Target: Iran

With all the talk of Iran in the recent week(s), what do you make of the
situation? Do you think that it will ever happen, seeing our current
military..."stretchiness"...if you know what I mean and our number of
allies? The UK has just declared that they will not back us in a war in
Iran if it should happen, so that must be a blow to those who would enjoy
a war there (or the benefits thereof), but Bush's upcoming meeting with
Blaire may change some opinions. It seems that, while somewhat of a
far-and-away situation, it is entirely possible and the events seem to be
playing out in the same way that they did before Iraq. Even if we have
very little support, it may still be possible for some very important people
in Israel to give the word and the American government will reply simply,
"how high?"

.opt

We had no reason to attack Iraq, we've even less reason to attack Iran. If we have anyone to worry about, it's North Korea, and that is even sketchy... maybe we, America, should look at what we're doing.

Check out the Project for the New American century. Read thier essay entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses (it was written by people such as dick cheney, paul wolfowitz, donald rumsfeld, etc.) There is no doubt that they want to attack Iraq. Im 100% sure of it. Whether or not they have the balls or the resources to go through with it has yet to be seen.

Everyone! I wish to cause pain and suffering to everyone so the world will wake up! Then maybe people will be less ignorant.

The moment they begin seriously discussing attacking Iran, I am leaving the country. With how thin we're already stretched, the only way they could accomplish a real attack on Iran is by instituting a draft.

If they do begin to discuss it (at the moment Dick Cheney is saying "We
don't want a war in the Middle East...hahaha), I'm considering getting
together with some friends and taking time off school to go protest in D.C.
I think the public outcry against Iran would be monumental, having seen
the bull crap that occurred with Iraq.

I still seriously doubt anyone would be stupid enough to try to pass a
draft (the two draft bills which caused all this commotion were both
created by Democrats...it was just a way to make Bush look like a
bastard, not that it's a very hard thing to do...and it worked). If there is,
however, I have a few friends in Canada who live near the border and will
have guest rooms open for anyone who can make it to their house, so if
that does happen and anyone's interested I can let you know the info and
stuff.

.opt

Within a year, we'll be in a war with Iran. I'd bet my life savings on it. Within 5 years, there'll be a draft. I'd bet everything I own on that.

Optium, I am more than interested in that. I do feel that I may someday have to worry about the draft, and I will happily dodge it. I for one, will NOT kill for my country.

Neither will I. I refuse to kill another person in a war that I don't even believe in.

Seymour Hersh, who has published numerous articles on this very subject, believes that we'll be getting our feet wet in Iran very soon, perhaps even this coming summer with a few quick air strikes disguised as terrorists targets in Iran.

It's getting harder and harder to take this Administration seriously when comments like Cheney's "We don't want a war in the Middle East" and, Rice's "We believe in diplomacy, not pre-emptive war" are filling the air and TV waves. Are we really supposed to have that short an attention span that we just forget about Iraq?

I've had a feeling all along that the moment the Iraqi Elections happened, we'd pull out of there and if/when the new government collapses, somehow it would no longer be our responsibility, but instead the new government's own fault. How's that for twisted logic?

Iraq Iran North Korea, Saudi Arabia, countries such as these cannot just become democratic overnight, or even in the course of a year, and almost surely not through strength of arms and war. It needs to be a conscious decision on the part of the people of that country to change the government before anything can ever be stable.

Take care all.

Iraq, or any country we invade, will never become a democracy. Never in U.S. history have we EVER set up anything other than puppet governments. We are not giving the Iraqi's democracy. Period. That is an inarguable fact in my opinion. The whole argument that we are giving them democracy/freeing them from a ruthless tyrant is absurd and invalid. We have never done that before, and if history has shown us anything, it wont happen now. They are just going to end up with another ruthless tyrant in 20 years. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

Either that or it will become a lapdog nation. The point of them saying we dont want a war and its for freedom and all that its because they just want a facade to hide behind in. If you by now did not see that USA is using those words to justify what they do and to let them do whatever the hell they want, they need to wake up and drink alot of coffee. USA is basically a tyrant in most country's eyes, its not surprising.

USA has always used twisted logic for doing things for their own agenda. Alot of the things they say they do, beliving them for face value is kinda dumb, they just want an excuse to do what they planned.

Well, Japan turned out quite well.

But that's our only success.

Japan wanted it however, you cannot turn a country to democratic if it doesnt. THe japanese just saw that it would be better this way for them, hence they changed and most asian countries with it.

Blair can be easily held responcable and is answerable to many people, So unless he wants to be booted out of office he wont dare back this war up, and hes power hungry so it isnt worth his while.

What I find interesting is that usually, a leader with a strong sense of clear and concise language is the one who can rally people behind his cause, but somehow, Bush has amassed a following of ignorant voters with his speeches that are not clear, that are not diligent. Hitler had a great talent for speaking, hence, he gathered a large following, and the country was in a desperate time. Roosevelt was a great speaker. Churchill was a great speaker. I don't understand how Bush has the people backing him that he does. It's uncanny.

Fear mongering, AKA, Shinra -FF7... They scare the people and cause fear among the people and when they are scared, and present themselves as the heros.

Shoot, forget about Shinra, everything in Orwell's 1984 fits perfectly in the
situation.

Then again he was a political genius.

.opt

I dont see how people can compare the president to Hitler. I just dont see how, Im not accusing any of you doing this, but its a stupid comparison IMHO. And when Iran or North Korea ever starts somthing, and the world could've done somthing about it rather then finger pointing at the USA for being the agressor, its your fault world.

Iran won't do anything, and I doubt North Korea will. Iran is a threat to no one. Unfortunately I can't say the same about North Korea, but I still don't think that they would do anything that would get them obliterated.

I dont know why people are so scared of North Korea, if they have half a brain cell between them they wont attack us and risk certain death in the process =/

BTW do you think USA will reconstruct Iraq after the war? Somehow its doubtful imo. USA does rarely know the consequences of war yet other countries have with USA participating in it.

Iran is a threat to someone. Israel. They've recently gotten hold of
weapons that they say will be used to defend their country from Israel.
Israel is pissed about this and thus the US must be (protect that 51st
state boys).

.opt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

I dont know why people are so scared of North Korea, if they have half a brain cell between them they wont attack us and risk certain death in the process =/

BTW do you think USA will reconstruct Iraq after the war? Somehow its doubtful imo. USA does rarely know the consequences of war yet other countries have with USA participating in it.

---

Koriea needs our money, we need thier prostitutes/slaves. It's a functioning relationship..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harvest Moon

Koriea needs our money, we need thier prostitutes/slaves. It's a functioning relationship..

---

...in all due respect...what the $#@%? -_-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

...in all due respect...what the $#@%? -_-

---

lol, I have a bleak sarcasm, forgive.

On a somewhat related note, have you seen the film "Spartan", Harvest Moon? It deals with international crime waves as well as how the shadowy underbelly of the US Government works.

Take care all.

Someone mentioned that we cannot make Iraq a democratic government because they don't want to change.

Not necessarily. By 'they' who don’t want democracy are Jihad Muslims over in Iraq that you hear about on the news all the time. ‘They’ are the ones making it appear so.

There are many people over in Iraq that wish for a democracy- you just don't hear about them because they don't go and blow up a whole convoy. My unit is currently in Iraq and they say there are plenty of people who are grateful for the US being over there. I won't get into my personal opinion about the war or the people over there- but I do know that some Iraqi's want peace... and democracy. Straight from a soldiers mouth.

The real questions I have include:

Does Iraq want America's version of democracy? It's all fine and good to say that everyone should be free, but how we define free can differ greatly to how others might define it.

Is Iraq truly prepared to divide religion from politics (though that's something the USA is struggling with mightily itself) which is part of how a democracy works?

Can Iraq keep the peace on its own, will the elected leader have any real way of keeping power?

These same questions would apply if/when Iran comes up as another place to establish American democracy.

Take care all.

Most of u guys know me, ive met few people i consider as vocal as myself against the Bush Admin. and the Iraq war. But they may have a reason if what Iran does violates International agreements. We learned that we must strike against those who break the agreements when we had the League of Nations after WW1 and hitler built the army backup, against the International Protests.

Though i dont like the idea, we cant let the world lax agin like they did after WW1 or we may find ourselves in a similar position.

But to make it clear i dont beileve that those sanctions against them having the Nuclear weapons are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Optium, I am more than interested in that. I do feel that I may someday have to worry about the draft, and I will happily dodge it. I for one, will NOT kill for my country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomethingBig

Neither will I. I refuse to kill another person in a war that I don't even believe in.

---

I'd hope not, personally i just recieved confirmation that Selective Service recieved my registration (My 18th birthday is in October). And my civics teacher and I had a long dicussion about the possibility of war with Iran and the draft, and my options.

I came to the conclusion, that i will NOT SENTENCE SOMEONE ELSE TO GO TO WAR IN MY PLACE. My draft number is 72, in Vietnam they far surpassed that. I dont know if they are gonna redraw the numbers before the draft or what, but i know that if i have to pull the trigger so somebody else doesnt have to, i'll do it.

If u dodge u may end up sending a cousin or friend, or someone else u care about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Super Christ

The moment they begin seriously discussing attacking Iran, I am leaving the country. With how thin we're already stretched, the only way they could accomplish a real attack on Iran is by instituting a draft.

---

Precisely. If we can attempt to distill republic-democractic values on one country and watch our country divide, then our country will fall if we attempt anymore attacks. I fear for my country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane

Most of u guys know me, ive met few people i consider as vocal as myself against the Bush Admin. and the Iraq war. But they may have a reason if what Iran does violates International agreements. We learned that we must strike against those who break the agreements when we had the League of Nations after WW1 and hitler built the army backup, against the International Protests.

---

I don't agree with the UN. I wouldn't have agreed with the League of Nations, either. I don't give a damn what the UN says about Iran; America has every right to invade the country because it is an outlaw nation, but that doesn't mean that we have to. And, quite frankly, we shouldn't attack Iran because we can't handle more wars.

Quote:

---

I'd hope not, personally i just recieved confirmation that Selective Service recieved my registration (My 18th birthday is in October). And my civics teacher and I had a long dicussion about the possibility of war with Iran and the draft, and my options.

I came to the conclusion, that i will NOT SENTENCE SOMEONE ELSE TO GO TO WAR IN MY PLACE. My draft number is 72, in Vietnam they far surpassed that. I dont know if they are gonna redraw the numbers before the draft or what, but i know that if i have to pull the trigger so somebody else doesnt have to, i'll do it.

If u dodge u may end up sending a cousin or friend, or someone else u care about.

---

yeahi understand that.But since the drafting laws have changed.Let see..Now a mothers only son can get drafted.So that destroys whole families.it does a lot of things.The fact thatI'm my moms only son and she just cant have another baby i mean my dad left her and she can't give birth anymore .Right after she had me well lets just say she had cancer in her uteris adn they removed it.Completely.so yeah my whole family bloodline would die out if I die fighting a war I don't believe in.But thats just me being black and young.

I personally would dodge a draft. I refuse to kill someone, I simply will not take another human life. I am also not physically strong, I would not be an asset to the military.

The best goal for Iraq now is to try and set up a stable government, give them an army to help enforce the peace, and in doing so getting the hell out of there.

I seriously doubt we'll be going anywhere else anytime soon. A draft will probably be the final straw that will break the proverbial camel's back. My mother insists I go to Canada if they ever think to deploy me, but that's a fanatical idea that I would never be able to carry out. I would never be able to live knowing that I abandoned my country in an hour of need. I would be branded a coward and a traitor- volunteered or not.

I really don't believe in some of the reasons for the war either- but if someone shot at me, I would shoot back and I would shoot with the intent to kill them. Over there, the people shooting you wouldn't spare you one inch. If you're captured as a soldier expect to be executed on video tape. It's a scary thought, but its a harsh realitily with high probability.

Now the Bush administration isn't perfect, but because he's in office is probably the only reason I wasn't sent packing over to the sandbox after I got out of training. I don't want this to burst into a Bush vs. Kerry thread, but I don't think Kerry would have done much but add more bodies over in the desert. He was full of empty promises, I felt, throughout his entire campaign. Liberals hate the army anyway :p but that's besides the point.

I doubt Iraq will become an "American democrasy" government, but I hope it will eventually evolve into something just as stable and not as twisted or cruel as it was under Hussein's reign. The problem with American democracy is the fact it was formed using the Christian religion. Islamic is a very different religion- which may cause problems in the future.

Now, my solution to the whole problem is much simpler... but would really upset a lot of people in the world. I noticed a lot of service members share it- surprisingly- but then, no one wants to go to war.

EDIT:;

Quote:

---

I am also not physically strong, I would not be an asset to the military.

---

Oh believe me- they'll make you strong. I was 98lbs going into Basic and I now weigh 109- not too big of a difference- but I was in the top three for being the most physically fit, best shooter, and best leader. Believe me- the Army will make you an asset- really if you want it or not, hehe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

I personally would dodge a draft. I refuse to kill someone, I simply will not take another human life. I am also not physically strong, I would not be an asset to the military.

---

theres alway the airforce if oyu rsmart enough lol.I can get through it in a breeze and they really couldn't find anything to kick me out.The only thing that would have me fihg ta war is because my dad served int eh gulf war and my grandpa on my dads side served in vietnam and my grandpa on my moms side served in WW2.And my great grandpa on my dad side served in Spanish-American war.But other than that nope I wouldn't join the military I would dodge the draft.Also my dad won't let me do it anyway.Even though hes 2k miles away from were I live.

If I fly a plane and bomb someone, I've merely increased the amount of blood on my hands, so to speak. Of course the chances of me flying aren't too high, but I would still feel culpable in aiding the military kill people. I do not fight, and I refuse to be party to slaughter. Period.

"The problem with American democracy is the fact it was formed using the Christian religion. Islamic is a very different religion- which may cause problems in the future."

Indeed. One could even argue that the greatest single challenge the world faces now is how to make various religions co-exist without it somehow erupting into conflict or holy wars of some nature.

Deep down though, both Islam and Christianity at heart are well intentioned religions that preach loving life and peace, yet in our era, they both have been perverted in various ways to divert attention away from more high minded ideals and are used as a means to seperate, to cause strife and conflict and could ultimately be at the very heart of a rift in society.

Also, BtV, I believe that makes you a conscientious objector.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

I do not fight, and I refuse to be party to slaughter. Period.

---

You mean if you got drafted? Or are you just talking about putting yourself in... uh the terrorist shoes? Because you were talking about flying planes with bombs- just kinda confused as to the picture you were trying to paint with your words.

And I know there is some word the military uses for people who do not wish to use violence in the time of war. I just can't think of it right now. On the tip of my tongue. It is possible- but I think it's very difficult to be "approved" for that type of service.

edit: My opinions slightly biased from the experiences I've had with the people we're at war with. I personally feel the only people getting slaughtered are our men and women in the military. Which I don't want to be a part of either. :mad: Though we have taken the man out of power who was responsible for the countless slaughtering of his own people. So maybe there is a little bit a good out of this whole mess.

If I get drafted, I'll choose prison instead, or possibly the marine core band, since they don't have to fight. I refuse to kill another living person.

As far as the bombs, what I'm saying is if you drop a bomb on someone you've still killed, probably several people at that, and I won't do that either.

If I understand military law correctly, claiming that you are indeed a conscientious objector, and being able to prove it to a Court of Appeals, would either exempt you from service, or would place you in a non-combat department, such as the band or as some sort of civil service clerk and the like.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer

yeahi understand that.But since the drafting laws have changed.Let see..Now a mothers only son can get drafted.So that destroys whole families.it does a lot of things.The fact thatI'm my moms only son and she just cant have another baby i mean my dad left her and she can't give birth anymore .Right after she had me well lets just say she had cancer in her uteris adn they removed it.Completely.so yeah my whole family bloodline would die out if I die fighting a war I don't believe in.But thats just me being black and young.

---

Wow. u just described my stituation down to the word. Except that my parents still live under the same roof, but they hate each other. My mom had her uterus removed. And i myelf am also the only son, and black and young. Its strange that we have these different views.

Quote:

---

If I understand military law correctly, claiming that you are indeed a conscientious objector, and being able to prove it to a Court of Appeals, would either exempt you from service, or would place you in a non-combat department, such as the band or as some sort of civil service clerk and the like.

---

If that is truly the case, I would most certainly go that route. I hate the notion of violence and feel that war is ultimately pointless, usually it ends up in the obliteration of one society or surrender, after thousands, even millions of people have been killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

If I fly a plane and bomb someone, I've merely increased the amount of blood on my hands, so to speak. Of course the chances of me flying aren't too high, but I would still feel culpable in aiding the military kill people. I do not fight, and I refuse to be party to slaughter. Period.

---

Try being in a dog fight dude.Its tougher than ground combat I tell you that.

And you seemed to have missed the point entirely. I DON'T want to kill someone and I see no difference with gunning someone down on the field or bombing them from a "safe" distance.

I will fight for a war I believe in. I will go and happily fight for my country, but only if I believe in the war we're fighting. I don't condone wars, I condone justice. What America has done is not justice, it is conquest.

I'm really not very smart, but I want to be smart, so I'll start here. I was travelling for a week or so, and I didn't really get the news but I did hear something about Iran.

What did Iran do, and why would America go to war with them?

Iran didnt do anything, probably America does not like their current government system so they are going to attack it to bring a mock democracy to it. America always did stuff like this, pretty much this is even worst than the communist regime because it is masked behind the word "Freedom". America will always push this stuff in front of other countries' faces even when some of the things are none of their buisness.

Kinda makes them taking over the world, except unlike previous failures that relied on brute force solely, rallying people behind them in the name of "Freedom" and attacking other countries to set up a government THEY want on a "terrorist nation", is much more easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resha

I'm really not very smart, but I want to be smart, so I'll start here. I was travelling for a week or so, and I didn't really get the news but I did hear something about Iran.

What did Iran do, and why would America go to war with them?

---

Bush fears that Iran will do something to Iraq or something. Thats all.Since Iraq isn't its own country anymore if Iran invades Iraq then well yeah Iran started a war.That the USA provoked by invading Iraq.Ain't that Ironic.

I fear Canada will kill us all with maple trees one day, lets invade them. -_-

The point is that its none of the USA's buisness, it shouldnt be. Lets see how we would feel should some other country invade us because they want their form of government instead of the one we have right now in the name of freedom devastating the country in the process (not to mention the economy, now USA wont get a good economy for going in war for once).

Naw Canada has its eyes set on invading Turkey by attacking the country with Hockey players hitting bucks at the turkish army.

Actually I think it has more to do with Israel than it does with Iraq. It's
the fact that Israel and Iran have been having heated arguments recently--
a few months ago there was a story about Iran's weapons program and
Israel being up in arms about it, at that point I called it...war with Iran
coming up--seems like it's getting closer now.

It's also a matter of opportunity. The world is set up in this way:

(Iraq) ..... (Iran) ..... (Afghanistan)

.opt

Quote:

---

What did Iran do,

---

Nothing.

Quote:

---

and why would America go to war with them?

---

For power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resha

What did Iran do, and why would America go to war with them?

---

Well they are beileved to be starting a nuclear weapons program. Which would violate international nuclear arms treaties. And if the U.N. doesnt act it could find itself with less credibility when it comes to treaties. If they let Iran violate the treaty, why should anyone can to keep their word with the UN, they wont do anything if u break ur word.

Well we also believe Iraq has WMD..-.- Why did we believe they have this NOW and not before?

Well i am sure it doesnt matter since we never listened to the UN anyway by going to war in the first place. Frankly i feel the UN is just there to look good, it doesnt do jack in reality as it is seen with what USA did to a UN decision.

No, it's actually all the Sauds and Israel. We're playing a double ally and no one realizes it.
A few days after september 11th, 30 members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly to saudi Arabia. Why? Why there, why not someplace else. The saudi prince frequently visits the bush ranch. We are involved in heavy trade with the Sauds. Sauds wanted Hussein out of power because he was a lunatic. They feared he would attack them, I mean, he has threatened the entire region numerous of times.
Israel, they are our ally, but what do they give us? Not much really, it's just convenient, and strengthens our cause to the American people. Many Christian Fundalmentalists believe that we need to preserve the Israeli state for the end-times, and that Jesus will appear so long as it exists.

Let's look also at the fact that N. Korea poses a much more dangerous threat to America than Iran. But what don't they have... A valuable natural resource.

It's really quite intrigueing. One can wonder just how much the Bush Administration (the actual members, Ashcroft, Cheney, the oil big wigs) will profit on this.

Aw shaitz. If Iran didn't do anything!!!!

Did America only realise that Iran is a potential threat NOW? After so long?! And yes, people are worried that ISRAEL might go to war with Iran.

I agree that N. Korea is a bigger threat...why is America sticking its nose into this business? No good can come out of it...

The UN does try, but when it comes to stopping aggressive nations it's about as good as the League of Nations.

Quote:

---

Did America only realise that Iran is a potential threat NOW? After so long?!

---

erm i sorta meant that sarcastically. >_> If thats what you mean.

Found the Hersh article. It's a bit long, but most of it has been proven true thanks to cross-references within the Pentagon, who shall remain nameless apparently. Hersh is also among the first writers that predicted our invasion of Iraq, so he does have a track record of reporting actual relevant stories:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/050124fa_fact

Take care all.

Here's a question: If we are so worried about countries having WMD's, why don't we bomb Israel?

Bush should just get off his stupid arse and invade himself the Uk doesnt want to have anything to do with this.

*anymore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

Found the Hersh article. It's a bit long, but most of it has been proven true thanks to cross-references within the Pentagon, who shall remain nameless apparently. Hersh is also among the first writers that predicted our invasion of Iraq, so he does have a track record of reporting actual relevant stories:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/050124fa_fact

Take care all.

---

Unfortunetly the truth is usually harsh :( America loves to go to war offshores...

Bush is a war president. He said it himself, stupid asshole.

How can someone be both a 'war' president, and a 'compassionate' conservative at the same time? It just doesn't add up.

Lets face it. Republicans are no good at war. Vietnam, Grenada, desert storm, Panama. Both world wars were run by democratic presidents and won within the same year as our involvement.

Not quite - my knowledge about WWI besides what started it is sketchy at best, but if I recall correctly, we became involved in WWII in 1941, but it didn't end until 1944.

Quote:

---

I am also not physically strong, I would not be an asset to the military.

---

Only a very small percentage of the army is actually composed of combat units. I know that in the Israeli army it's 17%, and that's an extremely high percentage. In today's wars and conflicts, the importance of a well-trained and profession behind-the-lines-keep-the-war-going-and-support-stuff troops has risen a great deal. A good logistics or intelligence officer is worth a lot. But, of-course, if you don't want anything to do with war, you won't become that, either. But, then, you might as well leave the country, as the taxes you (supposedly) pay help fund teh eval war machine, too. :)

Quote:

---

What did Iran do, and why would America go to war with them?

---

Despite being told not to by both the UN, the USA and Israel, they have kept working on their nuclear program, and have nearly finished with it now. They ADMIT to having nuclear power, and they also have the means to launch war-heads (to reach Israel and Turkey, mostly). A situation where a nation with an extreme Islamist regime that has mass-destruction capabilities is a very dangerous one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Super Christ

Not quite - my knowledge about WWI besides what started it is sketchy at best, but if I recall correctly, we became involved in WWII in 1941, but it didn't end until 1944.

---

Well we didnt go on an offensive (D-DAY), until 1944. Really it was the Russians that won it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

A situation where a nation with an extreme Islamist regime that has mass-destruction capabilities is a very dangerous one.

---

I doubt they'd be dumb enough to attack either country with nukes, because Israels nuclear response would erradicate all life in Iran. Guaranteed. Not to mention with our trigger happy idiot in office, a US strike is almost certain. Then the UN would have no choice, but to interven, but by then it would be a no mans land, and Islamic Extremists would have even MORE reason to hate Israel and the US.

Bush wanted to draft everyone that was born in 1988 because he hates poeple who are born in 1988 so he started teh iraqi war to over extend teh military so by 2006 he can call a drafta dn draft every single person born in 1988 no matter if htey are teh mothers only son.

Quote:

---

America has every right to invade the country because it is an outlaw nation

---

really shows the ignorance of people hearing comments like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

Despite being told not to by both the UN, the USA and Israel, they have kept working on their nuclear program, and have nearly finished with it now. They ADMIT to having nuclear power, and they also have the means to launch war-heads (to reach Israel and Turkey, mostly). A situation where a nation with an extreme Islamist regime that has mass-destruction capabilities is a very dangerous one.

---

Oh wow, that's awful. Almost as bad as that one country like that, except they already HAVE used them. Y'know, the US.

Why is it ok for the US and not Iran again?

Quote:

---

Why is it ok for the US and not Iran again?

---

I think given the state of the world unfortunaely, yes, every nation has the "right" to possess nukes. It's just too arbitrary and tyrannical to go after countries with nuclear weapons programs because we dont "like" them -but of course that's not going to stop the megalomaniacal elitists of our government executing their defense plans so they can feel better. However one reality check for you - despite what u think the fact we used nukes against japan saved hundreds of thousands, possible millions, of lives period, japanese and american alike. People often overlook the the island invasions in the pacific were the battles with the highest death tolls, not Europe.

You know i think its just we have nukes too and we are going after those that have it as well..if we dont have nukes at least i would feel...SOMEWHAT justified in what they do =/ But right now its just lying through their teeth >.<

Yeah but USA really isnt that active in there nuke programs.Most of our nbukes just sit there underground in states like Kansas.

Shadow8017, I ask you this: Was it even necessary for us to invade and conquer Japan in the first place? We had crippled thier military power, and they were no longer a threat to us, or anyone else for that matter. Why then, did we invade, and occupy Japan, as well as use nuclear weapons? I think I know why, but I want to hear what your idea on this subject is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer

Yeah but USA really isnt that active in there nuke programs.Most of our nbukes just sit there underground in states like Kansas.

---

Er so? Shouldnt we get rid of all of them? I am sure they will keep alot active despite saying they are disarming them. Surely Iran wont be stupid to launch them and they will be kept dormat too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Shadow8017, I ask you this: Was it even necessary for us to invade and conquer Japan in the first place? We had crippled thier military power, and they were no longer a threat to us, or anyone else for that matter. Why then, did we invade, and occupy Japan, as well as use nuclear weapons? I think I know why, but I want to hear what your idea on this subject is.

---

Well they didnt surrender, they didnt disband their military, and their sucide bombings showed they were not going to stop, we had to shut them down at the core, and an invasion would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives at the best estimates.

Quote:

---

Well they didnt surrender, they didnt disband their military, and their sucide bombings showed they were not going to stop, we had to shut them down at the core, and an invasion would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives at the best estimates.

---

Right... but there is way more to it than that. Look at the Geography of the situation. The Americans were winning/had won the war in Europe. Our military would be station there. Then, if we won the war in the pacific, and took control over Japan, that would put us in a very favorable position over the USSR. If we could invade the Russians from Europe, and at the same time launch an invasion from Japan, the Russians would then be forced to fight a two front war.

Also, there was yet another reason as to why we used the atomic bomb, and why we used both atomic bombs. It was to send a message to Russia. One: That we had the atomic bomb, and Two: That we had more than one. By dropping two bombs the Russians would have to guess whether or not we had more than one. In reality, we didn't. We had two. But both bombs were dropped to make a statement of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

Er so? Shouldnt we get rid of all of them? I am sure they will keep alot active despite saying they are disarming them. Surely Iran wont be stupid to launch them and they will be kept dormat too.

---

Yeah USA has more nukes than anyone else.Because we are bastards yeah..I won't lie to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer

Yeah USA has more nukes than anyone else.Because we are bastards yeah..I won't lie to you.

---

Well while its true we are bastards, i think that its a good deterent against Aliens, North Korea, and China from attacking. I think we need nukes, we just dont need so many.

Like anyone would attack in the near future. Most countires are still recovering from wars and communism..

lol thats why the USA must keep these countries under crappy worst than 3rd world living conditions.So they dont pose a threat.The only way to do this is to convince people that they do pose a threat.

edit- USA is no different from the romans.The romans did hte same crap with celtic tribes and other tribes sucha s the Huns and othe rgroups.They would ally with one of them then the next day they are Rome's greatest enemies.Thats how they kept things under control in there favor.

They do that all the time, how about we dumb down USA so they wont be #1 and doing those things to other countries? For freedom right? I like to see that same mentality when you are at the recieving end and up the @$$ of it too for doing it to others.

The United States, and many other world powers, but mostly the U.S., demands that other countries abandon their nuclear ambitions. Everyone can point out that the U.S. is a hypocrit because they have loads of nuclear weapons. When it comes down to it, the other nations want nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the world powers who already have their nukes. So they'll disarm if the powers disarm. But the powers won't disarm because then they become vulnerable to nations that don't disarm.

Simply put, no matter what happens, we're all screwed over. The safest answer would be for everyone to completely disarm, but that's unrealistic. Another unrealistic alternative is to let everyone have their missiles. By naming countries who can and can't have nuclear weapons people piss other people off. If everyone has the weapons, at least it puts everyone in a stalemate. "If you fire at us, we'll fire at you."

But since both of those options are unrealistic we are stuck in a world where the powers make the decisions. Let's face it, unless Iran does what the United States wants, there will be trouble, most likely military involvement. It's just how it's going to be. It doesn't mean it's right, but that's just the way it is. They say the winners write history, that doesn't only apply to after a war is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

They do that all the time, how about we dumb down USA so they wont be #1 and doing those things to other countries? For freedom right? I like to see that same mentality when you are at the recieving end and up the @$$ of it too for doing it to others.

---

Yeah I'm jsut noticing how these idiots in washington don't look back in history to see htat there mkaing the same stupid mistakes that actually made rome itself fall.

It's a little unrealistic to compare Rome to the United States, I think. Thing is, the world we live in isn't the same as it used to be. The world is a lot smaller now. It's much easier to have an international influence, even control areas across the globe, than it was way back when. Rome fell because it spread its empire too thin. It's a bit more difficult to do that when we can cross the globe, realistically, in give-or-take a day. Such global influence is hardly unrealistic, and the United States has been able to manage to control areas half way across the world since the early 1900's.

However, just because the United States can maintain such an "empire" doesn't make it any more right.

If you really think they didnt look back at history..then you think too stupidly of them..they prolly did look back at history and stuff...and as long as its not fresh in anyone's mind or maskable, they will ignore it for their own ideals.

Back to the nuking part.I';m wondering why thry edon't get this voer with know and blow us to oblivion already?Its the waiting that sucks.

edit-they need to watch htat mvoie Wargames amd realise we are all screwed over if they use the nukes or yet even have them.It was kewl how htat computer compared nuclear warfare to tic tac toe and found out everyone was screwed either way.

I think the United States, and other world powers, realize that a nuclear holocaust would destroy us all. That's exactly why there were treaties made by the UN that prevent countries for possessing nuclear weapons. If a nation doesn't have nukes, it can't use nukes.

The whole problem is that because the world powers have nukes, every other country in the world believes they have a right to have them as well. Sure, it seems only fair. But here's a true a cliché, life isn't fair.

Why doesn't the UN go the Final FAntasy 11 route except they renamed a few things.Suh as.Instead of being called adventurers we become Mercs.But the use of mercenaries really does scare the UN.Maily because of what happened in 1996.When a private ARMs group took control of an african country that was under control of rebels.There were less mercs in the arms force thant ehre was rebels.They literally abolished the rebels.Only one merc casualty.And it was jsut a gun shot wound he didn't die just an injury.Then the UN went in a uproar.They got scared because this would change the way warfare has always been fault.So they ordered teh private ARMS to get out and they did.And the rebels rised again and killed UN peacekeepers.Then UN pulled out.Another thing is the country that hired the ARMS payed less when they hired the private corp.The UN peacekeepers who did a crappy job made that country pay 2 billion bucks.While the private ARMs only wanted 22 mil.And UN peacekeepers pulled out after a few of them were captured and killed by the rebels.But yeah UN hates the privatization of warfare..

Well, thank god for this.

It looks like Bush may actually behave rationally for once.

I have just been skimming this thread but I would like to add this:

The United States will invande Iran no matter WHAT happens. Nuclear weapons have very little to do with Bush's agenda. Iran, just like Iraq, is about securing the Middle East and establishing PERMANENT military bases there. (that means there will be NO 'exit strategy') I have said this a million times before, so I will not go into deapth about this. But if anyone wants to know what is really going on, they need to check out an essay written by the "Project For a New American Century" called "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

By the way, this is NOT some liberal BS propoganda. The Project For the New American Century (PNAC) is a washington based CONSERVATIVE think tank. The people who wrote the report "Rebuiling America's Defenses" were all conservatives. Some names you all should be familiar with are Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, along with many other Bush Senior officials. This plan outlines what America needs to do to preserve it's 'superpowerdom' over the rest of the world. I urge everyone to at least check this out.

Yeah nik we all know that by now.Those who dont know it our deny bush is doing htis is just lying to themselves.As a americna I speak for all americans in saying.We can't just look within our borders.WE have to start looking at world events.Getting your political opinions on a international standpoint.If americans whom can vote would do this.Then Bush would've never got re-elected.

Lorblazer, if we all know that by now, then how come I am the only one arguing that point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

I have just been skimming this thread but I would like to add this:

The United States will invande Iran no matter WHAT happens. Nuclear weapons have very little to do with Bush's agenda. Iran, just like Iraq, is about securing the Middle East and establishing PERMANENT military bases there. (that means there will be NO 'exit strategy') I have said this a million times before, so I will not go into deapth about this. But if anyone wants to know what is really going on, they need to check out an essay written by the "Project For a New American Century" called "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

By the way, this is NOT some liberal BS propoganda. The Project For the New American Century (PNAC) is a washington based CONSERVATIVE think tank. The people who wrote the report "Rebuiling America's Defenses" were all conservatives. Some names you all should be familiar with are Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, along with many other Bush Senior officials. This plan outlines what America needs to do to preserve it's 'superpowerdom' over the rest of the world. I urge everyone to at least check this out.

---

Ive just been reading on the PNAC, and if its true its very scary, immoral and will cause to much death. Its seems almost naziesque, trying to surpass what the British Empire is never a good thing. I really cant belive some person has sat down and thought "its best for everyone if all the countries act in our own intrests." I sure as hell dont want to live in an american era.

I think at the moment it's probaly between Syria and Iran. Wouldn't be
surprised if they tried to get both, though.

.opt