Iran next?

[Bodacious]

Way to be optimistic there.

And seeing as there havn't been any deaths on American soild due to terrorism since 9/11 I think you are wrong, but I don't discount the possibility of anotehr terrorist attack. Jose Padilla failed. Richard Reid (shoe bomber) failed. Zacarias Moussaoui was apprehended. The guys in new york who wanted to buy a SAM missile were apprehended.

 

[CptStern]

no I'm not wrong cuz americans have died from terrorism since 9/11 just not on american soil :E ...back to square one .....oh, and I'm not being a pessimist ...I'm being a realist

 

[Bodacious]

So what is the big deal about American Soil? What difference does it make? The question still goes unanswered.

 

[kirovman]

*waits for Stern to explode*

 

[Steve]

So when the democrats call for diplomacy it is a noble cause and worth listening to, but when a republican wants democracy it is naivete?

I am aware you didn't say anything like that, but you implied it.

Yeah, I guess I did. But I was just playin' around. I dearly hope all these problems can be solved without and military action.

 

[Raziaar]

Well, haven't read any of the other posts in this forum, since I just now found it.

I just want to say, that despite what all you naysayers say about bush supporters, we're not blind followers. Most of my friends who voted for bush and support him, are not willing to let him go to war with another country anytime soon. CONTRARY to what you believe, we won't let him do anything he wants. He needs facts first, and from what we've learned, not just facts from the CIA, since they've been proved to be unreliable.

 

[Hapless]

sigh ...the point was that the war on terror will bring the war to american soil ...9/11 is just a prelude of things to come.

Will bring? It's already been here. It was here before 9/11. Remember the WTC bombing in 93? There was a war going on long before GWB was elected, we just didn't know about it.

 

[CptStern]

oh we knew about it ...Usāmah was well known before 9/11

 

[Hapless]

Maybe actively engaged would have been more accurate.

 

[CptStern]

yes that too

 

[CptStern]

I think most people here, well, those who hold some grip on reality, would agree that another attack on the US isnt just probable, it's inevitable ...I think, if I've judged right ...even Hapless would agree

can O' worms ...bigass can O' worms ....for generations to come

 

[KoreBolteR]

i think iraq will be fine in 50 yrs time, just like germany is now, from the wwII era

or else

 

[Korgoth]

Maybe actively engaged would have been more accurate.

Oh we were definately actively engaged as well, who do you think armed him and pushed him (him being osama) up the ranks to help him become the martyr he is today?

Thats right, reagan and gwb 1, they sold/gave him intel and weapons to fight the ruskies in afghanistan, remember, or is that a stain on your precious republican parties dress that you would like no one to talk about?

And funny that, because I could swear the same people did the same thing for saddam during his conflicts with iran....

 

[Hapless]

I think most people here, well, those who hold some grip on reality, would agree that another attack on the US isnt just probable, it's inevitable ...I think, if I've judged right ...even Hapless would agree

can O' worms ...bigass can O' worms ....for generations to come

I agree wholeheartedly. However, I disagree with the argument that we should have never started the "War on Terror," because that will make them mad. They were already mad. One need only look at the U.S.S. Cole, the first WTC bombing, etc., etc. to see that.

 

[Hapless]

Oh we were definately actively engaged as well, who do you think armed him and pushed him (him being osama) up the ranks to help him become the martyr he is today?

Thats right, reagan and gwb 1, they sold/gave him intel and weapons to fight the ruskies in afghanistan, remember, or is that a stain on your precious republican parties dress that you would like no one to talk about?

And funny that, because I could swear the same people did the same thing for saddam during his conflicts with iran....

First off, he's not a martyr. He would have to be dead to be a martyr, and if that was the case, this discussion would be moot since as we all know, all terrorism begins and ends with Osama.

Second, are you suggesting that Reagan and GHWB should have somehow known that helping the mujahedin (sp?) against the Soviets, (which I might add was in our interests), would cause them to come back later and bite us in the ass? Are you suggesting they were clairvoyant? Hindsight is always 20/20, as they say.

 

[Korgoth]

No he is a martyr already, no matter how he dies, he will be considered a martyr among his followers.

mar·tyr ( P ) Pronunciation Key (märtr)
n.

1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
3.
1. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
2. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.


tr.v. mar·tyred, mar·tyr·ing, mar·tyrs

1. To make a martyr of, especially to put to death for devotion to religious beliefs.
2. To inflict great pain on; torment.

I'd say they (his followers) view him in this sense.

All i'm saying is should we have helped fund these groups knowing full well how they treated people? The human rights violations you are crying over now and using as an excuse weren't non existent then. So by your logic its all right to give a murderer a gun, just as long as we don't think about what he might do with said gun in the future?

 

[Hapless]

No he is a martyr already, no matter how he dies, he will be considered a martyr among his followers.



I'd say they (his followers) view him in this sense.

All i'm saying is should we have helped fund these groups knowing full well how they treated people? The human rights violations you are crying over now and using as an excuse weren't non existent then. So by your logic its all right to give a murderer a gun, just as long as we don't think about what he might do with said gun in the future?

Well, I don't know...would that murderer help us catch Bin Laden?

/me removes toungue from cheek

 

[CptStern]

Second, are you suggesting that Reagan and GHWB should have somehow known that helping the mujahedin (sp?) against the Soviets, (which I might add was in our interests), would cause them to come back later and bite us in the ass? Are you suggesting they were clairvoyant? Hindsight is always 20/20, as they say.

oh but they have soooo much experince at getting bit in the ass from their former allies you'd think they'd have learned by then

 

[Hapless]

oh but they have soooo much experince at getting bit in the ass from their former allies you'd think they'd have learned by then

Welcome to the exciting world of international politics.

 

[kirovman]

The problem with the terrorists who fight against the forces in Iraq, is that they are Saddam's secret police who are out of a job, but haven't realised it yet.

So they've reverted back to what they know best... kidnappings, violence, torturing the locals.

I doubt there's many normal civvies fighting forces on the streets, most of them just want a home, food, and a life with less worry.

So Iraq could be a peaceful nation in 50 years...you just need to get through a couple of generations.

Did anyone know how the Japanese reacted when they were beaten? Was there a continuation of violence, or did they all just stop fighting?
Because as far as I know, they were more violent and brutal (in wartime anyway) than the Iraqis ever were.

 

[Raziaar]

Did anyone know how the Japanese reacted when they were beaten? Was there a continuation of violence, or did they all just stop fighting?
Because as far as I know, they were more violent and brutal (in wartime anyway) than the Iraqis ever were.

I agree strongly with this. The Japanese did some truely, truely awful things to the chinese and the americans during the war, though i'd mainly attribute it to a few large groups of men similiar to that of the Nazi's in their evilness. I like the japanese. There's not a country of people I don't like...




Stewie: Stupid greedy savages!

Lois: Stewie, that's a terrible thing to say! This one particular tribe has lost their way, but most Native Americans are proud, hardworking people who are true to their spiritual heritage. They are certainly not savages.

*The More You Know*

Stewie: Well that's funny mother. Just this morning you said they were lazy, like the dirty Mexicans. Ha ha. Just kidding. the Mexicans are a clean, industrious people with a rich cultural heritage.

*The More You Know*

Meg: Ya not like those dumb, gargantuan Swedes. Actually the Swedish people run the gamut from very short to tall. And did you know that Sweden gave us the brilliant inventor Alfred Nobel?

*The More You Know*

Peter: Ya which is more than we ever got from those free-loadin' Canadians...................Canada sucks!

 

[CptStern]

I agree wholeheartedly. However, I disagree with the argument that we should have never started the "War on Terror," because that will make them mad. They were already mad. One need only look at the U.S.S. Cole, the first WTC bombing, etc., etc. to see that.

yes but the war on terror shouldnt have included the war in Iraq ..I've always maintained that cia covert ops should have moved into afghanistan days after 9/11 and silently find and kill osama bin laden ..keep everyone in the dark till it was accomplished: no martyrs, no public outrage ..but no, they had to secure all of afghanistan so that Unocal could resume construction of their pipeline ..they just fumbled the ball from the very onset (purposefully I think, they had other agendas that had little to do with bringing the person responsible for 9/11 to justice)

 

[Nofuture]

I`ve read not all messages but ...



The USA has been continuously trying to rule the world for many years by means of threats, trick, lies, unfairness, propaganda, military actions, wars. It's really enough!

The USA image is the worst one in the world.
What countries are on their side? UK and Israel. That`s it.

Iran will likely be next. Whether we embark on a full scale invasion or engage the Iranians by proxy (I prefer this method) after a decapitory strike remains to be seen.

There are millions of Iranians that are tired of the Mullahs and their oh so stale, secret police, religous police, bans on free speech, brutality agaisnt their people etc........ we need to help them facilitate their dream of a free Iran, freedom of religion and persecution.

I would so love to see Iran reep at home, the discord that they have sewn throughout the world.

What a bullsh...

Most Iranian refugees are economical refugees and only some of them are political ones.

In every case for all of them are better Mullas as at least one American will do one step to their country!

They are much more patriotical as the Americans will ever be.

I think, if Americans will attack Iran, it could be the end of the USA

Even if Americans won at first, they would lose in the end. Because it will never end! The Iranians would be figthing till their last drop of blood. 9/11 would be just a insignificant happening comparing with what the Americans would get.

Just stay at home still you have one! ... Yank.., go home (still you have one)!

In the case the USA attack Iran and Iran has nukes you won`t have you home any more :E

It`s not business of the USA which country has nukes and which not!

 

[Bodacious]

I would like to hear your opinion on Israel.

 

[Hapless]

I've always maintained that cia covert ops should have moved into afghanistan days after 9/11 and silently find and kill osama bin laden

The same CIA that was so incompetent they couldn't give us accurate info on Iraqi WMD? The same CIA that condoned and encouraged the Abu Ghraib abuses? C'mon, man, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[CptStern]

The same CIA that was so incompetent they couldn't give us accurate info on Iraqi WMD? The same CIA that condoned and encouraged the Abu Ghraib abuses? C'mon, man, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

why? it's their job, they should have done it properly

 

[Nofuture]

I would like to hear your opinion on Israel.

I don`t know a lot about Israel.

I think they live on the spoil which doesn`t belong them.
I think they do have nukes.

 

[Nofuture]

There's optimism and then there's naivete. We're the US. We don't do "diplomacy" or whatever you call it.

Some day you will have to pay for your arrogance.

Just tell me, how does it feel to live in the most hated country of the world?

If we do attack Iran, it'll be seen as further evidence as an attack on Islam. Jihadists will probably use that to further their cause.

Not probably, definitely!

If we do attack Iran

I hope deeply that then it will be Payment Day of the USA!

We should have confronted Iran and Saudi Arabia rather than attacking Iraq.

USA is doing this all the time. Just as I`ve said before, trick.

Iraq, in my opinion, was taken over to secure our position in the energy industry.

What a shame on your country!

 

[satch919]

nofuture, where are you from? Just curious.

Sometimes I feel angry about what we've done and what we're doing but every country, at one point or another, has done some terrible things to humanity. Unfortunately, thats just how humans are.

 

[Bodacious]

nofuture, where are you from? Just curious.

Sometimes I feel angry about what we've done and what we're doing but every country, at one point or another, has done some terrible things to humanity. Unfortunately, thats just how humans are.

What terrible things has the US done in comparison to what Saddam did to his people?

 

[burner69]

Just how politicians and corporations are.

I think without all the pro-war propaganda we got thrown at us pre-Iraq, "Saddam's got terrorists" "he is a terrorist" "he's got WMDs" the majority of Joe public would have been anti war... actually.. I think they were... but hey.

Point is, I think the homo-sapien is generally an ok kinda guy, its just when you throw in political gain, religion, money that you start getting problems.

 

[burner69]

What terrible things has the US done in comparison to what Saddam did to his people?

Torture, murder, bombing civilian areas, unlawful invasion, breaking geneva conventions, unlawful arrest and detaining of suspects for up to 3 years, disregard of UN policy... a few things, why?

 

[CptStern]

What terrible things has the US done in comparison to what Saddam did to his people?

Lesley Stahl (60 minutes) on U.S. sanctions against Iraq:

We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

 

[Nofuture]

you keep on going on about Saudi arabia. So you think Saudi arabia is the Only country in the world thats a threat.

Sorry that I`m interrupting your discussion with CptStern ...
Don`t you really know who is the greatest threat in the word?

these people hate the west, thats the bottom line. they want to kill westerners and spread fear. People in this world dont deserve to live in fear, so we need to go there to stop them roaming free and planning attacks against us. you do notice since the falluja fighting there has been no innocent hostages being held be Zarqawi and co. as they rumbled their hideouts and they had to flee (the cowards). i think you mean "terrorists" not "undesirables", since they are killing civilians on purpose using civilians as a sheild, planting roadside bombs, blowing themselves up, being misled by the leaders, who twist the muslim religion..

Just stop telling lies ! :frown:

The means of big or rich countries is war, the means little or poor countries is terror. You should notice that a war is nothing else as terror on the state level.
So the biggest terrorist are the USA. That`s all.

but you wouldnt see USA or UK or France using these Nuclear warheads, they keep them safe, out of the hands of the terrorists of this world who want to use them to kill innocent civilians on purpose. .

Another lie ... What arguments have you to support your statement?

nope, just the ones that are a threat to them and the world, and try to turn humanity into fear, regimes like NK and Iran need to be sorted out. we cant trust these evil empires with these large weapons which 1 day... could kill us all .

And another lie again :frown:

USA, the country, which not even slightly knows what democracy is, wants to teach others?! That`s obscene!

I see, you don`t know anything about Iran. Why then you speak about it??

You speak about regimes... What about Mr. Bush?



KoreBolteR, why are your lying so much?

Do you ever tell the truth?



Whales, you mean UK?

UK, the big friend of the USA ... :naughty:


It so good that other European countries know the thruth

 

[Nofuture]

I`m from Germany.

What terrible things has the US done in comparison to what Saddam did to his people?

I have a long long long list, unfortunately only in German and also only till March 1999. After then this list wasn`t updated.

 

[Bodacious]

Torture, murder, bombing civilian areas, unlawful invasion, breaking geneva conventions, unlawful arrest and detaining of suspects for up to 3 years, disregard of UN policy... a few things, why?

Hahaha. You aren't going to look at the intent of those actions?

That isn't an argument of the right eiteher, but an argument of the left. I say this because, according to the 9th Circuit court of appeals in california Evil Kneivl can't sue a company labeling him as a pimp. He can't sue because the pimp label was intended to be good.

Or what about Bill Clinton's intent with Monica? It was all fine and good according to clinton and he got away with it.

It is not the US's intent to bomb civillian areas. I seriously doubt a pilot says, "Look, some children playing, fire!"

Unlawful arrest? The supreme court says the detention of Jose padilla without being charged is lawful. Source

The ruling said that the Executive Branch shall be accorded wide latitude in conducting this so-called war, but that the Guantanamo "terrorists" as well as all those held on related charges, or lack there of, in the U.S. may bring writs of habeas corpus in U.S. federal courts.

I am asking, compared to what Saddam has done to his people, how is what the US has done in history bad for humanity?

All of you are quick to point out all of the US's attrocities, but also none of you point out the good America has done.

How many lives were saved as a result of nuking Japan? Possibly millions if a mainland invasion occured.

How many lives were saved as a result of stopping Hitler? How many more Jews would Hitler have slaughtered if the US didn't intervene?

If we could do the math and speculate what if I can assuredly say many more lives have been saved as a result of the US's foreign policy than you all's proposed ideas of inaction.

Lastly, if the US is guilty of all of these crimes, where is the world community in comdemning the US? If the rest of the world hates the US, where are the international resolutions opposing us? Why isn't Bush charged with war crimes?

 

[Absinthe]

All of you are quick to point out all of the US's attrocities, but also none of you point out the good America has done.

You asked him what bad things the US has done.

What? Do you want him to give you a list of all the great and wonderful things instead, along with a complementary foot massage?

How many lives were saved as a result of nuking Japan? Possibly millions if a mainland invasion occured.

How many lives were saved as a result of stopping Hitler? How many more Jews would Hitler have slaughtered if the US didn't intervene?

Oh, I see. Ends justify the means. Murders and atrocities are A-OK, so long as everything turns out dandy in the end!

If we could do the math and speculate what if I can assuredly say many more lives have been saved as a result of the US's foreign policy than you all's proposed ideas of inaction.

I could argue that by plunging into the Middle East so haphazardly, you're stirring up a hornet's nest that will result in the deaths of even more people.

It's really not so much about inaction. It's about incompetence.

Lastly, if the US is guilty of all of these crimes, where is the world community in comdemning the US? If the rest of the world hates the US, where are the international resolutions opposing us? Why isn't Bush charged with war crimes?

Oh, give me a ****ing break. An American president being charged with war crimes by the international community in the current state of the world? No way it's ever going to happen. America is practically central to world affairs nowadays, and it is unfortunately a country that none too many would be willing to **** with. There are relationships that many don't want to be broken.

That's why, despite the fact that the world made their negative opinion of Bush widely known, every world leader slapped on a smile and gave their statement of congratulations .

 

[satch919]

What terrible things has the US done in comparison to what Saddam did to his people?

I read an article comparing the amount of people killed under his regime to the amount of people killed under our control/occupation. It said that more innocent civilians are dying due to our occupation than Saddams brutality.

Was Saddam a bad person? Sure he was.

Does he deserve to live? Hell no.

Did he deserve to be overthrown? Absolutely. However, we shouldn't have been the ones to overthrow him. His own country should have done it. If people want to be free, they have to be the ones to take action and do it. Now if his own people had risen up against him and fought, I'd be all for helping them out. Without even questioning it, we went into someone elses country to kill their leader, destabilze the region, and make it a breeding ground for terrorists. We also lied about the reasons why we went in there. First it was for WMDs. We didn't find any and you can even hear Bush say that we didn't in a latest interview conducted by NBC. Secondly, it was because Saddam was promoting terrorists. No significant connection was ever found to backup that claim. And now, its to "free the Iraqi people." Honestly, would we really care about them if they didn't have a resource(oil) rich nation? I doubt it.

These people are very religious. We're trying to force our Western ideas on them, which is wrong. They've been living that kind of lifestyle for hundreds if not thousands of years. To force any idea on another person is wrong. They have to be the ones who want change. ITS THEIR FREAKIN COUNTRY!!! This is a botched revolution.

The USA isn't all bad though. I love this country. I have opportunities that others don't. I live in a nice house within a nice neighborhood. Im getting my Associates Degree in college. We have a lot more rights than others around the world. The list goes on.

However, I don't like where our nation is heading. As an American, I have the right to voice my concern and uneasiness about our own government. No one should even dare call me unpatriotic either. My concern is enough to show how much i love my own country and to say that I don't is a slap in the face to those that helped preserve this nation.

 

[burner69]

I am asking, compared to what Saddam has done to his people, how is what the US has done in history bad for humanity?

Why do people always spin anti-US arguments round to "we're better than Saddam."?
Why didn't Saddam way, before the US invaded, "But I'm better than Hitler."

Seriously, its hard to justify. Just because you kick a really evil guy out does NOT give you the right to drop the standards of decency you hold for your country because you're in anothers.

FYI the US has done a lot of bad things, it has the largest foreign presence in the world, I'm led to believe, and I'm pretty sure if we totted up the deaths caused by US foreign policy we'd see Saddams killings dwindle out of significance.

And WW2? That's right, just wait til you get attacked, ignore the plea of the Jews, of Britain, of everyone else who didn't wait.

But the UK didn't start attacking until Hitler took a key coal mining spot, crucial to Britain, in France. So... what can you do?

My point is, every countries crappy. We all do crappy things, and the more powerful and influencial we are, often the more damage we do, but we do a dam good job of hiding that from our people.

And damage to Iraq? I cba debate should we have gone to war now, I do that enough - but what annoys me is that there seem to be so many areas where we could do a few things differently, and a few less people would die, or get injured, or start hating the west.

I find it frustrating when people can happily sweep it under the carpet, hope it'll go away and say "Well, Saddam would've done worse."

You won't see this on FOX

 

[kirovman]

But the UK didn't start attacking until Hitler took a key coal mining spot, crucial to Britain, in France. So... what can you do?

Was that the reason? I was always taught it was because they invaded Poland, and we had a mutual defence pact with them.