Are you worried about Iran? Is it right that we should be thinking about invading their country for having nuclear weapons when we ourselves have them? If it is good for the goose then surely it is good for the gander?
We in the west should be consciously reducing our nuclear arsenal. How many exactly do we need? One is one too many.
man its there legal and moral right to have a peaceful nuclear technology. they keep saying that they need it to produce electricity and Atomic energy Agency also couldnt find any thing which shows that they showing any intention to make nuclear weapon . all this is propoganda i think.
The difference between US having nukes and some place like Iran having nukes is that the US doesn't go around repeatedly threatening to wipe entire races of people off the face of the Earth.
Am I worried about Iran? No. That doesn't mean they're not a problem. I just think the Jews will prevent them (Iran) from doing something stupid should they get a nuke.
LoLing at
| Quote: |
| they keep saying that they need it to produce electricity |
Yes, they keep saying that. They've got a very large portion of all of the oil in the world and they keep saying that. Are you telling me they actually give a rat's ass about pollution from fossil fuels?? 
Also LoLing at
| Quote: |
| and Atomic energy Agency also couldnt find any thing which shows that they showing any intention to make nuclear weapon |
You don't need class P-2 centrifuges to make energy grade uranium... those are for making weapon's grade uranium. You don't need 3,000 centrifuges either. Once those existing 3,000 centrifuges get up to full speed, they'll be able to make a nuke. Estimates are one year to make weapons grade uranium with 3,000 centrifuges running at full speed.
The IAEA has found enriched uranium particles at a technical university, as well as recipes for high explosives and partial warhead designs.
Also, Iran says they will share the technology with other Islamic nations. Not really, I'm more worried about the nutcases who want to control every tiny aspect of the world and do idiotic things such as invade Iran.
Does it not create a division and imbalance when you have white western countries saying what Asian eastern countries can and cannot do.
Do you ever ask yourself WHY the muslim countries want to hurt the west so much? Do you not think it has something to do with about 150 years of western countries meddling and invading their countries and dictating what they can and cannot do.
The US had a revolution to kick out the Brits from meddling in their affairs. Have they learned nothing from this?
| Solid_State wrote: |
| Does it not create a division and imbalance when you have white western countries saying what Asian eastern countries can and cannot do. |
When they say they can't do what? Attack their neighbors for no reason? Allow governments to murder, rape and otherwise brutalize their citizens?
I don't think that creates a division at all, except between those that want to be dictators and those that want to be free, which is what the US wants for everyone; to be self ruled in the manner of their elected choice, not ruled by the strongest thugs in the area.
Look at Japan. We occupied them for a long time. We also occupied Germany and Italy. All are good and independent countries now. We don't try to tell people how to live, we try to tell them how to live freely.
| Quote: |
Do you ever ask yourself WHY the muslim countries want to hurt the west so much? Do you not think it has something to do with about 150 years of western countries meddling and invading their countries and dictating what they can and cannot do.
|
I think it has more to do with the 700 or so years that these same people have been trying to convert everyone around them to Islam or kill them. Only now they have a much wider reach with today's technology, so their efforts are broader. They also have oil money, so they can afford to be more active.
| Quote: |
| The US had a revolution to kick out the Brits from meddling in their affairs. Have they learned nothing from this? |
Yes, they learned that the Brits are now, and have been for a long time, our very best allies. We also learned that people DO want freedom, and we have been trying to give that to the ME for a long time. People are tired of being ruled by these islamic fanatics that dictate everything for them using 7th century mentality. | Billy Hill wrote: |
| The difference between US having nukes and some place like Iran having nukes is that the US doesn't go around repeatedly threatening to wipe entire races of people off the face of the Earth. |
Oh, really? So, how about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Basically wiping out entire cities of people, and blighting the land they live on for God knows how long...?
| Billy Hill wrote: |
| Yes, they keep saying that. They've got a very large portion of all of the oil in the world and they keep saying that. Are you telling me they actually give a rat's ass about pollution from fossil fuels?? |
Considering that US is one of the few countries not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, Iran obviously care more about lessening carbon emissions that other countries. Building nuclear power plants is one way of reducing carbon emissions.
I personally can't see the US invading Iran.
Iraq was already bombed back to the stone age after the Gulf War, and with the embargos and sanctions placed on it afterward, it was practically a lawless state, unable to defend itself, with little resources at it's disposal. The 'Coalition of the Willing (to suck George Bush's c*&k)' went into Iraq with limited resistance compared to other places the US have invaded (Vietnam, for example).
Iran is a completely different kettle of fish. They're have a large standing army. As far as I know, they sell oil to Russia and France, so by invading them, it's likely to piss off a lot more people than invading Iraq did.
| Billy Hill wrote: |
| Solid_State wrote: | | Does it not create a division and imbalance when you have white western countries saying what Asian eastern countries can and cannot do. |
When they say they can't do what? Attack their neighbors for no reason? Allow governments to murder, rape and otherwise brutalize their citizens? |
Governments 'raping their citizens'? Mate, I dunno what you've been reading, but it don't sound right.
If you want to talk about invading countries for no reason, how about Iraq?
| Billy Hill wrote: |
| I don't think that creates a division at all, except between those that want to be dictators and those that want to be free, which is what the US wants for everyone; to be self ruled in the manner of their elected choice, not ruled by the strongest thugs in the area. |
So why did the US fund the Taliban against the Russians? The US also backed Saddam against Iran as well. They meddle and still meddle in South American politics. The US backed Pinochet in Chile.
When it's suits them, the US 'talk' about Democracy and being 'free', but when you consider the fact that the US has the highest homocide rate and the highest incarceration rate of any other nation in the world, maybe 'being free' isn't all it's cracked up to be...
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Do you ever ask yourself WHY the muslim countries want to hurt the west so much? Do you not think it has something to do with about 150 years of western countries meddling and invading their countries and dictating what they can and cannot do. |
I think it has more to do with the 700 or so years that these same people have been trying to convert everyone around them to Islam or kill them. Only now they have a much wider reach with today's technology, so their efforts are broader. They also have oil money, so they can afford to be more active. |
"700 hundred years of the same people trying to convert everyone around them or kill them"?
Sound familiar? How about the Christians in South America? Or the slaughter of Native Indians in North America? The Crusades? The Inquisition?
I think someone here hasn't read a lot of history... naughty, naughty.
Perhaps you should take a long hard look at your 'Democratic and free' country before you go waving your finger at the bad, bad, muslim states of the world, son.
Oh, and as for 'their oil money', who do you think the biggest customer of middle-eastern oil in the world is...? | dfebb wrote: |
| Billy Hill wrote: | | The difference between US having nukes and some place like Iran having nukes is that the US doesn't go around repeatedly threatening to wipe entire races of people off the face of the Earth. |
Oh, really? So, how about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Basically wiping out entire cities of people, and blighting the land they live on for God knows how long...?
|
The ignorance is deep in this one.
Aside from the fact that I said "the US doesn't go around repeatedly threatening to wipe entire races of people off the face of the Earth", Japan attacked the US unprovoked. Japan was trying to wipe out entire Islands of people to get to the mainland and wipe out entire cities.
Japan brought it upon themselves and they were bombed in defense.
Bombing Japan saved many times more people than it killed including Japanese AND Americans, because Japan wasn't going to stop.
Kyoto ignored countries (like China) that are quickly becoming the worst polluters, and hammered countries (like the US) that are currently REDUCING the amount of pollution even without the lie that is Kyoto.
And for the record, Christians finally figured out that's not the way to do it. Much of Islam still hasn't grown up to this yet.
Your ignorance is beginning to bore me.
Do your homework before you go putting your foot in your mouth, little man.What gives America the right to be the big boss? So they shit money, oh well. Why do they have the right to see who can have nuclear power and who can't? The situation in Iraq, (don't tell me I'm uninformed, because I live in a country bordering it and know what the middle east really is like) could be a lot more peaceful should invaders step out.
EDIT: just my opinion.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| What gives America the right to be the big boss? |
Um, because we're the most powerful. Could be worse. We could all be speaking German with nary a Jew in sight.
| Quote: |
| Why do they have the right to see who can have nuclear power and who can't? |
Because in the hands of irresponsible children and/or thugs (often the two are inter-twined), it's very dangerous. Duh.
| Quote: |
| The situation in Iraq, (don't tell me I'm uninformed, because I live in a country bordering it and know what the middle east really is like) could be a lot more peaceful should invaders step out. |
Um, right. Just like there was peace before we stepped in... Give me a break.
If the US leaves, there will be peace because anyone who tries to fight for their freedom will be killed. | Billy Hill wrote: |
| And for the record, Christians finally figured out that's not the way to do it. Much of Islam still hasn't grown up to this yet. |
Thats like saying Christanity has/hasn't grown up to it. Islam is the name of the religion. The people of Islam are Muslims, like the people of Christianity are Christians. Islam and Christianity as religions are more similar than one would think. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Billy Hill wrote: | | And for the record, Christians finally figured out that's not the way to do it. Much of Islam still hasn't grown up to this yet. |
Thats like saying Christanity has/hasn't grown up to it. Islam is the name of the religion. The people of Islam are Muslims, like the people of Christianity are Christians. Islam and Christianity as religions are more similar than one would think. |
Oh. Sorry. Let me re-phrase the statement...
And for the record, Christianity finally figured out that's not the way to do it. Much of Islam still hasn't grown up to this yet.
There, better?Actually what I meant was many muslims still haven't grown up to it, and you have no right to say anyone following that religion hasn't changed.
Many Christians still haven't changed. Opus Dei straps barbed-wire around there waist so that they aren't attracted to people of the oppostite-gender.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Actually what I meant was many muslims still haven't grown up to it, and you have no right to say anyone following that religion hasn't changed. |
I didn't say anyone following that religion hasn't changed, you did. Don't put words into my mouth.
| Quote: |
| Many Christians still haven't changed. |
There are very few who haven't. Christians are not spending billions to recruit and train suicide bombers to go out and murder women and children while hiding behind them.
On the other hand, there are MANY Muslims who haven't. And more that are being indoctrinated into it daily.
I often hear the the US needs to "change the way it is viewed in the world". I beg to differ. It is clearly Islam that needs to change the way it is viewed, because many people view it as a barbaric, terroristic anti-freedom waste of a religion.
Ahh, Islam; the religion of peace that will chop off your head if you insult them. Remember... You Don't ****** With Muslims! You don't! Moved to Discuss World News
| Billy Hill wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | Actually what I meant was many muslims still haven't grown up to it, and you have no right to say anyone following that religion hasn't changed. |
I didn't say anyone following that religion hasn't changed, you did. Don't put words into my mouth.
| Quote: | | Many Christians still haven't changed. |
There are very few who haven't. Christians are not spending billions to recruit and train suicide bombers to go out and murder women and children while hiding behind them.
On the other hand, there are MANY Muslims who haven't. And more that are being indoctrinated into it daily.
I often hear the the US needs to "change the way it is viewed in the world". I beg to differ. It is clearly Islam that needs to change the way it is viewed, because many people view it as a barbaric, terroristic anti-freedom waste of a religion.
Ahh, Islam; the religion of peace that will chop off your head if you insult them. Remember... You Don't ****** With Muslims! You don't! |
Yes, its not the religion that's doing it. I'm pure Muslim, and I think the militants should be executed twice each for doing what they do in the name of Islam. They don't care about Islam, and they aren't true Muslims. My dad always told me that even though they might pray five times a day, the Islam that they say they follow isn't real Islam, its something they've made up to harbor their political beliefs. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| My dad always told me that even though they might pray five times a day, the Islam that they say they follow isn't real Islam, its something they've made up to harbor their political beliefs. |
That's why I say it is Islam that needs to change the world's view of Islam.
Have you noticed that when religious freaks go off the deep end in Christianity they are quickly denounced? Why will the so-called true Islamics not do the same? | Billy Hill wrote: |
| Um, because we're the most powerful. Could be worse. We could all be speaking German with nary a Jew in sight. |
The war with Germany was quite over before the US got militarily involved. Russia took the vast brunt of the war and they were already in Berlin when DDay occurred. Not to say we didn't help out Britain in the war, but basically we threw money at it until Japan finally dragged us into it unwillingly. There's many reasons Hitler even came to power and one of those involved the US (and other allies) imposing the Versailles Treaty on them with such viciousness, as well as the US/Allies ignoring Hitler's rise to power completely until it was too late to prevent the war.
Like I said, I don't wish to paint the US as if we were useless in the war, because we did do some things, but the idea that we were responsible for Hitler's downfall and the eventual collapse of Nazi Germany is absurd. Anybody with high school history knowledge would know that the US had very little to do with it in comparison to Russia/Britain (and certain other counties). The defeat of Japan is a different story however.
| Quote: |
| Because in the hands of irresponsible children and/or thugs (often the two are inter-twined), it's very dangerous. Duh. |
They are forced to act irresponsible because western countries refuse to allow them to manage their own internal affairs. We attempt to tell them everything they can/cannot do simply because we have billions of dollars put into our military while people starve on the streets and we go into trillion dollar debt. We have no right to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries unless it's a situation such as WWII when Hitler invaded Poland or Iraq invaded Kuwait (situations like that call for the superpowers of the world to unite and defend; imperialisation is not acceptable however).
Not only that, but people often fail to realize that the western world CREATED the current problems in the Middle East. Yes, they've been fighting for thousands of years, but the current problems are not related to that at all. We've funded nearly every terrorist organization (although I hate the word terrorist...it's a terrible way of describing them) in one way or another in the past. We allowed Bin Laden to come to power and even helped him along the way. We radicalized the entire Middle East against the Soviets during the Cold War. And now the vast majority of our actions in relation to the Middle East over the past 50-60 years have led to these unintended problems (an effect commonly referred to as blowback).
| Quote: |
Um, right. Just like there was peace before we stepped in... Give me a break.
If the US leaves, there will be peace because anyone who tries to fight for their freedom will be killed. |
Nobody is arguing the Middle East is a peaceful region. It definitely wouldn't be even if the US wasn't there. That doesn't automatically give us the right to march in with a form of imperialism and take over their country to "make it better," as they say. Iran was not a threat to the US until our endeavors with them during the Cold War. Iraq was not a threat to us at the time we invaded. It won't be a peaceful region with the US there. As a matter of fact, us being there simply breeds more and more hate and the only way that hate can be destroyed is by killing every anti-western Muslim...and hopefully you don't recommend that. It's either that, or mind our business. The ideology of radical Muslims is so deeply rooted in Islam that one would basically have to take out the entire religion to destroy radical Muslim. It's not a feasible nor worthy task.
On a side note, I think it's odd that we constantly get on other countries for things, but we can't take care of ourselves. We give the Iraqis free health care but we can't get it here. We're in the midst of the biggest invasion of the United States in its entire history (speaking on immigration of course). We have poverty levels above many first world countries. If we were to fix ourselves first and create examples, perhaps the world wouldn't be as wary to listen to us. The way to spread our fortunes is through example and persuasion, not through tanks and bullets (not to say war is never necessary, but this isn't one of those times).
Also, being the most powerful nation (that's quickly diminishing with the path we're on) does not give one the right to do as one pleases. It has never worked well in the past and it will never work well now. Look at any huge empire or world dominating country. They all collapsed due to worrying about what was happening outside rather than what was happening inside. It's a terrible mindset to think that just because you have trillions of dollars put into your military (which is all debt basically) you're invincible as a country. The US will find out soon enough that isn't true unless the next administration puts a hold on things and starts creating solutions rather than problems. | liljp617 wrote: |
| The war with Germany was quite over before the US got militarily involved. |
Um, what? Where'd you get your history from? Here's what happened:
| Quote: |
Roosevelt: im gonna attack the axis k?
benny-tow: with what? ur wheelchair?
benny-tow: lol did u mess up ur legs AND ur head?
Hitler[AoE]: ROFLMAO
T0J0: lol o no america im comin 4 u
Roosevelt: wtf! thats bullsh1t u fags im gunna kick ur asses
T0J0: not without ur harbors u wont! lol
Roosevelt: u little biotch ill get u
Hitler[AoE]: wtf
Hitler[AoE]: america hax, u had depression and now u got a huge fockin army
Hitler[AoE]: thats bullsh1t u hacker
Churchill: lol no more france for u hitler
Hitler[AoE]: tojo help me!
T0J0: wtf u want me to do, im on the other side of the world retard
Hitler[AoE]: fine ill clear you a path
Stalin: WTF u arsshoel! WE HAD A FoCKIN TRUCE
Hitler[AoE]: i changed my mind lol
benny-tow: haha
benny-tow: hey ur losing ur guys in africa im gonna need help in italy soon sum1
T0J0: o **** i cant help u i got my hands full
Hitler[AoE]: im 2 busy 2 help
Roosevelt: yah thats right biznitch im comin for ya
Stalin: church help me
Churchill: like u helped me before? sure ill just sit here
Stalin: dont be an arss
Churchill: dont be a commie. oops too late
Eisenhower: LOL
benny-tow: hahahh oh sh1t help
Hitler[AoE]: o man ur focked
paTTon: oh what now biotch
Roosevelt: whos the cripple now lol
*benny-tow has been eliminated.*
benny-tow: lame
Roosevelt: gj paTTon
paTTon: thnx
Hitler[AoE]: WTF Eisenhower hax hes killing all my sh1t
Hitler[AoE]: quit u hacker so u dont ruin my record
Eisenhower: Nuts!
benny-tow: wtf that mean?
Eisenhower: meant to say nutsack lol finger slipped
paTTon: coming to get u hitler u paper hanging hun cocksocker
Stalin: rofl
T0J0: HAHAHHAA
Hitler[AoE]: u guys are fockin gay
Hitler[AoE]: ur never getting in my city
*Hitler[AoE] has been elimina |
Seriously, Germany was rolling all over EU when we got there. With Japan's help they'd have made it all the way to the Pacific.
| Quote: |
They are forced to act irresponsible because western countries refuse to allow them to manage their own internal affairs. |
Oh, please. It's not ok for dictators to murder their citizens by the hundreds of thousands.
Not only that, but people often fail to realize that the western world CREATED the current problems in the Middle East. Can't argue that point much.
| Quote: |
| Nobody is arguing the Middle East is a peaceful region. |
No, they're just trying to blame it all on the US.
| Quote: |
| On a side note, I think it's odd that we constantly get on other countries for things, but we can't take care of ourselves. We give the Iraqis free health care but we can't get it here. We're in the midst of the biggest invasion of the United States in its entire history (speaking on immigration of course). We have poverty levels above many first world countries. If we were to fix ourselves first and create examples, perhaps the world wouldn't be as wary to listen to us. The way to spread our fortunes is through example and persuasion, not through tanks and bullets (not to say war is never necessary, but this isn't one of those times). |
Some good stuff here... as for health insurance, NOBODY in the country, legal or not, goes un-treated. It's against the law. As for the invasion, yeah, we dropped the ball for ourselves, but it's a good thing for all other countries, including terrorist supporting countries.
| Quote: |
| Also, being the most powerful nation (that's quickly diminishing with the path we're on) does not give one the right to do as one pleases. |
True, but like I said, it could be a lot worse. The world could have a world power like the USSR, old Germany, etc. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Billy Hill wrote: | | Um, because we're the most powerful. Could be worse. We could all be speaking German with nary a Jew in sight. |
The war with Germany was quite over before the US got militarily involved. Russia took the vast brunt of the war and they were already in Berlin when DDay occurred. Not to say we didn't help out Britain in the war, but basically we threw money at it until Japan finally dragged us into it unwillingly. There's many reasons Hitler even came to power and one of those involved the US (and other allies) imposing the Versailles Treaty on them with such viciousness, as well as the US/Allies ignoring Hitler's rise to power completely until it was too late to prevent the war. |
From "Americans, are you thankful?" | Moonspider wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | D-Day was nice, except Russia was already in Berlin. |
I'm not sure to which D-Day you are referring ("D-Day" is a generic term used in any military offensive), but if you are referring to the most famous D-Day, 06 June 1944, you are way off on the location of Soviet forces at the time. Soviet forces did not reach Berlin until April 21, 1945.
On a side note, although we can remember the sacrifice of the Russian people against the Germans, let us not forget that Stalin was an ally of Hitler at the war's outset (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), invading Poland from the East as Hitler invaded it from the West in 1939. The USSR did not become an ally until Hitler betrayed Stalin in 1940, catching Stalin with his pants down.
Respectfully,
M |
I don't know your background, but surely you have not actually studied the two world wars. I don't mean to offend, but your opinions appear downright indefensible by even a cursory look at historical events.
Additionally, the United States never ratified the Versailles Treaty. Thus the U.S. imposed nothing on postwar Germany after World War I.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Like I said, I don't wish to paint the US as if we were useless in the war, because we did do some things, but the idea that we were responsible for Hitler's downfall and the eventual collapse of Nazi Germany is absurd. Anybody with high school history knowledge would know that the US had very little to do with it in comparison to Russia/Britain (and certain other counties). The defeat of Japan is a different story however. |
Like I said, I believe your claims regarding the U.S. involvement in the European theater are indefensible. I challenge you to prove me otherwise.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Billy Hill wrote: | | Because in the hands of irresponsible children and/or thugs (often the two are inter-twined), it's very dangerous. Duh. |
They are forced to act irresponsible because western countries refuse to allow them to manage their own internal affairs. We attempt to tell them everything they can/cannot do simply because we have billions of dollars put into our military while people starve on the streets and we go into trillion dollar debt. We have no right to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries unless it's a situation such as WWII when Hitler invaded Poland or Iraq invaded Kuwait (situations like that call for the superpowers of the world to unite and defend; imperialisation is not acceptable however). |
Earlier you seemed to criticize the United States and Western Europe for not intervening in Germany prior to September of 1939. Here though you state that action against Hitler was not justified until after he invaded Poland.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Not only that, but people often fail to realize that the western world CREATED the current problems in the Middle East. Yes, they've been fighting for thousands of years, but the current problems are not related to that at all. We've funded nearly every terrorist organization (although I hate the word terrorist...it's a terrible way of describing them) in one way or another in the past. We allowed Bin Laden to come to power and even helped him along the way. |
What terrorist organizations has the United States funded? And for the record the U.S. provided no aid to foreign fighters in Afghanistan during the war with the USSR. The U.S. only provided aid to Afghan resistance forces. You are quoting a myth that most people seem to believe.
Respectfully,
M | Billy Hill wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | My dad always told me that even though they might pray five times a day, the Islam that they say they follow isn't real Islam, its something they've made up to harbor their political beliefs. |
That's why I say it is Islam that needs to change the world's view of Islam.
Have you noticed that when religious freaks go off the deep end in Christianity they are quickly denounced? Why will the so-called true Islamics not do the same? |
Because you die. You say something against the militants and they'll shove explosives up your [butt]. Go a bit back in time, to say, Gallileo. The Vatican [AT THAT TIME] were technically the terrorists, and if you said something they didn't agree with, you were in some deep [poo]. Now, did the Bible say "Kill those who propose the Earth is round!" NO. It didn't. The Vatican made up these things through misinterpretations. Just like the militants take simple lessons of life from the Quran and interpret it into what they think it should be. | Moonspider wrote: |
Additionally, the United States never ratified the Versailles Treaty. Thus the U.S. imposed nothing on postwar Germany after World War I.
|
While that's strictly true the USA was one of the three nations that wrote, and signed, the treaty and it was aimed at the imposition of American goals on Germany, which were mainly to forestall another war 
and to ensure that America made money out of it, primarily by enabling trade and the return of the war loans, with interest.
Either way, America was a factor in Germany's misery after the 1st WW.
The point of this thread, though, was about Iran's lack of a nuclear weapons programme.
The US intelligence findings are that Iran stopped the pursuit of nukes nearly 5 years ago, and that all GWB's agression since then has been misplaced. http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/071203230817.ouguf7hr.html
Bush's reaction? "This changes nothing".
So it's WMD all over again, like many of us said. The difference now is that the world's most aggressive 'civilised' nation will be stuck for a credible casus belli, and will have to manufacture another in order to generate an excuse to 'free' the Iranians. It will be harder to con the coalition of dupes and idiots into joining in this time though, so I believe that the Iranians still have a realistic hope of living to see the next decade. | Billy Hill wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | What gives America the right to be the big boss? |
Um, because we're the most powerful. Could be worse. We could all be speaking German with nary a Jew in sight. |
Billy Hill is right. It's amazing how many clueless persons live in the world. The winners of the wars make the rules. ALWAYS! If you have a problem with that go back to your dream world. After WW2 there were three major victors: USA, the British Empire and Soviet Union. The British Empire disappeared in the next decades. While the Soviet Union finally collapsed from within in 1991, USA is only getting stronger day by day.
Fortunately for the rest of the world, USA was and still is a democratic country. Unfortunately, the US government is beginning to act more and more irresponsible. Also after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Americans got too cocky further alienating their allies (France, etc).
PS: Nowadays English is the most used language in the world because of the British and their many colonies, not because of the Americans. In my country, we are taught English (= British English) at school. Of course, we later switch to the American version because of the Hollywood movies and American music.And now back to the topic!
For me, Iran acts irresponsible like Nazi Germany before World War II.
Because of their mad president Imanutjob who wants to wipe out entire countries and pictures himself as a Muslim martyr some Iranians will die and many will suffer.
There will be no US invasion of Iran. The USA (or Israel) will only bomb some nuclear plants and probably many military targets. That's all! | smarter wrote: |
| There will be no US invasion of Iran. The USA (or Israel) will only bomb some nuclear plants and probably many military targets. That's all! |
So why can the US do that? Why can't another country declare the US not fit of having nuclear weapons (2 months ago six nuclear warheads were flown over the country unauthorized. They are very responsible...) and invade them? | smarter wrote: |
And now back to the topic!
For me, Iran acts irresponsible like Nazi Germany before World War II.
|
What? Invading all of the countries nearby? Annexing the Sudentenland? Stealing the belongings of Jews? Come on. Iran has done very little. The USA has accused Iran of supplying weapons to enemies of America, but has no proof, besides which, arming insurgents is something the USA is always doing.
| smarter wrote: |
| Because of their mad president Imanutjob who wants to wipe out entire countries and pictures himself as a Muslim martyr some Iranians will die and many will suffer. |
I would like to see a credible source for this. I remember him saying that Allah would see to it that Israel was wiped out, but I don't recall him ever saying that he would do it, or that anyone else should. It was a sound-bite for the crowds that I heard, and fantasy by the US press that I read.
| smarter wrote: |
| There will be no US invasion of Iran. The USA (or Israel) will only bomb some nuclear plants and probably many military targets. That's all! |
Cool. So probably less than 100,000 dead innocents this time. Things are looking up. The price of oil is down by several lives per barrel.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Why can't another country declare the US not fit of having nuclear weapons (2 months ago six nuclear warheads were flown over the country unauthorized. They are very responsible...) and invade them? |
Because Might Makes Right. If a bully wants your pocket money he will take it, if you want it back you better have a gang behind you.And what when the bully has a bigger gang?
| Bru, stuffce wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: |
Additionally, the United States never ratified the Versailles Treaty. Thus the U.S. imposed nothing on postwar Germany after World War I.
|
While that's strictly true the USA was one of the three nations that wrote, and signed, the treaty and it was aimed at the imposition of American goals on Germany, which were mainly to forestall another war and to ensure that America made money out of it, primarily by enabling trade and the return of the war loans, with interest.
Either way, America was a factor in Germany's misery after the 1st WW. |
U.S. citizens may have contributed to the composition of the Versailles Treaty. However the United States never ratified it. Therefore the United States never imposed anything on Germany.
| Bru, stuffce wrote: |
The point of this thread, though, was about Iran's lack of a nuclear weapons programme.
The US intelligence findings are that Iran stopped the pursuit of nukes nearly 5 years ago, and that all GWB's agression since then has been misplaced. http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/071203230817.ouguf7hr.html
Bush's reaction? "This changes nothing".
So it's WMD all over again, like many of us said. The difference now is that the world's most aggressive 'civilised' nation will be stuck for a credible casus belli, and will have to manufacture another in order to generate an excuse to 'free' the Iranians. It will be harder to con the coalition of dupes and idiots into joining in this time though, so I believe that the Iranians still have a realistic hope of living to see the next decade. |
I agree with Bush. Let us assume that the NIE is on target with all of its assessments and probabilities. It changes very little in my opinion for the following reasons:
The opening sentence to the "Key Judgments" in the NIE states:
| NIE, November 2007, pg 6, par. A. wrote: |
| We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. |
No longer is there an "alleged" nuclear weapons program. There definitely was one up until 2003. Furthermore, with a significant probability it is believed Iran is keeping its options open to develop nuclear weapons.
| NIE, November 2007, pg 6, par A, bullet 2 wrote: |
| We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.) |
To reiterate, the DOE and NIC only have moderate confidence that Iran halted all nuclear weapons activities.
| NIE, November 2007, pg 6, par A, bullet 3 wrote: |
| We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. |
They do not know Iran’s intentions. Thus one cannot say that Iran has no intentions of developing nuclear weapons based upon this Estimate.
| NIE, November 2007, pg 6, par. D. wrote: |
| Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons. |
The R&D in which Iran is currently engaged is dual purpose technology. This has always been the primary issue. The United States does not want Iran developing its own indigenous uranium enrichment process since it could lead to making HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium).
| NIE, November 2007, pg 6, par. E. wrote: |
| We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program. |
Once again, U.S. intelligence cannot say with confidence that Iran does not intend to restart the program.
| NIE, November 2007, pg 6, par. E, bullet 2 wrote: |
| We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. |
U.S. intelligence believes (with moderate confidence) that Iran will eventually restart its nuclear weapon program.
After reading the NIE, I really don’t see that much has changed. I tend to take a conservative approach to risk: I assume the worst will happen and propose policy or procedures accordingly. This best mitigates risk in my opinion. To assume the best invites disaster.
Respectfully,
MDoes this make any sense Moon? I'm suspicious too. Why would Iran alienate its self from the free world and spend so much money on nuclear power when they can't even refine their own oil into gasoline? For a fraction of the investment they would be energy independent. It seems obvious to me that their uranium enrichment is for weaponry - especially with Russia offering the low grade energy uranium.
I imagine it was part of a philosophy in dealing with Iraq.
I think Iran is certainly interested in nuclear weapons development - it seems illogical that they would not be given the political realities. Iran with nuclear weapons would be in a similar position to that of North Korea - safe from potential military invasion by the US. The problem for the west is that sabre-rattling only exacerbates this position.
In truth I think there is very little prospect of the US launching a major military strike against Iran. Iran is different to Iraq in that it has a much larger military capability. Add to that the terrain and the much larger population and you have a country which could pose serious problems to the US.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I think Iran is certainly interested in nuclear weapons development - it seems illogical that they would not be given the political realities. Iran with nuclear weapons would be in a similar position to that of North Korea - safe from potential military invasion by the US. The problem for the west is that sabre-rattling only exacerbates this position.
In truth I think there is very little prospect of the US launching a major military strike against Iran. Iran is different to Iraq in that it has a much larger military capability. Add to that the terrain and the much larger population and you have a country which could pose serious problems to the US. |
It is also different in that its population has education and is not nearly as oppressed. This puts the leadership in danger regardless - similar to US leadership. If the citizens get upset they might do their own regime change. A US - Iran was would consist of US air strikes and special forces over a 48 hour period or so. Iran is advanced enough to care for its own people once the military is crippled. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
Does this make any sense Moon? I'm suspicious too. Why would Iran alienate its self from the free world and spend so much money on nuclear power when they can't even refine their own oil into gasoline? For a fraction of the investment they would be energy independent. It seems obvious to me that their uranium enrichment is for weaponry - especially with Russia offering the low grade energy uranium.
I imagine it was part of a philosophy in dealing with Iraq. |
Like Bikerman, I believe it only logical that Iran desires a nuclear weapon capability.
They have no need for nuclear power given their vast resources. And as you pointed out, Russia offered to process uranium for them, which they declined. Why would they decline it if all they wanted were nuclear power sources?
Perhaps the program's origin was in part due to the war with Iraq. However, the beginnings of Iran's nuclear program dates to the Shah.
I'm sure Israel's known capability plays a major role. To be honest, I don't think Iran considers it a deterrent to the U.S. though. They do not yet have a missile capable of hitting the United States.
Whatever the primary reason, an Iranian program could possibly set off a wider arms race in the region.
Respectfully,
MWell, if you put together their will to develop the nuclear program, even for pacific ends, with the assertive sentence "Israel should be swept off the map" then there is a worry. However, no nation has the moral right to prevent them from developing it. So why can Ch, Fr, Eng, Rus and Usa + some others do?
The curious thing is that "has been found that Iran, actually, halted its nuclear program in 2003".
| Quote: |
Bombing Japan saved many times more people than it killed including Japanese AND Americans, because Japan wasn't going to stop.
|
Prove it... | Quote: |
| Bombing Japan saved many times more people than it killed including Japanese AND Americans, because Japan wasn't going to stop. |
This is just retarded. Where did you hear it from, Heroes? (Angela Petrelli talking to Nathan?) Or perhaps the trended education that the American children were subjected in the aftermaths of WW2? There is absolutely no sense in this idea. Japan had no way out, perhaps a few months or even days would be necessary to come to a bombless end. Moreover, the own bomb designers @ the Manhattan project regreted their creation, while the general people, absolutely ignorant about what a nuke was really capable of, cheered when the test was depoyed short before they launched it on Japan.What can you expect? They're American, they're stupid.
| Solid_State wrote: |
Are you worried about Iran? Is it right that we should be thinking about invading their country for having nuclear weapons when we ourselves have them? If it is good for the goose then surely it is good for the gander?
We in the west should be consciously reducing our nuclear arsenal. How many exactly do we need? One is one too many. |
True, but as we continue reducing ours, the Middle East is amping up theirs ... clearly defiant of, well, the entire world. If it is war they want, it will be war they see, Bush'll see to it. I expect to be in Iran soon enough anyways, as much as it sucks.
The problem is nobody wants to give the ME an upper-hand, because some of the leaders over there are probably crazy enough to use the nuclear weapons. We just point them at places. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| What can you expect? They're American, they're stupid. |
I wouldn't say that. Instead I say they could do nothing to get rid of the illusion planted by the prior generations educators.Discussing a nuclear weapon in the hands of countries like Iran...
| Da Rossa wrote: |
| no nation has the moral right to prevent them from developing it. |
I think what you meant to say was this...
| Da Rossa Should Have wrote: |
| no nation has the moral right to allow them to develop it. |
| Da Rossa wrote: |
| Quote: | | Bombing Japan saved many times more people than it killed including Japanese AND Americans, because Japan wasn't going to stop. |
This is just retarded. Where did you hear it from, Heroes? (Angela Petrelli talking to Nathan?) Or perhaps the trended education that the American children were subjected in the aftermaths of WW2? There is absolutely no sense in this idea. Japan had no way out, perhaps a few months or even days would be necessary to come to a bombless end. Moreover, the own bomb designers @ the Manhattan project regreted their creation, while the general people, absolutely ignorant about what a nuke was really capable of, cheered when the test was depoyed short before they launched it on Japan. |
What's retarded is the notion that, while Japan didn't stop after the first city was destroyed instantly, what makes you think they would have stopped when we killed that many people hopping around killing them a few hundred at a time vs tens of thousands?
And it's retarded to think the when the US got to Japan's mainland, they wouldn't have put up more of a fight than they ever did in the entire war, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands on both sides.
And it's retarded to think that given a few more months, Germany would have had it, and used it.
And it's retarded to think that the US would be willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands or millions of Americans when we have the power to stop Japan, who would have happily killed thousands or millions of Americans. THAT, is retarded. | Billy Hill wrote: |
I think what you meant to say was this...
| Da Rossa Should Have said, in Billy Hill's opinion: wrote: | | no nation has the moral right to allow them to develop it. |
|
Absolutely not. If there was a more powerful country than the US, should they keep the States from developing their own?
About the Nuke:
Congratulations, your country deployed a bomb in Japan. Japan was already ruined, face it. The bomb was about vanity and about the next strategy, the cold war, in which the Americans did it to show their power to the URSS. America always needs enemies, they're kind of a business to them. Too sad the Cold War has ended; there was no further immediate reasons to keep the army industry running at that rate. Fortunately they got attacked by "terrorists" in 2001 that brought them a fresh new reason to change the army's oil.
Also, three days of interval between the two bombs were definitely not enough to come to a conclusion that Japan would stop. Even if your argument proves right, *if it does*, the second bomb was absolutely unjustified. That was to coerce the Emperor to go to the radio and make that statement, in which he would surrender in exchange for no further mass destruction. Act that resulted also in the "brand new" Japanese constitution in which the country is forbidden to have a solid army, being allowed to have nothing more than a 'national guard'.Given the recent incident in the Strait of Hormuz, I’m interested how any of you interested in the subject perceive the situation.
I’m a U.S. Naval officer in the small boat community and honestly would have been hard pressed to hold my fire as the senior officer in this flotilla did. According to reports, the boats approached within 200 – 500 yards of our warships. That’s 12 – 30 seconds at 30 knots. If one or more of those boats had been laden with explosives and intended to attack a warship, we would have had at least a repeat of the USS Cole, if not worse. I am not familiar with the Rules of Engagement in that area, but that is way too close for speed boats exhibiting hostile intent.
Personally I think the Iranians were simply probing, testing our responses, and practicing their own swarming tactics. However if such an incident occurs again, I’m not sure the commanding officer will be willing to risk his crew and his ship on the assumption that the boats intend no harm if the ROE allows him (or her) to fire based upon perceived intent alone.
Respectfully,
M
think that if USA start enter to Iran, Israel are doomed... 
No...the US loves Israel...
| Moonspider wrote: |
Given the recent incident in the Strait of Hormuz, I’m interested how any of you interested in the subject perceive the situation.
I’m a U.S. Naval officer in the small boat community and honestly would have been hard pressed to hold my fire as the senior officer in this flotilla did. According to reports, the boats approached within 200 – 500 yards of our warships. That’s 12 – 30 seconds at 30 knots. If one or more of those boats had been laden with explosives and intended to attack a warship, we would have had at least a repeat of the USS Cole, if not worse. I am not familiar with the Rules of Engagement in that area, but that is way too close for speed boats exhibiting hostile intent.
Personally I think the Iranians were simply probing, testing our responses, and practicing their own swarming tactics. However if such an incident occurs again, I’m not sure the commanding officer will be willing to risk his crew and his ship on the assumption that the boats intend no harm if the ROE allows him (or her) to fire based upon perceived intent alone.
Respectfully,
M |
Hi M,
I've recently seen 'evidence' that calls into question the reporting of this whole incident. I have no 'axe to grind' either way on this but I'm simply interested to see if you have seen the same. The evidence I refer to relates to the supposed communication from the boats which threatened 'death' to the US naval officers. The recording of a voice was played extensively on the media here but there now appears to be some real doubts about the authenticity of the recording itself.... | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| No...the US loves Israel... |
I never could really understand the relationship. Basically, Americans don't own their own country anymore. Their government is slowly mortgaging it away to China, and the Middle East. I am sure Isreal is getting a large piece of the pie. | Bikerman wrote: |
Hi M,
I've recently seen 'evidence' that calls into question the reporting of this whole incident. I have no 'axe to grind' either way on this but I'm simply interested to see if you have seen the same. The evidence I refer to relates to the supposed communication from the boats which threatened 'death' to the US naval officers. The recording of a voice was played extensively on the media here but there now appears to be some real doubts about the authenticity of the recording itself.... |
For me the most incriminating evidence is the behavior and close proximity of the boats to the ships. Reports are right and the navy admits, there is no way to prove that the threatening radio broadcast came from the Iranian boats.
Nevertheless it does demonstrate the manner in which such an encounter could quickly deteriorate into violence. Even if the broadcast came from some prankster on a nearby shore, the timing of it coupled with the aggressive maneuvering of the Iranian vessels (who, based upon what I have seen and read, were not communicating their intentions to the naval vessels) could have potentially prompted the U.S. naval commander to engage.
Unfortunately miscommunication (or no communication) and confusion leads to engagements far too often, especially when political relations are already tense. If the Iranians intended to close on the Americans and maneuver as they apparently did they should have established radio contact on bridge-to-bridge as soon as they were within range. This is common courtesty even under normal peaceful conditions, but certainly only prudent between two countries with such problematic relations.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| For me the most incriminating evidence is the behavior and close proximity of the boats to the ships. Reports are right and the navy admits, there is no way to prove that the threatening radio broadcast came from the Iranian boats. |
Well, the behaviour and close presence is perhaps understandable. How, for example, would the US react if Iranian destroyers were cruising Hudson Bay? | Quote: |
| Nevertheless it does demonstrate the manner in which such an encounter could quickly deteriorate into violence. Even if the broadcast came from some prankster on a nearby shore, the timing of it coupled with the aggressive maneuvering of the Iranian vessels (who, based upon what I have seen and read, were not communicating their intentions to the naval vessels) could have potentially prompted the U.S. naval commander to engage. |
But you do not find the US presence aggressive? Remember where this actually is - off the coast of Iran...
I'm not taking sides here. I'm simply trying to apply the principle of universality - what is right for one should be right for others. This principle is far to often overlooked, indeed ridiculed, by those in power. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | For me the most incriminating evidence is the behavior and close proximity of the boats to the ships. Reports are right and the navy admits, there is no way to prove that the threatening radio broadcast came from the Iranian boats. |
Well, the behaviour and close presence is perhaps understandable. How, for example, would the US react if Iranian destroyers were cruising Hudson Bay? |
The issue here however is that the U.S. warships were not inside Iranian territorial waters. They were cruising through international waters. I don’t have a problem with them approaching the U.S. navy warships, though. As you implied, we’d do the same if they were near our shores. However its simply poor seafaring decorum not to establish contact by VHF radio and communicate intent when vessels pass that closely, certainly between navies. And high speed boats aggressively maneuvering tend to make commanding officers nervous, especially when they’re from a country with which we have poor diplomatic relations
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | Nevertheless it does demonstrate the manner in which such an encounter could quickly deteriorate into violence. Even if the broadcast came from some prankster on a nearby shore, the timing of it coupled with the aggressive maneuvering of the Iranian vessels (who, based upon what I have seen and read, were not communicating their intentions to the naval vessels) could have potentially prompted the U.S. naval commander to engage. |
But you do not find the US presence aggressive? Remember where this actually is - off the coast of Iran...
I'm not taking sides here. I'm simply trying to apply the principle of universality - what is right for one should be right for others. This principle is far to often overlooked, indeed ridiculed, by those in power. |
I don’t find the U.S. presence aggressive at all. Although I am admittedly biased, I am legally correct. And in such circumstances legality is everything. Emotions are a whole different story, and if I was Iranian I’d probably feel it to be aggressive.
My position though is that international waters are international waters. Vessels, be they civilian or military, are free to navigate outside of a nation’s 12 NM territorial waters. The U.S. has a long standing program of exercising those rights per the 1982 UN Convention, using the U.S. Navy to challenge national claims that exceed that limit or in some other way disregard the UN agreement (Gulf of Sidra, Strait of Hormuz, Black Sea, etc.).
Iran has the same rights as the United States in this regard. The U.S. Navy isn’t doing anything that Iran or any other nation isn’t legally allowed to do.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| The issue here however is that the U.S. warships were not inside Iranian territorial waters. They were cruising through international waters. I don’t have a problem with them approaching the U.S. navy warships, though. As you implied, we’d do the same if they were near our shores. However its simply poor seafaring decorum not to establish contact by VHF radio and communicate intent when vessels pass that closely, certainly between navies. And high speed boats aggressively maneuvering tend to make commanding officers nervous, especially when they’re from a country with which we have poor diplomatic relations |
Well I agree that the seamanship leaves much to be desired... | Quote: |
My position though is that international waters are international waters. Vessels, be they civilian or military, are free to navigate outside of a nation’s 12 NM territorial waters. The U.S. has a long standing program of exercising those rights per the 1982 UN Convention, using the U.S. Navy to challenge national claims that exceed that limit or in some other way disregard the UN agreement (Gulf of Sidra, Strait of Hormuz, Black Sea, etc.).
Iran has the same rights as the United States in this regard. The U.S. Navy isn’t doing anything that Iran or any other nation isn’t legally allowed to do. |
Well...I think that is a bit disingenuous. If Iran were to position a naval fleet some 20 miles off the coast of the US, I cannot imagine that the US would simply say 'that is your right'. The US went 'ballistic' when Cuba legally tried to deploy nukes, so the thought that it would sit-back and simply allow another country to 'threaten' it's coastline is a bit hard to credit. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | My position though is that international waters are international waters. Vessels, be they civilian or military, are free to navigate outside of a nation’s 12 NM territorial waters. The U.S. has a long standing program of exercising those rights per the 1982 UN Convention, using the U.S. Navy to challenge national claims that exceed that limit or in some other way disregard the UN agreement (Gulf of Sidra, Strait of Hormuz, Black Sea, etc.).
Iran has the same rights as the United States in this regard. The U.S. Navy isn’t doing anything that Iran or any other nation isn’t legally allowed to do. |
Well...I think that is a bit disingenuous. If Iran were to position a naval fleet some 20 miles off the coast of the US, I cannot imagine that the US would simply say 'that is your right'. The US went 'ballistic' when Cuba legally tried to deploy nukes, so the thought that it would sit-back and simply allow another country to 'threaten' it's coastline is a bit hard to credit. |
Some may see it as semantics, but there is a major difference. The U.S. navy vessels were transiting through an international waterway as part of normal operations in the gulf. Stationing a fleet off the coast of the United States would not be transiting and serve no other purpose than to intimidate the United States. The U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf is there for a multitude of reasons. Even if Iran was a close friend of the U.S., the fleet would still be there.
Admittedly its a bit convoluted. The U.S. Navy is a traditional tool of U.S. diplomacy dating back to the 19th century. And I'd be lying if I said the U.S. navy's gulf presence didn't serve some diplomatic purpose toward Iran. However it's primary purpose is as it has been for more than half a century of routine Persian Gulf deployments: promoting political stability and maintaining the free flow of oil to the world.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
And I'd be lying if I said the U.S. navy's gulf presence didn't serve some diplomatic purpose toward Iran. However it's primary purpose is as it has been for more than half a century of routine Persian Gulf deployments: promoting political stability and maintaining the free flow of oil to the world.
Respectfully,
M |
LOLL @ America promoting political stability, and for maintaining free flow of oil to the world.
Does America not understand that war is not the only solution to achieve peace. And the free flow of oil to the world should not come at a price to over 1 million INNOCENT Iraqis dead under the American occupation. Wait, you may want to point Saddam is more barbaric? Firstly, he didn't kill over a million innocent. And secondly, his execution was never for the mass graves of the thousands he killed, but rather a few hundred. I wonder why 
. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | And I'd be lying if I said the U.S. navy's gulf presence didn't serve some diplomatic purpose toward Iran. However it's primary purpose is as it has been for more than half a century of routine Persian Gulf deployments: promoting political stability and maintaining the free flow of oil to the world.
Respectfully,
M |
LOLL @ America promoting political stability, and for maintaining free flow of oil to the world.
Does America not understand that war is not the only solution to achieve peace. And the free flow of oil to the world should not come at a price to over 1 million INNOCENT Iraqis dead under the American occupation. Wait, you may want to point Saddam is more barbaric? Firstly, he didn't kill over a million innocent. And secondly, his execution was never for the mass graves of the thousands he killed, but rather a few hundred. I wonder why . |
The discussion of a U.S. naval force in the Persian Gulf in this context has nothing to do with the Iraq War. U.S. deployments to that region are a matter of routine going back decades and will continue long after the last U.S. soldier has left Iraqi soil.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
The discussion of a U.S. naval force in the Persian Gulf in this context has nothing to do with the Iraq War. U.S. deployments to that region are a matter of routine going back decades and will continue long after the last U.S. soldier has left Iraqi soil.
|
lolll... okay regarding the situation you are talking about.
Firstly, there was no such confirmation of Iran threatening to blow up/harm the American naval ships. This is another American lie trying to lead us into another war based on lies.
Secondly, the Iranians DID engage in dialogue between their boat and the American war ship, informing of it being an Iranian patrol boat. There was a reply by the Americans of their ship.
But what exactly are you Americans crying about? Russia sent their planes near British territory too recently. You don't hear the British cry as much as the Americans do. Are the Americans still talking about this issue, and it being a headline news in the media?
Also, the American warship was in international waters close to the Iranian waters. If there was any sort of threat, it was towards the Iranians.
And also you weren't complaining when America was bombing Iraq almost every other night in the late 90s, i.e. when they were not in a direct war with each other. And America conducts spy games all the time. American's should stop complaining cus they are causing a bloody havoc in the entire world. They have enough problems of their own, just look at hurricane katrina, and your leader who always seems to be struggling with the English language. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: |
The discussion of a U.S. naval force in the Persian Gulf in this context has nothing to do with the Iraq War. U.S. deployments to that region are a matter of routine going back decades and will continue long after the last U.S. soldier has left Iraqi soil.
|
lolll... okay regarding the situation you are talking about.
Firstly, there was no such confirmation of Iran threatening to blow up/harm the American naval ships. This is another American lie trying to lead us into another war based on lies. |
You're right. There was not. And the United States Navy has said as much. However someone broadcast a threatening message in heavily accented English over the marine band channel. (I assume channel 16). As I mentioned earlier, the aggressive maneuvering in such close proximity to the warships was the problem. (I define that based upon a professional definition and only what I've seen on the video clips.) The radio broadcast, from whomever it came, further confused the situation and made an engagement more likely due to the Iranianians apparently not communicating their intent to the U.S. naval vessels. Furthermore, based upon U.S. reports (which I will favor over any Iranian reports, and yes I am very biased) the Iranian vessels dropped objects into the water, which the U.S. vessels maneuvered to avoid. This was another very aggressive, irresponsible action.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Secondly, the Iranians DID engage in dialogue between their boat and the American war ship, informing of it being an Iranian patrol boat. There was a reply by the Americans of their ship. |
I saw this only in the footage provided by the Iranian media, which I do not trust over my own fellow sailors and personal experience.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
But what exactly are you Americans crying about? Russia sent their planes near British territory too recently. You don't hear the British cry as much as the Americans do. Are the Americans still talking about this issue, and it being a headline news in the media?
Also, the American warship was in international waters close to the Iranian waters. If there was any sort of threat, it was towards the Iranians. |
And whenever we and the Russians trade paint (brushing ships, colliding submarines, etc.) we file protests if we believe the Russians were at fault. I'm sure the British did the same, although I have not seen anything on it cannot therefore say. We've escorted many a bomber away from airspace we think they shouldn't be, etc.
To be honest though, I cannot believe you are using British/Russian relations as an example. Their relations are arguably worse now than they have ever been since the '80s. So contrary to your claim that nothing is going on, there is actually a lot of anger and diplomatic tit for tat going on between the UK and Russia.
Regarding your last comment, international waterways are international waterways. Period. Iran has no right to interfere with maritime traffic of any kind in the Strait of Hormuz. I don't care how close it is to them.
Based upon what I've seen and read, I suspect the Iranians were probing the U.S. vessels and in effort to glean some tactical knowledge. They were also practicing their swarming tactics (a small boat tactic used against warships). Finally, I honestly suspect that the Iranians may have even been trying to provoke an engagement. Even if (especially if) Iranian vessels were destroyed and Iranian sailors killed, military action by the U.S. Navy against them would have provided Iran with a propaganda coup.
No, Americans as a whole are not still talking about the issue. The media stopped covering it within 48-72 hours. Britney Spears did something.
Respectfully,
M
