Iran next?

[Bodacious]

You asked him what bad things the US has done.

In comparison to what Saddam has done to his people is what I asked for. You left that out. No where in any history book can you find the American government using chemical weapons on its own people that resulted in thousands of lives lost. No where in any history book can you find the American government imprisoning, torturing and murdering memebers of it's own populace for political reasons. (Maybe something during the civil war, but I don't know crap about that.)

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

I didn't ask for that,but a foot massage would be nice.

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

Do you disagree? The justification of Murders and attrocities has to be looked at in context and from different points of view. Answer my previous questions. How many lives would have been saved if we didn't stop hitler? How many lives would have been lost if we didn't nuke Japan? If Japan Succeeded in whatever their objective was, don't you think their situation at the time would be vastly improved? All at the cost of thei own citizens and their enemies lives.

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.

There is no need to argue that we are making muslims mad over there because we are, otherwise there wouldn't be terrorists in Iraq right now. There is no doubt more people are going to die, in the short run. If the new Iraq military does it's job right the deaths there will be minimalized and over time there will be few if any.

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 .

With all of these attrocites illustrated in previous posts I think you would have a good case. Do you disagree? Look at the Salvador option being put in place in Iraq right now. A lot of democrats/liberals already condemn the US for funding terrorist actions by enacting this plan. All one of these trainees has to do is kill one civillian and you have the case the the US is supporting terror, according to the liberal argument anyways.

People don't mind getting on their soap box preaching how much this place sucks or that we are terrible, but that is all they can do. I want to see some aciton. Write your senator, go to protests, be like the Human shield guys who went to Baghdad in protest of the Iraq war.

Funny story about those guys. Saddam loyalists but them in direct fire of incoming troops, almost insuring their death. They quit being human shields pretty quick.

 

[Bodacious]

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.

Funny, I have read articles saying the exact opposite.

Iraqi Civillian Deaths in Perspective

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.

Ok, let me get this straight. You support the opposition of an oppressing force and you support the aid of that opposition force, correct? Now, I don't know about you specifically, but what is your opinion on our support of the Mujahadeed(Taliban) against the oppressive soviet union? They are, in effect, the same thing, are they not?

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.

Are you arguing that it was our intention to destabilze the region and make it a breeding ground for terrorists? Also, it wasn't "their leader" it was the Ba'athist leader. I seriously doubt the Sunni muslims wanted saddam as their leader.

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.

What are you trying to do by telling me all of these things? What is your goal? I am well aware of the argument form the left. All of these things doesn't change the fact that we are there and aren't going to leave until the Iraqi army can support itself.

The war was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the start, just FYI.

 

[Bodacious]

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.

I would like you to give me one example of the American government murdering it's own populace to the tune of 300k plus. It isn't dropping standards until attrocities such that occur in the US.

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.

How many American citizens death is the US gov responsible for? you are taking these deaths out of context. Foreign deaths as a result of sanctions or war are differnt that the government attacking it's own populace to suppress the opposing opinions.

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?

What are you trying to argue? That we could have saved lives if we went in earlier? I don't see the point to that argument, seeing as how that happened 50 years ago.

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

It is not sweeping it under the carpet because he did do worse.

That link is pretty good. I especially like that Israel stuff. It makes it easy to argue that Radical Muslims would still hate us if we were in Iraq or not.

In my opinon inaction in the war on terror is not the way to go. We already saw what inaction brought us on 9/11.

 

[Absinthe]

How quick some people are to forget that the US had slavery, along with a long period of time in which blacks (while technically "free") still got the shaft in nearly every aspect of society.

It's not waging war, but it's despicable none the less.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Don`t you really know who is the greatest threat in the word?

Yeah people who are jealous of the USA because of thier wealth. People like Al-Qaeda and Terrorists. who are willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent people, because they know people like you will see the wrong end of the stick eg. "omg Coalition did it" . so than corrent answr here is "Al-Qaeda and Terrorists in general".

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.

hmm, i think you are the one telling lies here

I didnt say poor countries are terror. What about NK, dont think they are poor, Iran aint poor, Iraq was poor, considering the terror tyrant named saddam took all thier oil for food money...
BUT overall poor countries or not, its the people who live in them. Terrorists organizing an attack on the west, in a poor-ish country like afghanistan (just an example).Still get the money they need, somehow, Al Qaeda may operate in a poor country, but they are rich.

which id like to add, is too recruit poorer people, who will jump at the chance at anything to get a bot of cash. and by doing this, they get more people on thier "side" to cause terror around the world. The real fear people have in this world are the Terrorists, not America or the west. Its just some people who hate the west like to blame them saying "you sturred up the nest when invading Iraq", when the threat was already there

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?

Do you know what democracy is? obviously not, your obviously thinking of communism and tyrancy, like saddam was in iraq. :thumbs: dont think so, since before people were being force fed how to deal with a murderous tyrant and his deadly regime (saddam) as thier leaders, and now when they have a chance to get it right, the terrorists cant stand to see iraq as a nice place, so they come in ,and suicide bomb/car bomb it and kidnap civilians, using "killing civilians" as a political goal. its ****in stupid. :angry:

Well, Do you know anything about Iran?
i think someones been watching too much Al-Jazeera Mr Nofuture .
Al jazeera gives Iran the image of being the perfect country where people have the right to express opinions freely, democracy, in which the people decide who they want as thier next leader.
Nah, Iran is being led by a Regime, who kills hundreds of civilians daily on purpose, develops Nuclear weapons so they can attack another country at will. These worldwide destroyers aka Nukes need to be in the safe hands of USA tbh.

Whales, you mean UK?

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

It so good that other European countries know the thruth

Yes, Wales is a Country of the UK. Maybe a Territory as some like to say.

wrong, majority or half the British people are against the war in Iraq, because they dont understand it, imo.

pffff, other European countries?

Like France with a corrupt leader like Chirac, whos going to be questioned as soon as he leaves officers by police? and who was a big friend of the murderous saddam (trading wise).

Spain who pulled out of the war because they were afraid of the terrorists?

Germany who cant even control thier own economy?

at least Ukrainian people have voted for a candidate who is pro-american, unlike the pro-russian ex-leader who tried to cheat and kill to win his second term.

also heared that Russia may be secretly giving Terrorists in afghanistan and iraq weapons.

and ok since "the other countries in Europe know the truth", you tell me ... what is the truth?

 

[satch919]

Funny, I have read articles saying the exact opposite.

Iraqi Civillian Deaths in Perspective


Hmm. Interesting link. I don't have an exact link to the article that I read in the Los Angeles Times(i think) but I looked around on Google for something that was similar or that was relevant. Here's what I found.

http://www.stinkzone.com/cgi-bin/archives/000184.html - Not scientific but states what I read in that LA Times article.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/10/28/international1305EDT0569.DTL - Relevant info

http://www.independent-media.tv/gtheme.cfm?ftheme_id=42 - This one is an interesting read.

I've got to go to school right now. I'll post later to respond to your other questions.

 

[Bodacious]

Funny, I have read articles saying the exact opposite.

Iraqi Civillian Deaths in Perspective


Hmm. Interesting link. I don't have an exact link to the article that I read in the Los Angeles Times(i think) but I looked around on Google for something that was similar or that was relevant. Here's what I found.

http://www.stinkzone.com/cgi-bin/archives/000184.html - Not scientific but states what I read in that LA Times article.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/10/28/international1305EDT0569.DTL - Relevant info

http://www.independent-media.tv/gtheme.cfm?ftheme_id=42 - This one is an interesting read.

I've got to go to school right now. I'll post later to respond to your other questions.

This Link debunks your first two.

 

[RZAL]

Damn you people just go on and on!

Has everyone forgotten that prior to the US entering Iraq, the international community and Bush asked Saddam Hussein to step down from power and enter exile?

Has everyone forgotten:

1979 Ahmad Hasan Bakr was replaced by Saddam Hussein as President Bakr's health was cited as the reason for his stepping down and he was placed under house arrest?

1980 Saddam Hussein invaded Iran?

1981 Israeli jets destroyed Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor?

1982 Ahmad Hasan Bakr died allegedly due to poisoning?

1983 President Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the government to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to ensure that Iraq was not defeated in its war withIran. At this time, the administration knew full well that Iraq was in possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and it was using chemical weapons almost daily against Iran. In December, Donald Rumsfeld would be sent by Reagan to Iraq to meet with Saddam Hussein and offer whatever assistance might be required?

1984 The 40-month old war between Iran and Iraq escalated when Iran launched a major offensive; 500,000 troops engaged in battle?

1987 An Iraqi jet fired rockets at the U.S.S. Stark, killing 37 American sailors. Iraq later apologized for what it called a tragic mistake?

1988 Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to a cease fire with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. After eight years of war, the two sides entered negotiations to end a conflict that had cost the lives of over 100,000 Iraqis and about one million Iranians?

1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. UN Security Council Resolution 660 condemned the invasion and called for full withdrawal, but Saddam Hussein ignores this?

1991 A coalition of forces led by the United States launched an attack on Iraq in order to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and prevent it from launching similar wars of aggression again in the future?

1993 The United States, France, and Britain launched several air and cruise-missile strikes against Iraq in response to provocations, including Iraqi assassination attempt against former President George H. W. Bush?

1994 Iraqi troop buildup near Kuwait in 1994 led the United States to send forces to Kuwait and nearby areas. Continued resistance to weapons inspections led to bombing raids against Iraq, and trade sanctions imposed on Iraq remained in place, albeit with an emphasis on military-related goods until the second Gulf conflict?

1995 Two of Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamil and Saddam Kamil defected to Jordan with Saddam's daughters. Hussein had been in charge of Iraqi development of Weapons of Mass Destruction and brings along with him extensive evidence of development of banned weapons?

1996 Repeatedly shunned and rejected by international Iraqi opposition groups, defectors Hussein and Saddam Kamil were enticed to return to Iraq - where they are quickly executed?
2002 During his State of the Union speech, President George Bush lists Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria as part of an "axis of evil." According to Bush, "by seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger?"

2003 The international community asked Saddam Hussein to step down from power and enter exile?

2003 Saddam Hussein refuses to step down, American and British ground forces invade Iraq via Kuwait in the second Gulf War, this time with the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein and his Baathist government once and for all?


The way I see Saddam Hussein is a thug and his number finally came up. The War could have been prevented, if Saddam would have only complied. But no, instead he was the one who caused the American’s and the Brit’s to serve and execute the outstanding warrants.

If the idiots in Iraq would wise up and choose their own government like civil beings do, then the Americans and Brits could leave. You know it really doesn’t help anyone’s cause to continuously bicker and argue, if at the very least it fuels the belief that terrorism is justified. If your going to do that grow a pair of balls and say I believe in terrorism! I think its ok to kill innocent women and children!

And as far as Iran goes…. Iran its really in your best interest to learn from your neighbors mistakes…I truly hope we can improve on our relations…the choice is ours.



The Patriot

 

[CptStern]

This Link debunks your first two.

not really ..it just says their methodology is different:

"Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths."

I for one have never supported the 100,000 claim ..those are just guesstimates (doesnt invalidate them but it cant be proven as of yet) ..just like what happened in the first war ...initially the US claimed there was only 3000 civilian deaths in operation desert storm, later it was proven that the number was actually 10 x that ...not too mention the 100's of thousands who died as a direct result of US bombing: Iraqi water treament plants (here's a document that proves the US deliberately targeted them, and that they knew what it would do to the civilian populace)...simple diarrhea and dysentry (amongst other treatable and preventable diseases) killed 30,000 kids under the age of 5 a month

 

[burner69]

I would like you to give me one example of the American government murdering it's own populace to the tune of 300k plus. It isn't dropping standards until attrocities such that occur in the US.



How many American citizens death is the US gov responsible for? you are taking these deaths out of context. Foreign deaths as a result of sanctions or war are differnt that the government attacking it's own populace to suppress the opposing opinions.

So it dosen't matter if they're not US civilians? Those sanctions you slap on countries that lead to innocent civilians starving don't matter? Those weapons you sell to militaries whom you know kill innocent people... that dosen't matter because it's not US civvies being killed? Is that what you're saying?

What are you trying to argue? That we could have saved lives if we went in earlier? I don't see the point to that argument, seeing as how that happened 50 years ago.

I believe you brought up WW2, saying you saved us. I was just showing that it didn't go quite like that.

It is not sweeping it under the carpet because he did do worse.

That's a) wrong, and b) makes no sense.
What are you doing to it then? Accepting that the US is doing evil things abroad? Nope. Shrugging it off because Saddam used to do worse? Yes = *sweep sweep* NEWSFLASH! SADDAM IS NOW GONE! YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADJUST YOUR BEHAVIOUR TO FIT IN WITH THE PAST LEADER.

That link is pretty good. I especially like that Israel stuff. It makes it easy to argue that Radical Muslims would still hate us if we were in Iraq or not.

In my opinon inaction in the war on terror is not the way to go. We already saw what inaction brought us on 9/11.

No, you watched what foreign policy brings you on 9/11. You watched what upsetting political balances abroad for the US's gain brought you. You watched what dealing arms with countries with horrific human rights records brought. You watched what happens when you get involved with thousand year old conflicts for your own benefit.
Inaction? Hardly.

Yeah people who are jealous of the USA because of thier wealth. People like Al-Qaeda and Terrorists. who are willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent people, because they know people like you will see the wrong end of the stick eg. "omg Coalition did it" . so than corrent answr here is "Al-Qaeda and Terrorists in general".

That's the most mishmashed load of crap I've heard on this forum! Woah.
Jealous of you? What?
Don't you think people hate the US because...oo... i dunno... what OBL said his motive for 9/11 was - your foreign policy? Perhaps? Maybe.

But no... it's cuz you're wealthy.
Squire Sam is walking down the Victorian back alleys when he sees a group of five young homeless ruffian boys. He proceeds to beat them all with his cain, then walk off. Later, two of the boys jump him and beat him up a bit - he goes to the police station and reports it, telling the police officer in charge that it was definatley because they were jealous of his wealth.

which id like to add, (Al Quaeda being rich) is too recruit poorer people, who will jump at the chance at anything to get a bot of cash. and by doing this, they get more people on thier "side" to cause terror around the world. The real fear people have in this world are the Terrorists, not America or the west. Its just some people who hate the west like to blame them saying "you sturred up the nest when invading Iraq", when the threat was already there

You're missing the whole point. WHY do these people hate the west? BECAUSE THE WEST BENDS THEIR COUNTRY OVER AND F*CKS IT IN THE ASS ON A REGULAR BASIS. There was A threat in Iraq to start with - an anti west movement created by the US foreign policy arsing people's lives up. When you start blowing up them, and innocent bystanders, and then imprisoning and torturing them, then slapping sanctions on Iraq that mean they have to buy the seeds they so badly need to survive off the US - suddenly more people start hating the US. See how that works?

Do you know what democracy is? obviously not, your obviously thinking of communism and tyrancy, like saddam was in iraq. :thumbs: dont think so, since before people were being force fed how to deal with a murderous tyrant and his deadly regime (saddam) as thier leaders, and now when they have a chance to get it right, the terrorists cant stand to see iraq as a nice place, so they come in ,and suicide bomb/car bomb it and kidnap civilians, using "killing civilians" as a political goal. its ****in stupid. :angry:

They don't like to see the West doing it. Already we're forcing them to buy our seeds to make money through sanctions. We're not the same religion as them. They really hate the west, and don't want to see their country turn into it.

Well, Do you know anything about Iran?
i think someones been watching too much Al-Jazeera Mr Nofuture .
Al jazeera gives Iran the image of being the perfect country where people have the right to express opinions freely, democracy, in which the people decide who they want as thier next leader.
Nah, Iran is being led by a Regime, who kills hundreds of civilians daily on purpose, develops Nuclear weapons so they can attack another country at will. These worldwide destroyers aka Nukes need to be in the safe hands of USA tbh.

Do you know that? Do you know that they want to attack the world with nukes? I'll tell you the answer - you don't. Why the hell would that country want to lob a nuke out when the West could fire a dozen back and flatten the country. THINK ABOUT IT.

the United Nations Security Council has the prerogative to authorize military responses to violations of its resolutions; no single member state can do so unilaterally without explicit permission. Many Arabs object to the U.S. policy of opposing efforts by Arabs states to produce weapons of mass destruction, while tolerating Israel’s sizable nuclear arsenal and bringing U.S. nuclear weapons into Middle Eastern waters as well as rejecting calls for the creation of a nuclear-free zone in the region.

Why nuclear free? Because they sell the stuff to the area for a lot of $$$$. Why should Israel be allowed all its WMDs? Huh? Go on.

Like France with a corrupt leader like Chirac, whos going to be questioned as soon as he leaves officers by police? and who was a big friend of the murderous saddam (trading wise).

Like the US

Spain who pulled out of the war because they were afraid of the terrorists?

Bravo Spain.

Germany who cant even control thier own economy?

at least Ukrainian people have voted for a candidate who is pro-american, unlike the pro-russian ex-leader who tried to cheat and kill to win his second term.

Ahh, so because one guy cheated and killed, the other pro-US guy is a super dude! I see.

also heared that Russia may be secretly giving Terrorists in afghanistan and iraq weapons.

While the US secretley sells weapons to human rights violating countries. In 2002 the US made this much, off these countries with poor human rights records (drum roll please)
Albania: emerging democracy -- $106,590
Algeria: republic -- $59,982,132
Angola: republic -- $10,562
Armenia: See Countries in Conflict
Azerbaijan: See Countries In Conflict
Bangladesh: parliamentary democracy -- $6,938,416
Bhutan: monarchy-- $9,000
Bosnia: emerging federal democratic republic-- $2,009,260
Cameroon: unitary republic-- $150,100
Chad: republic-- $100
China: Communist state -- $141,180
Colombia: Republic -- $80,972,148
Cote D' Ivoire: republic -- $566,054
Dominican Republic: Representative Democracy -- $238,832,003
Ecuador: republic -- $78,721,315
Eritrea: transitional government-- $459
Ethiopia: federal republic-- $343,536
Gabon: republic -- $2,006,067
Georgia: republic -- $3,458,433
Guinea: republic -- $200,000
Haiti: elected government -- $40,680
Indonesia: republic -- $87,079,115
Israel: Parliamentary Democracy -- $2,005,352,146
Kazakhstan: republic -- $565,580
Kenya: republic -- $41,270
Lebanon: republic -- $12,546,212
Macedonia: parliamentary democracy -- $200,000
Nepal: parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy -- $12,026
Nigeria: republic transitioning from military to civilian rule -- $16,053,199
Pakistan: See Countries in Conflict
Saudi Arabia: Monarchy -- $601,575,624
Tanzania, United: republic -- $47,194
Uganda: republic -- $8,016
Ukraine: republic -- $100,000
Uzbekistan: republic; authoritarian presidential rule, with little power outside the executive branch -- $2,346,080
Venezuela: federal republic -- $41,206,093
Zambia: republic -- $26,020

and ok since "the other countries in Europe know the truth", you tell me ... what is the truth?

The truth? I don't know the truth. Nofuture don't know the truth. We can't handle the truth! :O

 

[Kangy]

Yes, Wales is a Country of the UK. Maybe a Territory as some like to say.

wrong, majority or half the British people are against the war in Iraq, because they dont understand it, imo.

That's ridiculous. Of course they understand it. The war was being pushed on every level, the US ignored the U.N. weapons inspectors, the CIA and various British Sources (including some stolen off a university student, who admitted it was probably wrong) and the claims about Iraq's WoMDs grew every day. "Cyprus in under an hour, or it's free", they said.

Of course people didn't want it. The decision was rushed past the public, in comparison to the commitment, the Parliamentary defence was in shambles and so was the evidence. The public either smelt the bad medicine, or needed more proof.

pffff, other European countries?

Like France with a corrupt leader like Chirac, whos going to be questioned as soon as he leaves officers by police? and who was a big friend of the murderous saddam (trading wise).

The USA and UK were the biggest trading partners for so long, mostly when he was killing. They gave him WoMD to use in his horrific war that killed more people than World War 1. So uh, I think that one is null.

Spain who pulled out of the war because they were afraid of the terrorists?

Different societies, different reaction. When your capital had been so easily hit, and the election was the next day, you'd seriously consider getting out of a war fast heading towards the crapper.

Germany who cant even control thier own economy?

The US can't handle their own economy either, that's why they're in so much debt.

at least Ukrainian people have voted for a candidate who is pro-american, unlike the pro-russian ex-leader who tried to cheat and kill to win his second term.

Unless I was mistaken, most people wanted to join the EU, not send young men off to die in the Middle East.

also heared that Russia may be secretly giving Terrorists in afghanistan and iraq weapons.

Until this is actually proven by someone respectable, you're talking out your arse, looking for another reason to insult a country that disagreed with a war.

and ok since "the other countries in Europe know the truth", you tell me ... what is the truth?

The truth? That this war has caused more damage than people like you can clearly foresee.

 

[RZAL]

The US can't handle their own economy either, that's why they're in so much debt

I agree, too many people in the U.S. believe in big government solutions, instead of finding the cause and effect they want a quick fix. They throw money hand over fist at the problem and then scratch their heads when the band-aid falls off. Doesn’t make a bit of sense to me, other than people are just so darn dependent on the government.

 

[satch919]

Well, I got back from school to see that this thread has grown even more. Real surprise right?

Ok, let me get this straight. You support the opposition of an oppressing force and you support the aid of that opposition force, correct? Now, I don't know about you specifically, but what is your opinion on our support of the Mujahadeed(Taliban) against the oppressive soviet union? They are, in effect, the same thing, are they not?

I would be more inclined to help a group of people who opposed an oppressive regime ON THEIR OWN!!!! It has to be their idea if they want change, not ours.

What if the tables had been turned on us? What if the Islamic nations were more powerful than us and one day decided that Bush was a bad influence on his own people and the world? What if they invaded and told us that we need to take up the Eastern Islamic culture? We'd fight back and tell them to get the f*** out.

Now about the Mujahideen? I don't know the specifics on the subject. I know we trained and supported their fight against the Russians/Soviets. But I don't know the details as to why we backed them. From what I've read/heard though, we supported them only because they were going against the Russians, who at that time, were our enemies due to the Cold War. Correct? Again, i don't know the specifics on the subject.

Anyone who opposed the Russians were fine by us i suppose. But we all know what our allies turned into though. They're the same people that we're fighting against in Afghanistan.

My thoughts: We backed the wrong group of people. I think we saw it as someone who aggressively stood up against the Russians so we took them under our wing. My guess is that the same rebels/fighters that stood up against the Soviets were part of a terror organization already. I think we chose to overlook that simply because they were fighting the Soviets. There were probably other reasons as well such as financial gain or to boost our image arond the world.

So, I don't see is as the same thing as an entire population rising up against their own leader.

Are you arguing that it was our intention to destabilze the region and make it a breeding ground for terrorists? Also, it wasn't "their leader" it was the Ba'athist leader. I seriously doubt the Sunni muslims wanted saddam as their leader.

No, im not arguing that at all. It wasn't our intention to destablize the region. It happened because of our actions. Our inablility to size up the situation allowed the region to deteriorate at a quicker pace.

Whether you want to believe it or not, he was the leader/President/ruler/tyrant of Iraq. Who ran the country? Saddam Hussein. Thus the word "leader". Even if the Sunni's didn't like him, he was still in control. I don't like Bush but is he still the leader/ruler of this country? Yes.

What are you trying to do by telling me all of these things? What is your goal? I am well aware of the argument form the left. All of these things doesn't change the fact that we are there and aren't going to leave until the Iraqi army can support itself.

The war was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the start, just FYI.

Whats my goal? The same reason you tell me the things you do, to prove your point. So just because I disagree with you, Im a leftist liberal? You know, people are allowed to have a political opinion without belonging to any one party.

Yes, I realize that arguing with you doesn't change anything. It does, however, allow people to admit their mistakes and learn. Admitting that one did something wrong is the first crucial step to correcting the mistake.

Yeah, I know it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. What made you think that I didn't? Its just a nice name to appeal to the masses. I don't think Operation Hostile Takeover would go over too well. How about Operation Bomb The S*** Out Of You? Or even Operation F*** You, We're Taking It? Yeah, I don't care for it either. Although, Operation Hostile Takeover has a nice ring to it.

 

[Nofuture]

Some people have allready commented your statements, KoreBoltR, I`ll do it of course too, on my own way.

Yeah people who are jealous of the USA because of thier wealth. People like Al-Qaeda and Terrorists. who are willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent people, because they know people like you will see the wrong end of the stick eg. "omg Coalition did it" . so than corrent answr here is "Al-Qaeda and Terrorists in general".

In the case you really don't know, the USA.
I have to repeat myself: The USA have been continuously trying to rule the world for many years by means of threats, trick, lies, unfairness, propaganda, military actions, wars. The USA wants to be a dictator of the whole world. They are addicted to power. Not a "global player" but a dictator.
Don't forget also that USA has the most nukes.

The war on Irak has made the world more unsafety as it was before :frown:

hmm, i think you are the one telling lies here

I didnt say poor countries are terror. What about NK, dont think they are poor, Iran aint poor, Iraq was poor, considering the terror tyrant named saddam took all thier oil for food money...
....

Don`t rush accusing me in telling lies . Either you aren't intelligent enough to get my message (who knows ) or my English ist too bad (I won`t deny I have to use my dictionary from time to time and it takes me comparing with others here probably more time to formulate my thougths in this language . But I don't think, it was my fault in this case).

I just should extend my statement with therms like strong and weak. Imo countries which have WMD are the strong ones, which doesn't are the week ones. The strongs can allow theirselves to do terror on the state level, i.e. military actions and wars. Some of them do this, some not. And again, the USA have been doing this continuously for many years, so they are the biggest terrorists.

Now got it?!

Do you know what democracy is? obviously not, your obviously thinking of communism and tyrancy, like saddam was in iraq. :thumbs: dont think so, since before people were being force fed how to deal with a murderous tyrant and his deadly regime (saddam) as thier leaders, and now when they have a chance to get it right, the terrorists cant stand to see iraq as a nice place, so they come in ,and suicide bomb/car bomb it and kidnap civilians, using "killing civilians" as a political goal. its ****in stupid. :angry:

Just a sample of your democracy!

"We came to bring you democracy and human rigths" ... Häh? It's so perverse, so disgusting!...

I saw on TV as one US military official said about the pyramides of nacked Irakis: "The pyramids are often used at us by Cheerleadres. It's just healthy!"
What a sarcasm ! :angry:
Imo such like him must to be eliminated asap. Because they aren`t humans.

Want more democracy? What about countries which had been occupied by Russia for many many years? Why in that case the USA didn't "help"? These states had no oil or other interessting things for USA :frog:
The USA had been promising to support these countries, to support the democracy for a long time. And did nothing of what they promised!

Even when a first country, Lithuania, declared the re-istablishment of their independency and won against Russia, such a little country beated such a monster!, the USA hesitated to recognize it. Europe was first who did it.


I`ll comment other statements next time. Now it's late and I have to go to bed.

 

[burner69]

Some people have allready commented your statements, KoreBoltR, I`ll do it of course too, on my own way.

In the case you really don't know, the USA.
I have to repeat myself: The USA have been continuously trying to rule the world for many years by means of threats, trick, lies, unfairness, propaganda, military actions, wars. The USA wants to be a dictator of the whole world. They are addicted to power. Not a "global player" but a dictator.
Don't forget also that USA has the most nukes.

Hey Nofuture, I'm not exactly pro-USA, as you've seen in my previous posts, but I have to disagree with you.
Yes, they do use some rather nasty methods to get power, but there's no evidence they want world domination. The USA has the most nukes yes, but most western societies have quite a few, and I'd like to think that we'd never need launch more than one or two during any conflict - I believe that with the power of todays nukes, if three detonated at once we'd knock ourselves out of orbit with the sun, or something.

The war on Irak has made the world more unsafety as it was before :frown:

At the moment, yes. And I very strongly debate that they should never have gone in the first place - BUT, they're in, and they need support now. If they leave, the place will collapse into disarray. What they need to do is set good examples, stop the torture that your link showed, respect what the Iraqi people want, stabailse the region, then leave. They need support to do that as fast as possible.

Don`t rush accusing me in telling lies . Either you aren't intelligent enough to get my message (who knows ) or my English ist too bad (I won`t deny I have to use my dictionary from time to time and it takes me comparing with others here probably more time to formulate my thougths in this language . But I don't think, it was my fault in this case).

I think you speak pretty good english, certainly better than my German
But in your message you gave no FACTS, just your beliefs. If you can back your statements up with evidence then Korebolt can't call you a lier.

I just should extend my statement with therms like strong and weak. Imo countries which have WMD are the strong ones, which doesn't are the week ones. The strongs can allow theirselves to do terror on the state level, i.e. military actions and wars. Some of them do this, some not. And again, the USA have been doing this continuously for many years, so they are the biggest terrorists.

Now got it?!

Governments are evil, USAs just the most powerful, something we've gotta live with. When they start doing f**ked up things and we notice, we can do something about it.

Just a sample of your democracy!

"We came to bring you democracy and human rigths" ... Häh? It's so perverse, so disgusting!...

I saw on TV as one US military official said about the pyramides of nacked Irakis: "The pyramids are often used at us by Cheerleadres. It's just healthy!"
What a sarcasm ! :angry:
Imo such like him must to be eliminated asap. Because they aren`t humans.

I hate it too, and I've debated against it many many times. But you're saying it as though this is what Iraq is going to be like all the time. It's not. They won't be terrorising people in the streets like Saddams regime was - although they may keep up this rather sckening behaviour in the terrorist prisons. Bare in mind though, these Americans believe that these people are responsible for their countrymen's deaths, whether they are or not does not matter, they BELIEVE it.

And your statement there - he must be eliminated. Erm... haven't you just said it was sick to strip people naked? These people are suspect enemy soliders, or terrorists, surely being stripped naked is better than being eliminated. And you want to kill a guy for being an ass about Iraq prisons? Hypocracy there nofuture, think about it.

Want more democracy? What about countries which had been occupied by Russia for many many years? Why in that case the USA didn't "help"? These states had no oil or other interessting things for USA :frog:
The USA had been promising to support these countries, to support the democracy for a long time. And did nothing of what they promised!

Can't really comments, don't know much about that, though it wouldn't surprise me.

Even when a first country, Lithuania, declared the re-istablishment of their independency and won against Russia, such a little country beated such a monster!, the USA hesitated to recognize it. Europe was first who did it.


I`ll comment other statements next time. Now it's late and I have to go to bed.

Hope you find time to respond to my reply.

 

[Raziaar]

I believe that with the power of todays nukes, if three detonated at once we'd knock ourselves out of orbit with the sun, or something.

LOL. Suuuure.

 

[Steve]

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?

You think I said that out of ARROGANCE? You think I'm CELEBRATING that? Ha ha! You're funny little man. That was sarcasm.

 

[burner69]

LOL. Suuuure.

Remember the Tsunami? That Earthquake knocked the Earth slightly out of orbit - do you remember that?

Now, todays nukes are much MUCH more powerful that the one dropped on Hiroshima, if three were to be detonated at once it would most certainly have an effect on the Earths orbit.

But like I say, can't recall the source, might not knock us totally out of orbit, but either way - nukes are bad... mmmkay.

 

[Raziaar]

Remember the Tsunami? That Earthquake knocked the Earth slightly out of orbit - do you remember that?

Now, todays nukes are much MUCH more powerful that the one dropped on Hiroshima, if three were to be detonated at once it would most certainly have an effect on the Earths orbit.

But like I say, can't recall the source, might not knock us totally out of orbit, but either way - nukes are bad... mmmkay.

Didn't you read how much energy the tsunami released?

About 23,000 times more than the hiroshima atomic bomb.

But still. the idea that three nukes detonated at the same time could have any real impact on the earth's orbit. I don't even consider the impact the tsunami had much to be alarmed about. The effect of the ocean is much different than the effect an atomic bomb would make anyways.

For example. Take a plastic tub of water, and start rocking it back and forth. With the momentum of the water going from side to side, the tub will move, unless it was rooted to the ground, no question about it.

The whole nuke knocking the earth out of orbit around the sun is more bogus than the thing in futurama where all the robots on earth vectored their exhaust vents upwards to create a big rocket on one side of the earth propelling it further away from the son. I'd believe that sooner than the nuke thing. The nuke thing would just devastate the enviroment for the most part.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Until this is actually proven by someone respectable, you're talking out your arse, looking for another reason to insult a country that disagreed with a war.

considering that the Iraqi army had (RUSSIAN MADE) coronet anti-tank missile which were used against us and disabled a few of our Abrams, it's not a presumption that they were one of the countries supplying banned weapons and tech to saddam, it's a fact.

 

[Steve]

considering that the Iraqi army had (RUSSIAN MADE) coronet anti-tank missile which were used against us and disabled a few of our Abrams, it's not a presumption that they were one of the countries supplying banned weapons and tech to saddam, it's a fact.

How do we know that these Russian made weapons passed DIRECTLY from Russia to Iraq?

 

[Kangy]

considering that the Iraqi army had (RUSSIAN MADE) coronet anti-tank missile which were used against us and disabled a few of our Abrams, it's not a presumption that they were one of the countries supplying banned weapons and tech to saddam, it's a fact.

Actually, they were French made. You don't even know how they got them, like HWI_Steve said. Those anti-tank missiles could be from any Middle Eastern country, who buy them on a regular basis.

You just don't know, and until you do, there's no need to comment about how you "hate the Frenchies" or something.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Actually, they were French made. You don't even know how they got them, like HWI_Steve said. Those anti-tank missiles could be from any Middle Eastern country, who buy them on a regular basis.

You just don't know, and until you do, there's no need to comment about how you "hate the Frenchies" or something.

i bet they give it to them with a big smile on thier face, knowing the coalition will be killed with these. sickening.

 

[Nofuture]

You think I said that out of ARROGANCE? You think I'm CELEBRATING that? Ha ha! You're funny little man. That was sarcasm.

My first sentence I wrote in this forum was that I hadn`t read all messages.

On the other hand e.g. the politics of Bush & Co. in some points seems to be like this. Furthermore, I have heard several times poeple in voice chat saying: We American are the strongest, we don`t need any diplomacy, we can do what we want.

Hmm, not having read all messages I thougth, just another one...

What is so funny then? (What has it to do with a little man? Is it some kind of expression I don`t know?)

Why don`t you keep cool and think about it that it happens that some sentences are being misunderstood?

 

[Scoobnfl]

Actually, they were French made. You don't even know how they got them, like HWI_Steve said. Those anti-tank missiles could be from any Middle Eastern country, who buy them on a regular basis.

You just don't know, and until you do, there's no need to comment about how you "hate the Frenchies" or something.

My error in spelling. The missiles I was referring to are Russian, and they are Kornet anti-tank missiles. And asfor hem being from any country in the middle east I'm sure ther is a paper trail to confirm that. But one only need look between the lines enough to realize that with all of th GPS jammers, NEW A.T. missiles, aircraft parts, rocket engines, etc....... that the Frnch and Russians knew, either through direct facillitation or through 3rd parties that this matieriel was getting to Iraq, probably with the O.F.F. $$$$$ that they were giving Saddam in order to allow him to be able to purchase the weapons.

 

[burner69]

So Scoob, does it not bother you that the US was selling arms and biological weapons to Saddam while he was busy killing his own people?

I believe you're from the US, yeah? Why pick on Russia?

 

[CptStern]

Spain who pulled out of the war because they were afraid of the terrorists?

dont know who wrote that but I suspect it was Bodacious.

sorry but that's wrong, Spain didnt want to be involved in the first place. The government of Jose Aznar dragged spain into the coalition to public outrage ..the largest demonstrations globally before the invasion were in Barcelona and Madrid. Public opinon on the war was overwhelmingly against it, at almost 80%. The opposition party (Jose Zapatero) that defeated Aznar's government (he wasnt even running for re-election, Mariano Rajoy was) ran on a platform of getting the troops out of iraq way before the madrid bombing ..they were the opposition party they were more critical than any other party of spain's involvement in iraq from the very onset

but really, I dont blame americans for thinking that way ..I mean there is a definate bias in mainstream american media ..my mouth dropped when I read this in the washington times ..I cant believe they deliberately print this crap ..it's blantant misinformation ..It couldnt be further from the truth

btw, I have dual citizenship, Canada (I was born in canada)and Spain (my parents are from spain) ...I voted in that election ...for the winning party

 

[Bodacious]

dont know who wrote that but I suspect it was Bodacious.

It wasn't me.

 

[Scoobnfl]

You just don't know, and until you do, there's no need to comment about how you "hate the Frenchies" or something.

Ignore all you want, it's a fact that the Russians and French were supplying Iraq with weapons banned from trade in the UN security council resolutions.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/bulletins/vol3iss4fall04.htm

from the link

Less than two months before the United States invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, Rosoboronexport, the government-owned agency responsible for Russian arms exports, negotiated to sell shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles as well as anti-tank missiles to Saddam’s army. Anyone could see that these might be used against U.S. forces. Larger, longer-range air defense systems and tanks were also discussed. According to the Duelfer report, Rosoboronexport knew “it [could] not be involved with directly supplying Iraq with weapons” and thus “demanded that they be permitted to ship the weapons through a third country with false end-user certificates.” The false certificates were readily procured through Syria.

Belarus was even more active. The report found that “Belarus was the largest supplier of sophisticated high-technology conventional weapons to Iraq from 2001 until the fall of the Regime.” Further, “[c]omplicity in this illicit trade was exhibited at the highest levels of the Belarusian Government.” Key exports to Iraq from Belarus were radar technology and air defense systems. Eager to promote this illicit trade, Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko promoted the formation of a joint Belarusian-Iraqi company in Baghdad that would serve as a clearinghouse. Just three months before the invasion, President Lukashenko gave Belarus’ ministry of defense a blank check to sell whatever military supplies Iraq wanted.

So Scoob, does it not bother you that the US was selling arms and biological weapons to Saddam while he was busy killing his own people?

I believe you're from the US, yeah? Why pick on Russia?

do you know who Iraq's main militay trading partners are? How about who they have been historically? Any idea on who has been charged with supplying Sadam with WMD?

Military tradng partners are France and Russia. That's the reason the tanks the Iraqis drove were Russian, the rifles, handguns, artillery pieces etc. were Russian. The french supplied radar, mirage fighter jets, exocet missiles, etc......

and the person being charged with supplying sadam with WMD is dutch.

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/ned041207

I'd like to see some links with concrete evidence where the USA provided Iraq with WMD, I am aware that we supplied Iraq with some anthrax cultures that were supposed to be used for medical research, and immediately after that happened protocol was changed to prevent it from happening again. And you can leave the michael moore type links out as they have 0% credibility.

 

[burner69]

I like it how you toss aside claims that US sold weapons, then harp on about Russia.

:rolling:

Anyway, here's some links

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

And lookie! Bush wants us to carry on selling to Iraq to promote "world peace".
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040721-7.html

 

[Scoobnfl]

I like it how you toss aside claims that US sold weapons, then harp on about Russia.

:rolling:

I'm not denying that we sold them weapons, we sold them wepons when it was legal to do so. Look at the dates the weapons were sold, all in the 80's.

Then...........................

Look at the dates of the sale of arms by the Russians (2003)which were prohibited by the UN security council resolutions, on which Russia has a seat.

Talk about hypocrisy and turning a blind eye.




http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
from your link. [B]The US no...my and stability worldwide....... :rolleyes:

 

[Nofuture]

Hey Nofuture, I'm not exactly pro-USA, as you've seen in my previous posts, but I have to disagree with you.
Yes, they do use some rather nasty methods to get power, but there's no evidence they want world domination. The USA has the most nukes yes, but most western societies have quite a few, and I'd like to think that we'd never need launch more than one or two during any conflict - I believe that with the power of todays nukes, if three detonated at once we'd knock ourselves out of orbit with the sun, or something.

The best evidence for me that the USA doesn`t want to dominate in the world would be if the USA just restrained.

Do you know any other country after the II. WW which would have so many military actions or wars not on its own soil? What have they been doing there?
What do they want from the Middle East? These countries are rich, they have oil, they can live there the best life without the USA. Nobody there wants the USA.

Wasn`t it Bush who said "we are the world`s police" or smth. like this?
Imo no one country has rigth to play a world police force. Imo all countries have rigth to protect theirselves being attacked on their own soil and they don`t have rigths to attack first.

But in your message you gave no FACTS, just your beliefs. If you can back your statements up with evidence then Korebolt can't call you a lier..

Firstly, I have to notice that KoreBolteR has some "brilliant" ideas and likes to mix statements too. He accused me in lying about one statement, and interpreted my statement wrong, not a bit related to what I meant.

What facts do you need? I presented a theory about having WMDs or not having. It is obvious that countries which have them can allow theirselves a bit more than countries wich haven`t. The figures have already been stated here by somebody.

I also suspect that the USA will atack Iran only in case they will definitely know that Iran doesn`t have any nukes. If they know, that Iran has WMDs, they will not atack.

Btw facts. I wonder why well researched information of Moore (there is no doubt it`s true, otherwise he would have been accused of this, Bush & Co. have a lot of money to do this) didn`t change anything. The information had been put under the nose of American people, but the didn`t make any use of it. Many people in Germany don`t understand this, and many of them think, American people doesn`t like to think a lot or must be even dumb or smth. like this ...

I was very astonished about a statement of one American farmer during the elections of President. He said: Yeah, the economic is gone much worse under Bush, for us farmers is much more difficult to live now, but inspite of this I`ll wote for Bush because he fishes and hunts like me, and Carry doesn´t know anything about simple people like me. Häh?!

Bare in mind though, these Americans believe that these people are responsible for their countrymen's deaths, whether they are or not does not matter, they BELIEVE it.

You know it yourself, its not an excuse. Maybe I could have a little bit understanding for doing this, if the Americans had been attacked on their own soil by Irakis.

This also supports my guess that American people don`t like to think.
Me personal couldn`t be a good soldier . I ask too many questions and I think a lot.

Futhermore, in generally is so, that doing and not knowing it is a crime doesn`t have any effect on penalty you get later.

And your statement there - he must be eliminated. Erm... haven't you just said it was sick to strip people naked? These people are suspect enemy soliders, or terrorists, surely being stripped naked is better than being eliminated. And you want to kill a guy for being an ass about Iraq prisons? Hypocracy there nofuture, think about it.

For Moslems being striped is not the same as being striped for non-Moslems, don`t forget this.

About being eliminated... I know, it is not quite right. Its my weak point, I can`t stand things like humiliation, arrogance etc. Not like soldiers who might be some kind of misleaded (even in this case they aren`t human any more because of their behavior), the official military knew well it was a crime.

Such behavior of US and UK armee supports people to hate them more.

 

[burner69]

I'm not denying that we sold them weapons, we sold them wepons when it was legal to do so. Look at the dates the weapons were sold, all in the 80's.


Unless of course you're advocating that we should have allowed Iran and their whacked out religous fanaticism to go unchecked, contributing to massive destabilization of the global economy and stability worldwide.......

You continued to sell chemical weapons to him after the gassing of 5000 people at the Northern Iraqi town of Halabja in 1988. Legal or no, there's something called morality that says you don't keep giving a guy like that means to do it again.

No of course not, I'm a good boy and am advocating that we should allow the US and their whacked out religious fanaticism to go unchecked, contributing to massive destabilization of the global economy and stability worldwide

 

[Steve]

Why don`t you keep cool and think about it that it happens that some sentences are being misunderstood?

You might have misunderstood it, but you confronted me as if you were pretty sure of what I meant. I admit I overreacted.

 

[Nofuture]

The phrase "Iran next" itself shows what an abnormal politics USA do. It is being taken for granted that somebody will be next. Why there should be somebody next at all? Next in what? In continuing the policy of the terror, the policy of the world "police force", which nobody wants except the US, Israel and UK, maybe some others (?).

Well, Do you know anything about Iran?
i think someones been watching too much Al-Jazeera Mr Nofuture .
Al jazeera gives Iran the image of being the perfect country where people have the right to express opinions freely, democracy, in which the people decide who they want as their next leader.
Nah, Iran is being led by a Regime, who kills hundreds of civilians daily on purpose, develops Nuclear weapons so they can attack another country at will. These worldwide destroyers aka Nukes need to be in the safe hands of USA tbh.

Just another lie .. There is still no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
And if they had is very unlikely that they would use it first. For what reason?
I also think, they have undoubtedly right to be military strong because of the aggressive nuclear neighbour Israel and because of threat coming from the USA.

I don’t watch Al-Jazeera, I don’t know Arabian language. I have watched some Iranian news and films, some of them in English, some with subtitles in English. I also watch from time to time BBC or CNN.

I found an article by de.wikipedia.org which clearly shows what a nasty politics UK and USA have been doing concerning Iran. I’ve translated it from German in English:

With Reza Shah Pahlavi (Reza Chan) began 1921 under the influence of England a new orientation of Persian to West. The contact of the state leaders to their folk was continuously decreasing and dissatisfaction in country was increasing. The fury concentrated at first against England.
Thanks the riches of oil Iran developed in to a regional power.

After the WW II it comes thanks Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq to nationalization of the oil industry. In 1953, Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had been elected to parliament in 1923 and again in 1944, and who had been prime minister since 1951, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax"). Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil. Through this unprecedented act with participation of the whole world, leading by the USA and UK, Mossadeq gets isolated. In spite of the economic crisis and the state defizit the Iranian people elect in democratic elections Mossadeq to President and keep the course of independency in spite of financial and materialistic losses.

But by the Allies supported Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, son of Reza Shah Pahlevi, speaks for an trade agreement with the USA. In this agreement Iran gets 50% of profit (earlier it were 5% (with UK)). But the nation demonstrates and supports Mossadeq, so Shah has to get out of country. The first time in the 2500 years history of Iran won the democracy.

But the CIA needs even not a week to revolt Shah back to power. With it has the USA a cost-effective oil supply till 1979.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1941-1979) loses soon completely contact to their own folk; following Mossadeq's fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernised Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, including systematic torture and other human rights violations, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. At the beginning of 1979 has he to leave Iran because of Iranian revolution.

In 1980 Iran was attacked by neighbouring Iraq, which had been supported by USA, and the destructive Iran-Iraq War continued until 1988.

We see clearly what the USA and UK “democracy” is :angry: . Just keep out with your „democracy” from this country!

We also see that Iranian folk is experienced in doing revolutions. If they were completely unsatisfied of their government, they would do a revolution on their own. In every case it is no one´s business except of Iranian themselves. It´s so obvious, that it even shoudn`t be a point of discussion.

A long time ago (19th century) UK had tried to colonize Iran (at that time Persia). The Persians hadn’t such good weapons as British. To protect their country from invaders they took big containers with boiling oil and “cooked” there their enemies. The British got out of there.
Maybe you`ll be next one, KoreBoltR

The point is, somebody who protects his own soil has much higher motivation, as someone who even doesn`t know what he is doing there...


I have some Iranian friends. I was astonished when on my question, they surely hate Iraqis because of the war, so many years Iranian had to protect their country (who helped them against this aggression from the side or Iraq and Saddam? As I know, nobody :angry: …), but the answer was No, it was Saddam`s fault.
Hmm, I`m not so generous and tolerant like Iranians. RESPECT!


USA is extraordinary, extremely angry about Iran is being only country in the Middle East which doesn’t lick the ass of the USA!
And that makes the USA terribly angry. The can´t stand it and are planning to attack this country since the Iranian revolution. The can´t stand it to see this country growing, developing itself and getting stronger and selling their oil to whom they want to (not to USA, not to UK!). This country ruins the plan of the USA to control the Middle East.

I don`t trust Bush not even for a penny. Imo it’s a very unstable, risky person without any sense of responsibility. Comparing him with Khatami (President of Islamic Republic Iran), he is hysteric, angry and barbaric. He uses such inexcusable terms as axes of evil. This term is very provocative.
Khatami seems to be intelligent, calm, self-confident, peaceful and is convincing.

Who from them both is more likely to do nonsense? Imo definitely Bush, don’t forget he has already done this!

Nukes need to be in the safe hands of USA tbh.

Ha, ha, ha, ha. It´s really ridiculous! I supose you didn`t answer my question about having any argument to support you statement, because you haven´t any:

Originally Posted by KoreBolteR
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?

USA is the only country which has already used nukes.
The USA is the country, which attacks others first, so it is more likely that it would attack others first also with nukes.


I´ve seen a lot of films made in US about people getting the control of US nukes and even of their president.

There is no guarantee it wouldn`t happen some day.

I also don`t trust NK and Russia.

And Israel. Israel is a big danger, it lies about not having any nukes at all. It has been having a very aggressive politics on Palestine for years.
But Israel is a closed friend of the USA ...

ISRAEL
Status: Suspected Nuclear Weapons State

Nuclear Weapons Tests
First: Unknown

Warheads
2001: 200 (estimated)

Israel's nuclear weapons program dates back to its creation in 1948 and evolved quickly in the 1950s and '60s with French assistance. Although Israel has never openly admitted to being a nuclear weapons power - its official policy since 1961 has been known as "nuclear ambiguity" - officials of the Middle Eastern country have stated that Israel would not be the first nation to introduce nuclear weapons into the unstable area. Some type of non-nuclear test, perhaps a zero yield or implosion test, occurred on Nov. 2, 1966, possibly in the Negev Desert. There is no evidence that Israel has ever carried out a nuclear test, although many observers speculated that a suspected nuclear explosion in the southern Indian Ocean in 1979 was a joint South African-Israeli test. Israel has the capability to deliver nuclear weapons with medium-range missiles and medium-range bombers.
cbsnews.com

pffff, other European countries?

Like France with a corrupt leader like Chirac, whos going to be questioned as soon as he leaves officers by police? and who was a big friend of the murderous saddam (trading wise).

Spain who pulled out of the war because they were afraid of the terrorists?

Germany who cant even control thier own economy?

at least Ukrainian people have voted for a candidate who is pro-american, unlike the pro-russian ex-leader who tried to cheat and kill to win his second term.

also heared that Russia may be secretly giving Terrorists in afghanistan and iraq weapons.

and ok since "the other countries in Europe know the truth", you tell me ... what is the truth?

It´s ridiculous! Insulting these country can't divert us from the fact, that most European countries doesn`t support war on Irak and thougth doesn`t support Bush`s politics. In this point I`m really proud of our Chancellor who very resolutely refused to participate in war on Iraq.

In our English course we discussed once that Blair might be even more responsible for the war on Iraq, because being more intelligent than Bush, he knew it wasn't right (oh Mr. Bush who even can’t properly articulate himself; I watched the debates during elections; comparing with Bush Kerry had better arguments and used a better language).

With truth I meant only truth related to the context, the truth about war on Iraq and about Bush. I naturally didn’t mean truth about everything or absolute truth .
I know that I know only a little bit about things I’d like to know.

1. I think, a good way to find truth about topic you are interested in is to analyse the information independently from your nationality, from country you live in, from your friends, from propaganda (through films, media), from parties etc.

2. From the film American history X (I`ve seen this movie several times because I like it very much): If you want to know the truth, you have to ask right questions. In that film the right question was: Does what you do makes your life better?

If we transfer this question to the world context, we have to ask this question: Does what one or other country do makes the world safer and better?


The topic would be really exciting, if it weren’t so dramatic...

 

[KoreBolteR]

The phrase "Iran next" itself shows what an abnormal politics USA do. It is being taken for granted that somebody will be next. Why there should be somebody next at all? Next in what? In continuing the policy of the terror, the policy of the world "police force", which nobody wants except the US, Israel and UK, maybe some others (?).

next to be forced to give up thier WMD's, which could annihilate the world. I dont feel safe with them there, they could attack us at thier will if we keep letting them make them.

Just another lie .. There is still no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
And if they had is very unlikely that they would use it first. For what reason?
I also think, they have undoubtedly right to be military strong because of the aggressive nuclear neighbour Israel and because of threat coming from the USA.

http://www.slantpoint.com/mt-arx/2003/09/evidence_of_iran_nukes.php

There is said to be evidence, are we going to let these madmen of the iranian government get away making these nuclear weapons, which could one day, ruin humanity...? NO

I don’t watch Al-Jazeera, I don’t know Arabian language. I have watched some Iranian news and films, some of them in English, some with subtitles in English. I also watch from time to time BBC or CNN.

I also dont watch Al-Jazeera, but i know it fuels hate directing towards the west, resulting in more people joining Terrorist organizations. Same, i watch BBC and CNN.

A long time ago (19th century) UK had tried to colonize Iran (at that time Persia). The Persians hadn’t such good weapons as British. To protect their country from invaders they took big containers with boiling oil and “cooked” there their enemies. The British got out of there.
Maybe you`ll be next one, KoreBolteR

Look smiling after the thought of me being meurdered by terrorists is not a discussion, fool :thumbs:
I'm assuming you want all people from the UK and USA to be boiled and cooked ... ffs.

btw your going back to the 19th Century, stick to normal times

I have some Iranian friends. I was astonished when on my question, they surely hate Iraqis because of the war, so many years Iranian had to protect their country (who helped them against this aggression from the side or Iraq and Saddam? As I know, nobody :angry: …), but the answer was No, it was Saddam`s fault.
RESPECT!

Yes it was Saddams fault, and when he was taken out of power, Terrorists started to kill civilians on purpose.

USA is extraordinary, extremely angry about Iran is being only country in the Middle East which doesn’t lick the ass of the USA!
And that makes the USA terribly angry. The can´t stand it and are planning to attack this country since the Iranian revolution. The can´t stand it to see this country growing, developing itself and getting stronger and selling their oil to whom they want to (not to USA, not to UK!). This country ruins the plan of the USA to control the Middle East.

so your saying ALL the countries in the middle east support USA? ..thats bs, i can only think of Israel.
Iran has weapons that could blow the world up, and Weapons with that scale of destruction shouldnt be in the hands of bad people (irans government). As soon as they have the chance they will bomb some countries to smitherines...

Wait, i see Japan and russia, france and germany all having great cultures and a way of life, without the help of USA and UK, but i dont see USA invading France because they can live without them... what your saying is total bs, no offence.
USA want the Middle east to be Tyrant and Terrorist free, giving the people the life than they want or SHOULD have..

I don`t trust Bush not even for a penny. Imo it’s a very unstable, risky person without any sense of responsibility. Comparing him with Khatami (President of Islamic Republic Iran), he is hysteric, angry and barbaric. He uses such inexcusable terms as axes of evil. This term is very provocative.
Khatami seems to be intelligent, calm, self-confident, peaceful and is CONVINCING

yes.. Khatami is very convincing. i agree with you on that.
if what you say is true, if Khatami is a very good person at convincing people that he is a good guy, he will get support from iran, as he has had support from you,

it seems like the way he convinces people (like yourself) with his lies is very good. but i dont trust him. a BAD man with human extiction weapons doesnt sound good. i can safely agree that Khatami is no better than a Terrorist Tyrant.

Ha, ha, ha, ha. It´s really ridiculous! I supose you didn`t answer my question

can you honestly see USA nuking Spain, or any other country, because i cant. Why would they, they would lose the support of the world and thier people, but if Iran nuked a country, people would be blaming it on the West for not Disarming Iran earlier.

USA is the only country which has already used nukes.
The USA is the country, which attacks others first, so it is more likely that it would attack others first also with nukes.

yes but that was too eliminate Terrorists and people who were dangerous to humanity...

I´ve seen a lot of films made in US about people getting the control of US nukes and even of their president. .

yeah, films are not real

I don`t trust NK and Russia.

i agree with you

It´s ridiculous! Insulting these country can't divert us from the fact, that most European countries doesn`t support war on Irak and thougth doesn`t support Bush`s politics. In this point I`m really proud of our Chancellor who very resolutely refused to participate in war on Iraq.

yes, Your chancellor met up with Iyad Allawi, Iraq's Prime minister, and Caught Al-qaeda members this week for trying to buy uranium. These terrorists being iraqi and palestinian, not american, not israeli...i might add.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4200009.stm

With truth I meant only truth related to the context, the truth about war on Iraq and about Bush. I naturally didn’t mean truth about everything or absolute truth .
I know that I know only a little bit about things I’d like to know..

so your arguing and you dont know much about it lol.
seems to me you assuming everything is USA/UK fault... ;(

From the film American history X (I`ve seen this movie several times because I like it very much): If you want to know the truth, you have to ask right questions. In that film the right question was: Does what you do makes your life better?..

American History X is my favourite film. but from what we see in that film is totally different what is happening in Iran and thier Nuclear Warheads.

try saying Does what you do makes your life better? to al-qaeda and the terrorists of this world who kill civilians on purpose. lol. i think what the eleven 9/11 hijackers did in 2001 has changed things in this world forever, and plus, the terrorists encourage recruits to commit suicide and blow themselves up to kill innocent people and "targets", but those suicide bombers wont make thier life better, because they wont have one any more, thier life has been robbed by an Al-Qaeda member, brainwashing him saying its what a
llah wants..

i remember watching bbc news this week, and they showed this indonisian guy eating the food an american helicopter dragged across the world to save them, then getting up on stage and abusing americans and the west, telling the people of indonisia this tsunami was a message from god, to act and hate america. yes, he was an Extremist muslim, the ones who imo, are killing the world, trying to make hatred from one religion to another/ one country to another. i can honestly say extremist muslim really does brainwash people. And i can see people from indonisia joining Al-Qaeda Very soon. sadly ;(

the topic would be really exciting, if it weren’t so dramatic...

its makes me sad seeing people join the terrorists and ruin this world

 

[The Monkey]

http://www.slantpoint.com/mt-arx/2003/09/evidence_of_iran_nukes.php

That was a terrible site. They seem to want it to be war!

yes but that was too eliminate Terrorists and people who were dangerous to humanity...

In what way were the 30000 children that was killed in the war "dangerous to humanity"?

 

[burner69]

Next to be forced to give up thier WMD's, which could annihilate the world. I dont feel safe with them there, they could attack us at thier will if we keep letting them make them

There is said to be evidence, are we going to let these madmen of the iranian government get away making these nuclear weapons, which could one day, ruin humanity...? NO

Your argument is flawed before it starts. Iran have no intent on using nuclear weapons, they want it for the same reason the US has hundreds of thousands of them, the same reason the UK has several hundred, the same reason pretty much every half developed country in the world has them - defense. Countries with nukes don't tend to get attacked as much.

Oh, and what gives you the right to 'let' them make nukes. This is just a sign that you think the US has the right to police the world - guess what, it dosen't.

 

[Nofuture]

next to be forced to give up thier WMD's, which could annihilate the world. I dont feel safe with them there, they could attack us at thier will if we keep letting them make them.

Next to control by the USA Middle East oil supply.

http://www.slantpoint.com/mt-arx/2003/09/evidence_of_iran_nukes.php

There is said to be evidence, are we going to let these madmen of the iranian government get away making these nuclear weapons, which could one day, ruin humanity...? NO

Imo it´s a suspiction.

Anyway,

they have undoubtedly right to be military strong because of the aggressive nuclear neighbour Israel and because of threat coming from the USA.

Look smiling after the thought of me being meurdered by terrorists is not a discussion, fool :thumbs:
I'm assuming you want all people from the UK and USA to be boiled and cooked ... ffs.

I thought British understand dark humour. Obviously not.

Yeah, if you comment my statements not even related to their meaning (what you have done several times), it`s not a discussion.

btw your going back to the 19th Century, stick to normal times

Didn`t you get it?

The point is, somebody who protects his own soil has much higher motivation, as someone who even doesn`t know what he is doing there...

Yes it was Saddams fault, and when he was taken out of power, Terrorists started to kill civilians on purpose. ...

Didn`t you get it?

Hmm, I`m not so generous and tolerant like Iranians. RESPECT!

so your saying ALL the countries in the middle east support USA? ..

What I´m saying is that Iran is the country in the Middle East which very resolutely keep the course of their independency.

I admit, this sentence wasn`t formulated clearly enough.

USA want the Middle east to be Tyrant and Terrorist free, giving the people the life than they want or SHOULD have.. ..

Bs!

Read again the article I translated.

it seems like the way he convinces people (like yourself) with his lies is very good. but i dont trust him. a BAD man with human extiction weapons doesnt sound good. i can safely agree that Khatami is no better than a Terrorist Tyrant...

Just change the name in this sentence in to Bush and than it`s OK.

yeah, films are not real ...

Yeah, but there is no guarantee it wouldn`t happen some day.

yes, Your chancellor met up with Iyad Allawi, Iraq's Prime minister, and Caught Al-qaeda members this week for trying to buy uranium. These terrorists being iraqi and palestinian, not american, not israeli...i might add.

What and who`s politics helped them to get terrorists?

so your arguing and you dont know much about it lol.
seems to me you assuming everything is USA/UK fault... ;( ...

If you don`t understand humour, why do you excpect the others would do?

American History X is my favourite film. but from what but from what we see in that film blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ...

???

In that film the right question was

You put in to your messages some ballast which seems to have a personal aspect.

?

 

[KoreBolteR]

yes your right Kore, i bow to you :cheers:

ok :E

btw, i did get those "dark humoured jokes", i was jus seeing what youde say.