Many people in Iran still like Americans, starting a war with them should take care of one more protential friend we have in the world!
somefellow said:Canada likes you ..........most days .
Yes!it makes me weary just reading this thread....doesn't anybody feel the least bit of OUTRAGE?
Hehe!Fidelista said:Yes , I agree. Our enemies will make the most of our mistakes.
I think its time to reforge our friendships with western Europa.
Regain trust, and move ahead. This "Old Europe" is indespenable to the U.S..
The UN is a player and cannot be ignored--belittled.
These games should played by competent players who have vision and common sense, not cowboys and Israelis.
It does scare me when I find agreement with you ---just kidding.
We just approach things from different angle, most times want to get to same place. >f
I just don't see bombing Iranian people as a solution to any weapons they may have!Fidelista said:Do I detect some sarcasm here?
Seriously, leftists , Euros, the UN, and the world in general are worried about atomic weapons in the middle east---its a world problem.
Nations like Iran , Israel, N.Korea, Pakistan , are unstable , and in the case of N.Korea and Israel, dangerous. They should be disarmed---by hook or crook.
I think conservatives are just as worried about outcome as "commies" like me.
Their approach to problem solving leaves a lot to be desired , and turn a blind eye to Israel, , but we all want peace and security.
There are worse than Lan!!!!
:up:iltos said:not piling on, LAN
remember the domino theory?....how communism was gonna crush us if we let it make inroads ANYWHERE?
i believe the same thinking is at work here, only, as your avatar (very cool, btw) illustrates so well....we are just pouring fuel on the flames
as the buffalo springfield once sang...
"into your heart it will creep
it starts when you're always afraid"
imo...the considerations bantied about on this thread do not point to a strong america, but a weak one
Duh!linskyjack said:Thats funny----Mississippi is a red state--why poison everyone?
With Bush threatening Iran now, maybe he'll invade the wrong country again!angelize56 said:Maybe North Korea will have to be next! Sounds ominous!!
MSNBC Breaking News
North Korea's government publicly acknowledged for the first time Thursday that
it has nuclear arms, and said it is suspending participation in six-country
talks aimed at getting it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. :down:
The first president to turn tail and run from terrorists was Ron Reagan. Condi Rice even said so!WarC said:Utter nonsense? The only thing nonsensical about it is the complete lack of reprisals the Clinton administration deemed necessary.
Come on, one single missile fired at one single Al Qaeda training camp thought to house Bin Laden after the first world trade center bombing? There should never have been a second bombing. It didn't kill anyone - that camp was probably back up and running later the same day. That would only add to their belief that we wouldn't retaliate as Bush did.
What about all those fits of aerial attacks Clinton ordered on Baghdad? Would that not simply stir the pot, fan the flames more? This is not putting down an enemy this is encouraging him.
After the attacks on embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, plus the first WTC bombing, the writing was on the wall. Clinton's half-baked retaliations did nothing to deter terrorist organizations from attacking us, it only emboldened them.
xico said:That's an interesting image. Perhaps it would be more appropriate over at the evolutionary thread. Kind of shows the linkage between our leaders and our ancestors, doesn't it
I think that's a pretty good assessment!lighthouse said:I was stunned when I heard/read Condoleeza Rice making war gestures towards Iran recently. Not only is the population twice that of Iraq, (over 65 million) it's geography is vast enough to conceal insurgents probably far greater in numbers than those reportedly in Iraqi territory.(estimated at around 200,000). Iran is predominantly mountainous, as opposed to Iraq which is about 80% open dessert, which would make any S,A,D operations very difficult - surely? How many coalition troops would be needed to even attempt anything like they've (disasterously) tried to do in Iraq? Looking at the complete misunderstanding and underestimation of the task in pre-Iraq war planning what horrors would lie ahead in any proposed Iranian conflict if the same ineptitude applied? (Re:The hugely over optimistic idea that the aftermath of a war in febuary of that year could be monitored by a paltry 35,000 troops in Kuwait by the summer).
The resistance to allied 'occupation' in comparitively secular Iraq would probably pale into insignificance to that of a predominantly theocratic society, where the word "Jihad" would take on an even bloodier significance than any previous incarnations we might have known over the years. Then - of course - there's always the question of Irans border with Afghanistan, and how a coalition could rely on any conduciveness there. They certainly couldn't with the Afghan/Pakistan border where 5 bases had to be abandoned because of continued Al'Qaida and Taliban activity. Let's not forget here that A'Q is still operational and capable of stuff like the Madrid bombings and Russian School siege - the perpetrators of the latter turning out to be Saudis and NOT Chechen. So much for the Afghani campaign then! Put the whole theatre of operations together and look at the vastness of it all. How many thousands of miles of border (from Jordan in the west - to Pakistan in the east) would need to be secured?
Then, what of the situation in the west? Life in combatant countries could become unlivable as the predictably obvious escalation of terrorist activity makes our cities unsafe. The resulting 'anti terror' measures our government would inevitably introduce will see our remaining civil liberties further erroded as the upsurge in paranoia and fear-Politicking perpetuates each another. Every excuse and dodgy agenda would be pushed through the legislative process as 'emergency' powers are enacted and UK society - as we have known it - effectively transforms into something of a martial state. The fervour generated by the sight of the uninvited western "Infidel" on Iranian soil would produce wave after wave of volunteers wanting to exact paramilitary warfare in the "infidels" backyard here and in the US. Those 'acceptable amounts of terrorism' famously referred to by John Kerry will look like something of an understatement in the resulting backlash.
Then there's the question of South Yemen (another of the more 'hardline' States in the region). Upon the opening of hostilities what part will they play as the west - erm - increases its presence? And while all this is going on, vast amounts of diplomatic scaffolding (plus some military equivalent) will probably be needed to prop up the Saudi regime against insurgent activity within and north of its own borders.
Human rights angle? See Post 152
This is more than terrifying, it's completely insane.
Western Philosophy "Don't just sit there, do something"!ComputerFix said:Well, we have to do something, otherwise "Bush has screwed up! Iran has nuclear weapons!"
Me too!angelize56 said:I hope the U.S. doesn't decide to take on the whole Middle East!
Its one two threelighthouse said:Oh well - hey why do anything by halves? Lets go into Syria AND Iran all at the same time. And then I'll turn up the stereo to Vol 10 with "Holidays in the sun" playing and the immortal line - "I didn't ask for sunshine AND I GOT WORLD WAR THREE". Yeah lets do it eh - lets light the blue touch paper and see the whole damn world go up in flames. Listen - You yanks might be sitting in your nice big open plan ranch houses in the 'burbs, thousands of miles away from anything remotely resembling a war, but why don't you come and look at our UK cities and you might notice how some of them don't have many buildings that are pre-1941/2. Why do you suppose that is? So by all means cogitate on your stupid wars if you want. Hell you were late for the first two, you sure as **** ain't gonna be for the third!!!!!
Mark Twain's take on war!xico said::up:
If I'm wrong, why didn't you correct it?LANMaster said:You need to work on your lyric recitals.
:up:xico said:And they sure won't go away by oppressing them, stealing their resources, bombing them, torturing them--or in colonizing them while we fund their death squads. :down:
Yup, its old. And yes, we still go to war!Bassetman: You did forget one thing though..........and that was the famous 'cheer' bit at the beginning (although T.S.G rules probably mean you wouldn't be able to put it here ) Didn't C,J or someone else contemporise it by putting it in a Gulf war context? Sigh - that was written in 1967 wasn't it? 38 years ago, and the world still goes to war