutable fact of mortal existence. No amount of wishing can make it otherwise.
So Cassus Belli for Iraq was that they might have WMDs and they did. If a limited amount of poor grade WMDs. Cassus Belli for Afganistan was 9/11. Or was it? Without the war in afgansistan you never would have had one in Iraq. 9/11 was the great Cassus Belli. As good as fresh Pearl Harbor. I have spent a fair amount of time pawing through evidence of 9/11 and I have come up some details that may or may not interest you.
Flight 77 and Flight 93. (Pentagon and shanksville planes) The two planes on 9/11 pulled a stunt unrivaled since the ressurection of Christ. Two planes wieghing in at nearly 178 tons (356000lbs) vanished into 784 pounds of wreckage. All wreckage was sized small enough to be hand carried. I have looked up crash sites of every single crash to ever be photograped. Flight 800, Heliios Airways crash, Fighter jet crashes, helocopter crashes, valuejet crash, pan am flight explosion. All bear between 35% and 99% of wreckage recovered. What I have found is that Flight 93 and Flight 77 did not go down in those locations. Impossible. I heard the shoot down theory for Flight 93. Impossible as well. They did also not go down anywhere else as hiding a plane crash is very hard to do. The only reason this will never get the press time it merits is - THAT THE EMOTIONAL CONNECTION TO 9/11 AND THE STORY GIVEN THAT DAY IS IRREVOCABLE NOW. The horse is out of the barn and it will never be recovered. So it is a near moot point at this point in time. My opinion, nor the facts matter. That history is carved in stone I fear. Like it is most times.
So in summary. War with Iran - not yet. Strikes on Iran - any day now. The cash cow that is Iraq has not yet been milked to its fullest. Every day we spend in Iraq millions of dollars are fullfilled in contracts. These are usually no bid contracts whose values go up into the billions. When these are exhausted then the war will slowly come to a less of boil. End? Nope. We are still in Germany and it has been over 60 years since we were at war with them.
yes and that's what we call, brainwashing, deluding and misguiding.
man, you think the USA can realy step on anyone they want? once they do it illegaly and illegitemately they'll doom themselves.
all what they're doing now is fabricating evidences which then be represented to people as an execuse to attack whom they want.
on fox i think the other day they were showing a laptop which had an irani flag that they claimed it contained nuclear plans? EXECUSE ME, from where did you get that? HOW? iran does NOT manufacture laptops, and they DON'T put their flag on it and install what? nuclear plans? on a laptop? oh man, only morons would buy that, execuse me but you have to see what your government is doing before you open your mouth and defend them with a lame execuse such as, we made this war to prevent other greater wars. get real man, get real, i don't care what you are. just get real.
ok just want to say that in my oh so small opion, the USA can in the case of iran do almost whatever they want. When they attacked iraq it was clearly shown that the internation community could do nothing aginst them, as any internation invasion must be pass before the UN sercurity council before it is a legal invasion. The motion didnt even pass the vote BTW so it didnt need to be veto.
With Iran they have more support then they did for Iraq as it is against internation law to purduce nuclear tech without IAEA inspections, they would not even have france vetoing them. which is imporant as France is a permanent member of the security council.
People keep making out as tho the USA cant attack iran they can. that doesnt mean they will. just that they can, amarica has always had a war driven econmy as well. which means they could substane that war as long as they didnt make the mistakes of Iraq and stay. Oh and one other thing NO ONE WOULD EVER USE A NUKE. the after effects of one of the USA's 500 Mton nukes would kill everone in the middle east. Ever hear of particle drift? radation clouds?
Originally posted by DEATHOFRATS ok just want to say that in my oh so small opion, the USA can in the case of iran do almost whatever they want. When they attacked iraq it was clearly shown that the internation community could do nothing aginst them, as any internation invasion must be pass before the UN sercurity council before it is a legal invasion. The motion didnt even pass the vote BTW so it didnt need to be veto. With Iran they have more support then they did for Iraq as it is against internation law to purduce nuclear tech without IAEA inspections, they would not even have france vetoing them. which is imporant as France is a permanent member of the security council. People keep making out as tho the USA cant attack iran they can. that doesnt mean they will. just that they can, amarica has always had a war driven econmy as well. which means they could substane that war as long as they didnt make the mistakes of Iraq and stay. Oh and one other thing NO ONE WOULD EVER USE A NUKE. the after effects of one of the USA's 500 Mton nukes would kill everone in the middle east. Ever hear of particle drift? radation clouds?
You do know that all nukes are not the strategic nukes that you are explaining? Well just to let you know, there is also a thing called a "tactical" nuclear device, that is a nuke with a much smaller charge that is meant to win over local battlefield supremacy. Not the city busters as you are describing.
The discussion about using nukes in iran was and has been completely isolated to the discussion of "tactical" nuclear weapons and not the strategic weapons. Spend more time actually reading the news instead of commenting first.
i admit my example of a nuke was over stating it, as you no doubt know there is no such thing as a 500Mton nuke. however even low yield nukes such as taticle nukes have simalure side effects, most taticle nukes range from 80kton to 1000ktons. however the results are still very wide spread.
as can be seen by the fact that the "little boy" bombs were only 12 to 15 ktons. BTW feel free to correct me here i am not an expert i am simply going off my knowlegde of physics and what i have read on taticle nukes.
Originally posted by Xenduli Anytime another country wants independence, US seem to want to nuke them. Which is ironic. But US government will win support as ever through fear. All the OP seems to be concerned with is whether monthly fees for an online game will go up. Slight lack of priority?
Iran is already independent, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what other countries the U.S. has nuked or threatened with nukes because they wanted independence.
I know facts are hard to deal with sometimes but give it a try.
The U.N. Security Council member nations all agree that Iran should not have nukes, China and Russia will not support any sanctions due to thier respective oil trade deals but still all nations are in agreement that it's not a good situation.
Also The U.S. has improved penetrators that can deliver guided conventional munitions, but I think the bottom line is you wish the U.S. to be the bad guy so to speak in this issue so have at it.
Originally posted by ob1sr yes and that's what we call, brainwashing, deluding and misguiding. man, you think the USA can realy step on anyone they want? once they do it illegaly and illegitemately they'll doom themselves. all what they're doing now is fabricating evidences which then be represented to people as an execuse to attack whom they want. on fox i think the other day they were showing a laptop which had an irani flag that they claimed it contained nuclear plans? EXECUSE ME, from where did you get that? HOW? iran does NOT manufacture laptops, and they DON'T put their flag on it and install what? nuclear plans? on a laptop? oh man, only morons would buy that, execuse me but you have to see what your government is doing before you open your mouth and defend them with a lame execuse such as, we made this war to prevent other greater wars. get real man, get real, i don't care what you are. just get real.
Blame America first, your alleged Fox story is so off track it's nothing more than the rantings of an uninformed and biased mind.
Iran having nukes is the issue, where do you stand on that? is it ok with you? why does anyone think this falls to the U.S. to resolve when every other U.N. Security Council member country is saying the same thing "Iran should not have a nuclear weapon".
It's because the U.S. can take out the facilities with conventional guided munitions and leave the rest of Iran untouched that we become the obvious choice should a strike be warrented by the Security Council.
Now if the Security Council says Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons but won't stop the proccess will you attack them with your twisted views or like them stick your head in the sand?
All this U.S. bashing would be better if some facts were used.
My theory is that the EU will act first on Iran... Most people scoff at this notion, but rememeber, the hardliner Islamic countries not only hate America, but the 'West' as a whole... Muslims are discriminated on a daily basis in France, and much of the EU will not grant citizenship to anyone other than their own native people... This is one area (albeit one of the few areas) where America is indeed much more progressive than the EU...
The EU is not an aggresive entity, this is why most people find the idea of military intervention on the EU's behalf as ludicrous... However, America doesn't have that much to worry about Iran gaining nukes, I think the max trajectory an Iranian nuke could have would reach the UK, let alone sail across the Atlantic... Realistically, a suitcase nuke or a car nuke is the only way terrorists can strike the US, and with the sensitive radioactivity detection methods employed, this would be real tough to pull off...
Europe should be very worried, the next 9/11 will happen on either France's or UK's soil, not America... With WWII only 60 short years in the past, the travesty that was Munich is still fairly fresh on the EU's mind, and kowtowing to an authoritarian regime isn't likely, especially with UK, France and Germany...
The problem with Iran is one we self inflicted. Ill explain but it involves a bit of detail.
Part 1
The United States had enormous political capital when it came to what our foreign policy goals were after 911. We justifiably, and the world agreed in unison that the Taliban in Afghanistan were either active participants or enablers of Al Qaeda who as we all know were responsible for the 911 attacks.
The tide turned when we went after Iraq, there was a mountain of evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, Yet we constantly saw the whitehouse and Dick Cheney in particular repeat over and over for months leading up to the war in Iraq that Saddam Hussein and the Bathists were involved in 911.
Shortly after Afghanistan, the United States started building up there forces around the middle east for an attack on Iraq. This is surprising at the time because neither the case for WMD or 911 was made at that time, yet here we were allready building up our forces. So we spent the next 6 months after that continually building up our forces while at the same time putting together the case for war in Iraq.
Now, it only makes sense that unless you intended to attack Iraq no matter what, that a case for war would have been made "Before" a buildup to war. Why put 300k troops around Iraq if you werent intending to attack in the first place? So the case to make war on Iraq was fraudulent because they cherry picked or out and out lied and twisted intelligence to suit policy. If patriotic americans cant see this as an extremely dangerous way of conducting foreign policy, well...i dont know what more to tell them.
People who know Iraq would know that Saddam Hussein regime specifically attacked, killed, jailed islamic fundamentalists in their country because they could eventually oppose Saddam. Remember Saddam had 0 tolerance for any political party or people who could possibly oppose him. Why in the world would he allow religious fundamentalists in his country so that they will eventually undermine his authority and turn Iraq into Iran and be run by the mullah's? That was his greatest fear next to a full war with the United States. Its strange to say it but Saddam Hussein was actually an ally against religious fundementalists like Osama bin Laden.
So in short, our made up policy on Iraq has severely diminished our political capital in the world today and that restricts or hinders greatly what our goals are for today. Our unilateralism basically tells countrys, "we dont care what you think. What is best for us is the only thing that matters and you dont"
With that attitude its becoming easier for foreign nations and is even being demanded by their population that if the United States so obviously want to only look out for its own interests then they should have as well. A simple way of putting that into perspective is, do you think we would have gotten more international support in condemning Iran if we didnt invade Iraq?
I think the answer to that is a resounding yes, if the Iraq war never happened we would be in a far better position of rallying our own allies and making those countries on the fence more willing to bend in our favor.
We've pretty much always been a country that has walked quietly but carried a big stick, now we carry the big stick and stomp around and it makes even our allies extremely nervous. An example of the anti-americanism that has literally erupted is how the leaders of the world are learning the harder line stance you take with the US the more likely you will be elected.
Example, Jacque Chirac in France was losing badly in his re-election bid, but then he took a hard line stance against America at the UN security council and with that alone it propelled him to another term.
In Spain, the people were against sending troops in Iraq, then the Madrid bombings happened reinforcing everyones belief that this is a war they didnt want, but was forced upon them by their government. The pro American politicians were voted out.
Now it happened in Italy, where Prodi and his party defeated Berulsconi, a extrememly pro Bush government and he had to resign.
Now there might have been several other factors that also took part in those elections but one thing has been made clear. That being anti-American is not only fashionable in many nations now, but its almost a required political asset to win. How frightening is that?
As for our miltary options, they look even worse and not for the reasons people might most likely think.
America is a warring nation and bomb everyone who has different ideals to them. If the world is to come to an end through war it will most definitely will be because of USA military agression. America wont attack north korean because the America government are cowards and only pick fights with nation far inferior to them. Go on Bush pick a fight with China i dare you. I cant wait for the day America get theyre ass kick in a war. I have nothing against American people but the America government is making it hard for Non-Americans to like America.
I don't think we are so much a warring nation. Phrase "Don't tread on me" speaks for our country's true ambitions. But, I digress Vietnam was a prime example of the rich man's war.
America is a warring nation, who have been Starting wars with smaller weaker nations for the last 40 years. To the vast majority of people in the world America is the true enemy. You must understand after all these wars most countries in the world hate America with passion.
Comments
I could think of more interesting times to live in. Like times when we are progressing scientifically, socially, and philisophically. It seems that all of those have been put on hold or are moving backwards right now.
We're in the middle of a war, our country is split because of religion and politics, and no money is being put towards scientific or educational progress. It's all going to rebuilding another friggin country.
That doesn't interest me at all. I would rather be in another time in the future reading about this in a history book and enjoying my fellow man instead.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
Rebuilding??!!! Man you're sooo mis-informed, the money is spent on the ARMY, to kill the innocent people and rape their women. do you remember the news about the mosque ( masjed ) that has been destroyed by supposedly sunnies in Iraq ?
man i wonder how and where did the sunnies get artiliry firepower, rather the US army got the mosque pretty good and blamed sunnies for it, it's pretty easy just get some cloths on.
it happened somewhere in the US, a guy from the catholic christian church got some arab cloths on, put some explosives and set them off in a mosque, they cought him later, but it was all his individual acts, nothing to do with the church.
and what's with the future thing ? with a future derived on wars, i don't think there will be any books to read about history from heh.
I have issue with this statement that was posted earlier:
i once recieved an email showing a WHOLE Iraqi sunni family
which was killed by the US soldiers, they entered the house at 1
o'clock at night, killed all 11 family members, and air striked the
house down to rubbles, i've seen the bodies of the dead children, and
it happened as the neighbors describe it.
My first issue is that the poster states that the victims are Sunni. Why distinguish Sunni from Shiite in a forum where most don't know the difference? It says to me that you are Sunni yourself, and probably dislike Shiite's. I may be wrong, and if I am, please correct me. I will take no offense.
My second issue is if the inhabitants of the dwelling were already dead, and the area cleared, why launch an airstrike against the home? To cover it up? Even so, if that was the case, how could you tell the bodies were those of children, amongst others. If the intent was to cover it up, they would drop one hell of a bomb on the dwelling (fuel-air, maybe?), and you would have nothing but one inch pieces of human flesh to recover. There would be no bodies.
I, for one, dislike this war. I think its beginning and continuation is wrong. However, I also know that BOTH sides spread disinformation. Be careful of who you trust.
Cartman has a big fat ass!
And now that I remember correctly, there was a story about what you are saying on the BBC about a week or so ago. Is that where you actually got your information?
As well, it is okay for those that follow Islam to lie if it is in the interest of the faith and the prophet. After all, didn't your prophet kill for the faith?
Don't get me wrong. Others have killed for their faith, too. Christians, Jews, Muslims, name it. I am just pointing out your inaccuracies, because I do not trust what you are saying based soley on your own comments.
Cartman has a big fat ass!
Rebuilding??!!! Man you're sooo mis-informed, the money is spent on the ARMY, to kill the innocent people and rape their women. do you remember the news about the mosque ( masjed ) that has been destroyed by supposedly sunnies in Iraq ?
man i wonder how and where did the sunnies get artiliry firepower, rather the US army got the mosque pretty good and blamed sunnies for it, it's pretty easy just get some cloths on.
it happened somewhere in the US, a guy from the catholic christian church got some arab cloths on, put some explosives and set them off in a mosque, they cought him later, but it was all his individual acts, nothing to do with the church.
and what's with the future thing ? with a future derived on wars, i don't think there will be any books to read about history from heh.
I don't care where the money is being spent over there. I don't think it should be going anywhere until we fix the problems we're having.
And then they try to tug at my heart strings by saying we are trying to help that country out??? We can't help every country out, nor is it our responsibility to do so! Show me in the Constitution where it says our governments job is to clean up other countries.
I heard the other day that they were making it harder to get student loans in America. Yeah, that's great. Cut off the money going to education to fund a war to help another country. When you can prove to me that every kid in America has the same opportunity to go to college on their parents nickle then I'll back you on the student loan thing. But until then it's just a bunch of rich folks taking care of their own.
If they're going to take my money in taxes then they better learn how to manage it better. I don't trust them to do that, so I wish they'd quit stealing from my paycheck each week.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
Ok i just thought i'd put forward a little bit of info, Iran is more then likly making nukes as well as power plants. this however means very little as the reason u make nukes is so that people will not attack you, they are no different to india and pakistian. who by the way both threaten to wipe each other off the map quite a few times. for this reason it is unlikly that there will be any actions taken against them by the majority of nations however the USA might as it is the excuse they have been looking for to take the 3rd largest oil deposit in the world. But unless they want another illegal war then it will not happen, yes the war in iraq was illegal as it was vetoed by france. the other threats being passed back and forth will more then likly lead to nothing at the moment. The only unsure factor is what isreal will do, another country to develope nukes illegaly.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Ok i just thought i'd put forward a little bit of info, Iran is more then likly making nukes as well as power plants. this however means very little as the reason u make nukes is so that people will not attack you, they are no different to india and pakistian. who by the way both threaten to wipe each other off the map quite a few times. for this reason it is unlikly that there will be any actions taken against them by the majority of nations however the USA might as it is the excuse they have been looking for to take the 3rd largest oil deposit in the world. But unless they want another illegal war then it will not happen, yes the war in iraq was illegal as it was vetoed by france. the other threats being passed back and forth will more then likly lead to nothing at the moment. The only unsure factor is what isreal will do, another country to develope nukes illegaly.>>
Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map daily. Their own president is making his intentions very clear.
The US is looking to take the oil? Geez, isn't that argument played out by now? According to you people, we went to Iraq for oil. I have yet to see any evidence which supported that. Have you checked the gas prices lately?
As far as the war being illegal.. it is no more illegal than any war. Hussein violated the ceasefire agreement he signed to halt the first Gulf War. Once he did that, the ceasefire was null and void. He actively tried to shoot down Coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones which he agreed to in the ceasefire. that is an act of war. We can argue the rest of the reasons for it until we're blue in the face, but those reasons are enough to justify the resumption of hostilities. France can go pound sand, and choke on the oil agreements they made under the UN Food for Oil scandal. For France it truly was 'no war... for oil'.
H.
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
MAN i was writing a whole book on who are the Sunni and who are the Shiite.
anyway in short, the Shiite are the deluded group of muslims who believe in things that never happened, stick lies to the prophet and declare the other muslims infidels.
they are the ones who named the other muslims Sunni, which means the people who follow the Sunna of the prophet and the Quran, ( Sunna means teachings ).
Shiite is also an arabic word which means Group, they call them selves the Shiite of Ali, which means the group of Imam Ali, and they at his time declared him Allah, which the Imam found outragous of them to make partners with Allah, he reasoned with them and it was all in vain, then he saught to declare war on them and wipe them, only few of them made it alive, which are the shiite of the current days.
they are violent to the Sunni, and they seek to kill them whenever they can, they slang cuss the other Califs of islam, and they even Violate the Honor of the prophet mohammad.
i don't hate them at all for this, but i'm realy happy for them, i'm happy thay these people are saying and doing this because the Shiite are deluded and misguided bunch of stupid people, and will eventually be thrown into hell for their grave sins, and i'm happy for the muslims who die by their hands and the US army hands, because thier death was in vain, and any muslim dieing in vain will be placed in heaven, and their killers in hell.
the Sunni on the other hand are the rest of the muslims whom the Shiite gave them that name, after the death of Imam Ali, they are strict on the teachings of the Qur'an and the prophet, and they don't violate other people, and when they are violated, they only seek fair judgement, or forgive ( some shiite also do that but these are very few ).
the Sofi on the other hand didn't exist until the early ages, this group of people came from Sufa, a place in Sham ( Syria and Lebanon, around there ) they make things of their own, and do worship to graves sites, and build mosques on graves, which violates the teachings of islam in general.
Hezb Al Ba'th however is the group of Saddam, they claim to be muslims, but do i need to tell more?
there are other various groups of muslims, AS there are various groups of christians and jews, but who's the correct group? it is the group who follow the true way of life, true islam, true monotholistic way of life, those who believe that there's no god besides God ( Allah ), and that Mosus, Jesus, Mohammad and Abraham and the rest of the prophets are the messengers and prophets of Allah, the only God, and follow their teachings. those are the true winners. and i bare witness that i do the same, and i am a MUSLIM, not a shiite, not a sunni, not a sufi, a muslim and muslims only.
now let's come to the meaning of islam, what is islam?
it's an arabic word, derived from the root word, Sa La Ma ( it's a 3 letter word in arabic, slm ) which means surrendered.
Islam as a word is the complete and perfect form of that root, which means 5 things, Surrender, Submission, Obeyment, Sincerity, and finlly peace.
but you have to do these things for someone, and that One is Allah, you surrender to him, Submit to him, obey him, and be sincere in doing that, and do it in peace, for the sake of Allah, that is true Islam.
if you break one of these then you're breaking the meaning of Islam, and therefore you're not a complete muslim, and therefore islam is not responsible for your actions, you get that? i hope so.
if you're passing by someone and ask him about the meaning of islam and he tells you it means PEACE, PEACE, then tell him that he's wrong, becaue peace in arabic means Salaam, not islam, and that's what we say when we greet each others, Assalaamu Alaykom, The Salaam Alaykom, Peace be upon you, and we don't say Islamu Alaykom.
i hope this clarify the confusion to all of you, and that you know that Iran has nothing to do with the teachings of Islam, hell, even Saudia arabia do not follow the teachings, they say this and that is from islam while it is NOT.
if you want we can make a new topic where we can discuss further things about islam, and i will be ready to answer your questions, and PLEASE questions about islam, i don't want someone to come to me and ask me about some guy called Hilberon Mckneely or something to test my historical knowledge cus i have nothing to do with western history.
good luck to all of ye.
All right here we go let me try to enlighten, entertain and inform and hopefully not step on everyone toes. I have been the US Military for 8 years now; 4 USMC and 4 USAF. If would imagine a few of you have as much if not more time in the military - but I will speak mainly to those who have not traveled to combat zones nor seen the horrors of war. I have been to Iraq, Afganistan and Korea. Japan and Germany - Thailand and Haiti. A few others of little mention. No one- and I do mean no one that currently serves in the US Military was drafted. There have been a few that miss their date by 6 months or so with stop loss but that hardly suffices as 'the draft'. We are all normal type folks - yes, even the Marines. We have families and jobs (reserves) and feelings and none enjoy killing. This is going to be a long post and while you may not agree with some of the things I tell - they are in fact true. Let us start with a little latin.
Cassus Belli is a latin term meaning cause for war. Cassus Belli is needed in order for a country to legitimatly go to war. Whether Cassus Belli is real or imagined, concocted or contrived makes no matter. Furthermore the burden of proof needed for Cassus Belli is not that of court, any court, it is one that is set only by those who have the power to do so. This being said what countries does the US currently have Cassus Belli against?
North Korea and Iran - since this thread is about Iran I will stick with that one.
It seems to be a crime to develop nuclear weapons these days. Whether or not you think it should be ( I personnally feel it shouldn't be) is quite a non-issue. It would be like telling the police officer that pulled you over doing 140mph that you didnt agree with the speeding laws. Try not paying the fines and they will put you in a cell (eventually) and this is a country acting against its own tax paying citizenry. How much more so with a potential threat from outside the citizenry? Will we eventually strike Iran - most probably - that or Israel will be forced to act. That is when we lose control of the situation. Think of the movie War Games minus the ICBMs. Israel strikes Iran - Syrian forces invade the West Bank. Eygpt pushes the Sinai The US has to back a horse in the fight and with the amount of Jewish influence in the US it is a quick pick. See what I mean?
You have to take a step back from emotion when dealing with world or what you think the world should do or your Nation. It is a game of Risk - highly complex with no re-rolls and no do overs. men fight and bleed and die - no amount of wishing will change that - ever. Open the tomes of history and see what you can try to keep from happening again. Since WWII the United States has almost single handedly prevented another major war. You say Korea! Vietnam! Those were slow drolling campaigns that killed a fair amount of people but the do not line up with the 50 million that died as a result of WWII. Again take a step back from emotion while dealing in world matters.
Now the anti-war people. God love thier hearts for they hate war. They think we can haul our troops home and close the borders and put thier fingers and thier ears and the enemies will all go away. History does not find this correct. They simply have too much free time on thier hands. Get a job, get a hobby, do something else - but marching never stopped a war. Vietnam; you cry? Hardly. Public opinion only allowed them to pull the plug on what was already a near unwinnable situation. If you think you hate war try going to one - then you can have full view on what you think you hate. You do not know hate.
The Price. The cost of preventing major wars is to have semi-constant small wars. Since WWII we have had a war simmering somewhere or getting ready to have one. This would lead some to believe that we are warring nation. If you open the tomes of history you will find that countries do well when they are at a state of war. Thier economies prosper and thier people build and rebuild. Then there is a recovery phase then back to war. This is of course dependent on the size of the war - too large and it will consume your country and too small is just right. The Romans were best at this - they only failed when their military and thier leaders began to fail. The fall of Rome was not a single event - it took many years and several invasions. So the cost of preventing large wars is small wars. This planet cannot know peace. If you are a scholar of history you know this already. If you are not let me be plain - no amount of wishing or protesting can make peace. The only thing that can even subdue, lessen, assuage, or otherwise inhibit war is war itself. Best you be the one to start it and have the strength to finish it. That way you fight it on thier soil and not your own. Cold? Yes. Heartless? Perhaps.
Iran. That place is rough. You have all seen footage of Afganistan and Iran is just a larger version of the place. The people yearn to be free, but they would fight us as the Iraqi do now were we to occupy. The military might of the nation would be squashed in a few weeks. No nation - as of this moment anyhow - can stand up to the complete and undivided might of the US. Nations of great size such as Russia and China would turn into great wars ala WWII. But penny anny nations such as North Korea and Iran would be turned to powder under the boot. With cost.
Military size. As it stands the Army has about 500k in active duty. Marines 250K. Navy 250K. USAF 250K. With reserves and all you are looking at nearly 2 million men in service. At the hieght of WWII we had 16 million men in uniform. We lost 250K in the process of WWII. Very few would argue now that it was in vain. Germany needed some correction and it was adminsitered. That was a great war. (I say great as in size, not as in (Great! Publishers Clearing house has a big check for me!)
Blood for oil. This is not far from the truth. As it stand roughly 2500 men have given all in OIF. Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pre-war Iraq produced 8% of US oil imports. Did Iraq have WMDs? Yes. I have seen them in person, but you wouldnt be impressed by the amount or the grade. To date I have seen 16 sarin gas 105mm shells coming out of Iraq. Mind you Sarin isnt the best of nerve agents, but it is a WMD by definition. Put them in NYC and people all the way to Jersey City would be doin the choke, choke, drop. Sound horrible? Good. Now you know what position governments are in.
A government has to daily make decisions that are catch-22s. They are good at it. Iraq has been called a bad decision and I would tend to agree with them. If I had a crystal ball... If I could say with any amount of certainty that those 105 shells I did in fact see had zero chance of ever showing up in a city in the US. So soldiers have died - boohoo. I may yet be claimed by this struggle. That is what we are paid to do. Car accidents kill roughly 40,000 people a year. I still get in cars. Stairs have killed more people in the past two yares than Iraq. Should you march against stairs too? Bath tubs? Cars? Loss of life is tragic, but it is an immutable fact of mortal existence. No amount of wishing can make it otherwise.
So Cassus Belli for Iraq was that they might have WMDs and they did. If a limited amount of poor grade WMDs. Cassus Belli for Afganistan was 9/11. Or was it? Without the war in afgansistan you never would have had one in Iraq. 9/11 was the great Cassus Belli. As good as fresh Pearl Harbor. I have spent a fair amount of time pawing through evidence of 9/11 and I have come up some details that may or may not interest you.
Flight 77 and Flight 93. (Pentagon and shanksville planes) The two planes on 9/11 pulled a stunt unrivaled since the ressurection of Christ. Two planes wieghing in at nearly 178 tons (356000lbs) vanished into 784 pounds of wreckage. All wreckage was sized small enough to be hand carried. I have looked up crash sites of every single crash to ever be photograped. Flight 800, Heliios Airways crash, Fighter jet crashes, helocopter crashes, valuejet crash, pan am flight explosion. All bear between 35% and 99% of wreckage recovered. What I have found is that Flight 93 and Flight 77 did not go down in those locations. Impossible. I heard the shoot down theory for Flight 93. Impossible as well. They did also not go down anywhere else as hiding a plane crash is very hard to do. The only reason this will never get the press time it merits is - THAT THE EMOTIONAL CONNECTION TO 9/11 AND THE STORY GIVEN THAT DAY IS IRREVOCABLE NOW. The horse is out of the barn and it will never be recovered. So it is a near moot point at this point in time. My opinion, nor the facts matter. That history is carved in stone I fear. Like it is most times.
So in summary. War with Iran - not yet. Strikes on Iran - any day now. The cash cow that is Iraq has not yet been milked to its fullest. Every day we spend in Iraq millions of dollars are fullfilled in contracts. These are usually no bid contracts whose values go up into the billions. When these are exhausted then the war will slowly come to a less of boil. End? Nope. We are still in Germany and it has been over 60 years since we were at war with them.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
yes and that's what we call, brainwashing, deluding and misguiding.
man, you think the USA can realy step on anyone they want? once they do it illegaly and illegitemately they'll doom themselves.
all what they're doing now is fabricating evidences which then be represented to people as an execuse to attack whom they want.
on fox i think the other day they were showing a laptop which had an irani flag that they claimed it contained nuclear plans? EXECUSE ME, from where did you get that? HOW? iran does NOT manufacture laptops, and they DON'T put their flag on it and install what? nuclear plans? on a laptop? oh man, only morons would buy that, execuse me but you have to see what your government is doing before you open your mouth and defend them with a lame execuse such as, we made this war to prevent other greater wars. get real man, get real, i don't care what you are. just get real.
ok just want to say that in my oh so small opion, the USA can in the case of iran do almost whatever they want. When they attacked iraq it was clearly shown that the internation community could do nothing aginst them, as any internation invasion must be pass before the UN sercurity council before it is a legal invasion. The motion didnt even pass the vote BTW so it didnt need to be veto.
With Iran they have more support then they did for Iraq as it is against internation law to purduce nuclear tech without IAEA inspections, they would not even have france vetoing them. which is imporant as France is a permanent member of the security council.
People keep making out as tho the USA cant attack iran they can. that doesnt mean they will. just that they can, amarica has always had a war driven econmy as well. which means they could substane that war as long as they didnt make the mistakes of Iraq and stay. Oh and one other thing NO ONE WOULD EVER USE A NUKE. the after effects of one of the USA's 500 Mton nukes would kill everone in the middle east. Ever hear of particle drift? radation clouds?
You do know that all nukes are not the strategic nukes that you are explaining? Well just to let you know, there is also a thing called a "tactical" nuclear device, that is a nuke with a much smaller charge that is meant to win over local battlefield supremacy. Not the city busters as you are describing.
The discussion about using nukes in iran was and has been completely isolated to the discussion of "tactical" nuclear weapons and not the strategic weapons. Spend more time actually reading the news instead of commenting first.
i admit my example of a nuke was over stating it, as you no doubt know there is no such thing as a 500Mton nuke. however even low yield nukes such as taticle nukes have simalure side effects, most taticle nukes range from 80kton to 1000ktons. however the results are still very wide spread.
as can be seen by the fact that the "little boy" bombs were only 12 to 15 ktons. BTW feel free to correct me here i am not an expert i am simply going off my knowlegde of physics and what i have read on taticle nukes.
Iran is already independent, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what other countries the U.S. has nuked or threatened with nukes because they wanted independence.
I know facts are hard to deal with sometimes but give it a try.
The U.N. Security Council member nations all agree that Iran should not have nukes, China and Russia will not support any sanctions due to thier respective oil trade deals but still all nations are in agreement that it's not a good situation.
Also The U.S. has improved penetrators that can deliver guided conventional munitions, but I think the bottom line is you wish the U.S. to be the bad guy so to speak in this issue so have at it.
Blame America first, your alleged Fox story is so off track it's nothing more than the rantings of an uninformed and biased mind.
Iran having nukes is the issue, where do you stand on that? is it ok with you? why does anyone think this falls to the U.S. to resolve when every other U.N. Security Council member country is saying the same thing "Iran should not have a nuclear weapon".
It's because the U.S. can take out the facilities with conventional guided munitions and leave the rest of Iran untouched that we become the obvious choice should a strike be warrented by the Security Council.
Now if the Security Council says Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons but won't stop the proccess will you attack them with your twisted views or like them stick your head in the sand?
All this U.S. bashing would be better if some facts were used.
My theory is that the EU will act first on Iran... Most people scoff at this notion, but rememeber, the hardliner Islamic countries not only hate America, but the 'West' as a whole... Muslims are discriminated on a daily basis in France, and much of the EU will not grant citizenship to anyone other than their own native people... This is one area (albeit one of the few areas) where America is indeed much more progressive than the EU...
The EU is not an aggresive entity, this is why most people find the idea of military intervention on the EU's behalf as ludicrous... However, America doesn't have that much to worry about Iran gaining nukes, I think the max trajectory an Iranian nuke could have would reach the UK, let alone sail across the Atlantic... Realistically, a suitcase nuke or a car nuke is the only way terrorists can strike the US, and with the sensitive radioactivity detection methods employed, this would be real tough to pull off...
Europe should be very worried, the next 9/11 will happen on either France's or UK's soil, not America... With WWII only 60 short years in the past, the travesty that was Munich is still fairly fresh on the EU's mind, and kowtowing to an authoritarian regime isn't likely, especially with UK, France and Germany...
My $0.02.
I think this guy has the right idea.
A glimpse into the future..
The problem with Iran is one we self inflicted. Ill explain but it involves a bit of detail.
Part 1
The United States had enormous political capital when it came to what our foreign policy goals were after 911. We justifiably, and the world agreed in unison that the Taliban in Afghanistan were either active participants or enablers of Al Qaeda who as we all know were responsible for the 911 attacks.
The tide turned when we went after Iraq, there was a mountain of evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, Yet we constantly saw the whitehouse and Dick Cheney in particular repeat over and over for months leading up to the war in Iraq that Saddam Hussein and the Bathists were involved in 911.
Shortly after Afghanistan, the United States started building up there forces around the middle east for an attack on Iraq. This is surprising at the time because neither the case for WMD or 911 was made at that time, yet here we were allready building up our forces. So we spent the next 6 months after that continually building up our forces while at the same time putting together the case for war in Iraq.
Now, it only makes sense that unless you intended to attack Iraq no matter what, that a case for war would have been made "Before" a buildup to war. Why put 300k troops around Iraq if you werent intending to attack in the first place? So the case to make war on Iraq was fraudulent because they cherry picked or out and out lied and twisted intelligence to suit policy. If patriotic americans cant see this as an extremely dangerous way of conducting foreign policy, well...i dont know what more to tell them.
People who know Iraq would know that Saddam Hussein regime specifically attacked, killed, jailed islamic fundamentalists in their country because they could eventually oppose Saddam. Remember Saddam had 0 tolerance for any political party or people who could possibly oppose him. Why in the world would he allow religious fundamentalists in his country so that they will eventually undermine his authority and turn Iraq into Iran and be run by the mullah's? That was his greatest fear next to a full war with the United States. Its strange to say it but Saddam Hussein was actually an ally against religious fundementalists like Osama bin Laden.
So in short, our made up policy on Iraq has severely diminished our political capital in the world today and that restricts or hinders greatly what our goals are for today. Our unilateralism basically tells countrys, "we dont care what you think. What is best for us is the only thing that matters and you dont"
With that attitude its becoming easier for foreign nations and is even being demanded by their population that if the United States so obviously want to only look out for its own interests then they should have as well. A simple way of putting that into perspective is, do you think we would have gotten more international support in condemning Iran if we didnt invade Iraq?
I think the answer to that is a resounding yes, if the Iraq war never happened we would be in a far better position of rallying our own allies and making those countries on the fence more willing to bend in our favor.
We've pretty much always been a country that has walked quietly but carried a big stick, now we carry the big stick and stomp around and it makes even our allies extremely nervous. An example of the anti-americanism that has literally erupted is how the leaders of the world are learning the harder line stance you take with the US the more likely you will be elected.
Example, Jacque Chirac in France was losing badly in his re-election bid, but then he took a hard line stance against America at the UN security council and with that alone it propelled him to another term.
In Spain, the people were against sending troops in Iraq, then the Madrid bombings happened reinforcing everyones belief that this is a war they didnt want, but was forced upon them by their government. The pro American politicians were voted out.
Now it happened in Italy, where Prodi and his party defeated Berulsconi, a extrememly pro Bush government and he had to resign.
Now there might have been several other factors that also took part in those elections but one thing has been made clear. That being anti-American is not only fashionable in many nations now, but its almost a required political asset to win. How frightening is that?
As for our miltary options, they look even worse and not for the reasons people might most likely think.
America is a warring nation and bomb everyone who has different ideals to them. If the world is to come to an end through war it will most definitely will be because of USA military agression. America wont attack north korean because the America government are cowards and only pick fights with nation far inferior to them. Go on Bush pick a fight with China i dare you. I cant wait for the day America get theyre ass kick in a war. I have nothing against American people but the America government is making it hard for Non-Americans to like America.
America is a warring nation, who have been Starting wars with smaller weaker nations for the last 40 years. To the vast majority of people in the world America is the true enemy. You must understand after all these wars most countries in the world hate America with passion.