On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
lol @ this...
cmon dude, really? were going to war with iran. its going to be somewhere between bad and nuclear holocaust.
ill bet any1 cold hard $$ were (USA + friends) at war with iran within 3 years. ill give 3:1. ill give 1:1 its within 18 months.
I'll take that bet at 1:1 odds with USA + friends, which means what exactly. UN involvement. 2+ countries that we have good relations with at time of war decleration? How much you thinking about betting?
the iranian retaliation would make the world tremble.
What retaliation?
Edit: Let me remind you that even with a fictional nuclear warhead, Iran has no balistic missile capability for striking the US. The US is literally on the other side of the world, and Iran has no intercontinental ballistic missile technology, no nuclear submarines and no bombers capable of reaching the US.
Striking the US with missiles? im talking about striking israel with missiles both from Iran , Lebanon and syria, waging a global war with terrorism against the USA and helping the "insurgents" in iraq and afhganistan ?? do you understand that they have ways to strik your country others than using missiles ?
Do you think the US really cares about Isreal except as a proxy? If Isreal got nuked tommorow my reaction would be "looks like we're going to wipe the middle east off the map tommorow".
A global war with terrorism? Don't even make me laugh. Terrorism does very small amounts of damage compared to an actual war. If middle eastern countries directly supported terrorists (which I'm sure the CIA could prove if it were true) then they would immediatly come under the crosshairs of NATO. Except if you push the US people too far, it won't be a war of "liberation" that they will be fighting. It will be a war to cripple these country's ability to fund terrorists. That means massive infrastructure damage. The governments will have no more money to pay terrorists. And then guess what. The US does the most horrible thing imaginable - they leave. The different ethinic groups in the Middle east then proceed to fight over what scraps of civiilization remain, and the entire region decends into chaos.
The only thing that stops this from happening is that American people are fundamentally people who don't want to see lots of others die. So they try and achieve "occupations" of territories and improve the lives of people there. But just imagine what happens if you push these normally nice people too far.
Ofc the USA cares about ISrael , the jewish lobby is very strong, if USA didnt care about israel you wouldnt be gaving them aid and billions off dollars every year. "Terrorism does very small amounts of damage" really ? say that when cars start blowing in your cities, say that to the victims and to the ones that lost family and friends in terrorist acts, what you think would happen if highly trained terrorists started blowing stuff up in new york and other major USA cities? I used the term terrorism because its the only way we can call the direct targetting of civilians.
Can terrorism prevent the USA from producing nuclear weapons? Can terorism stop the USA from churning out war machiens? Can terrorism stop the USA from producing food? Can terrorism put a serious dent in ANY activity?
Terrorism doesn't do jack all to the actual ability of the USA to make goods and services. It cannot bring the USA down. Meanwhile, the terrorists need money from somewhere. They need food from somewhere. When they can't get it from sponsoring countries that are being invaded and they can't get it form the local people who hate and despise them and their every piece of evidence is being hounded by the FBI, they will not last long.
The very best that terrorism can do is curtail civil liberties and make the US more authoritarian. It cannot save their countries from anhiallation nor can it save their people. All it can do is make life more uncomfortable and alittle bit more dangerous for the US people.
Ofc terrorism can do all of that! have you faced actual terrorism lately? im saying that if you infact attack Iran you will sure learn what terrorism really is. If they dont get money from countries who sponsor terrorism they will get from the CIA , "Undoubtedly, the leader of the terrorist group, Abdulmalek Rigi, is in Pakistan, and the members of the group have been trained by some arrogant countries, such as the US and Britain, on Pakistani territory," the commander of the IRGC Ground Forces, Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour, said.
I have heard the UNEDITED version of the interview with the "President" of Iran. Being Persian myself and fluent in Farsi, I know for a fact that he did not EVER say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Someone a page or two before me posted a video of the unedited part of the interview and I listened to what the "President" said and the translation is correct.
Besides that, I in no way support the President at all. The government in Iran is very corrupt. I was born in Iran and I visit almost every summer. The people of Iran are not to blame for anything that is going on now or in the past 60 years. They have tried to vote and tried to form democracy but every time they came even close it was halted by the government or by foreign government ( ). In my opinion, Iran is one of the least hostile nations in the world.
On July 21 2010 06:00 Avid221 wrote: I have heard the UNEDITED version of the interview with the "President" of Iran. Being Persian myself and fluent in Farsi, I know for a fact that he did not EVER say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Someone a page or two before me posted a video of the unedited part of the interview and I listened to what the "President" said and the translation is correct.
Besides that, I in no way support the President at all. The government in Iran is very corrupt. I was born in Iran and I visit almost every summer. The people of Iran are not to blame for anything that is going on now or in the past 60 years. They have tried to vote and tried to form democracy but every time they came even close it was halted by the government or by foreign government ( ). In my opinion, Iran is one of the least hostile nations in the world.
that seem to be the problem with American media. i recall CNN was officially banned from operating in Iran because their translation of the Iranian Pres' speech was done to make it more offensive and inflammatory.
the same crap happens with Iraq and NK. personally i m not a big fan of their leaders but obviously the media didnt do their job rite.
On July 21 2010 06:00 Avid221 wrote: I have heard the UNEDITED version of the interview with the "President" of Iran. Being Persian myself and fluent in Farsi, I know for a fact that he did not EVER say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Someone a page or two before me posted a video of the unedited part of the interview and I listened to what the "President" said and the translation is correct.
Besides that, I in no way support the President at all. The government in Iran is very corrupt. I was born in Iran and I visit almost every summer. The people of Iran are not to blame for anything that is going on now or in the past 60 years. They have tried to vote and tried to form democracy but every time they came even close it was halted by the government or by foreign government ( ). In my opinion, Iran is one of the least hostile nations in the world.
that seem to be the problem with American media. i recall CNN was officially banned from operating in Iran because their translation of the Iranian Pres' speech was done to make it more offensive and inflammatory.
the same crap happens with Iraq and NK. personally i m not a big fan of their leaders but obviously the media didnt do their job rite.
how ironic is this video now, he was really telling the truth.
On July 21 2010 05:55 ImFromPortugal wrote: Ofc terrorism can do all of that! have you faced actual terrorism lately? im saying that if you infact attack Iran you will sure learn what terrorism really is.
No, it can't. The only thing terrorism does or can do is create fear among a population. In some cases, that may result in popular pressure to stop, say, producing weapons - but that is highly unlikely in the case of the US.
People seem to be under the impression that the backlash against the Iraq war would have shown up regardless. This is false. If the US was under constant and visible terrorist threats, with actual fatalities and damage occurring regularly, there wouldn't be even a remotely significant portion of the population that would be against full on invasions of any country with terrorists present, or even countries where there was suspicion of such.
The reaction of a population to terrorism changes quite radically when that population is in the only remaining superpower on the planet. While many hesitate to admit it, everyone knows that if the US really wanted to, they could do pretty much whatever the fuck they wanted.
Terrorism wont do shit except shift the country rightwards.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel.
If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too.
You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America?
Not to hurt anyone limbo, but the only nuclear bombs used against people by any country that has them is the USA.
I certainly wouldn't want any more countries making them, but USA surely would not have won the Japan war without them and the world could have been in a different political mindset.
Anyways the solution to this is to prove definitely that Iran plans to use its nuclear facilities for energy or for nuclear bombs.
On July 21 2010 05:55 ImFromPortugal wrote: Ofc terrorism can do all of that! have you faced actual terrorism lately? im saying that if you infact attack Iran you will sure learn what terrorism really is.
No, it can't. The only thing terrorism does or can do is create fear among a population. In some cases, that may result in popular pressure to stop, say, producing weapons - but that is highly unlikely in the case of the US.
People seem to be under the impression that the backlash against the Iraq war would have shown up regardless. This is false. If the US was under constant and visible terrorist threats, with actual fatalities and damage occurring regularly, there wouldn't be even a remotely significant portion of the population that would be against full on invasions of any country with terrorists present, or even countries where there was suspicion of such.
The reaction of a population to terrorism changes quite radically when that population is in the only remaining superpower on the planet. While many hesitate to admit it, everyone knows that if the US really wanted to, they could do pretty much whatever the fuck they wanted.
Terrorism wont do shit except shift the country rightwards.
Dude im saying if USA attacks Iran the retaliation will be tremendous. I dont think thats the way things work in the world, if you try something stupid the rest of the world will be against you, the public oppinion would make the politics take a strong stance against any country trying to "dominate the world" , so i dont think USA could do wtv they want without a global outcry, and as history shows us all empires fall, its just a matter of time
On July 21 2010 07:57 thehitman wrote: I certainly wouldn't want any more countries making them, but USA surely would not have won the Japan war without them and the world could have been in a different political mindset.
On July 21 2010 05:38 ghermination wrote: Why does Israel have this belief that they were literally promised some of the most bitterly fought over land in the world by god himself? And why does America take them seriously for that belief?
It's like some random guy saying he had a dream where god said he should become the governor of a state so we just let him walk into office without an election.
It's almost like the Israel supporters don't even realize that they (the Israeli's) just walked onto Palestinian land and killed or "relocated" thousands of people and then declared it their own country. What would happen if somebody tried that in the US?
hey pal, you mind reading up on the history of the foundation of israel before you start spouting your mouth off, which is probably just repeating other people's uninformed views?
Uh, what? While he surely isn't the definitive answer to such a philosophical debate as the right to exist of the Israeli state, Noam Chomsky is a guy who i've listened to a lot. His thinking seems to be sound, and i agree with his policies. He's definitely more educated about Israeli history then you or I, so unless you want to call Chomsky "uninformed", then i'm pretty sure that i have a firm basis for my arguments.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel.
If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too.
User was temp banned for this post.
why was this guy banned for this post?! Anyways the buffer zone removal by Saudis is only going to increase the chances or nuclear war. Having them be afraid of each other without any real advantage is the best way to deal with nuclear threats. If the USSR could nuke USA without taking any casualties i wouldn't be surprised if they took that opportunity.
and as history shows us all empires fall, its just a matter of time
That would be relevant if we were talking about an empire.
I think that bases allover the world in strategical points , influence in countries in all the Continents , and waging wars for profit and resources are the actions of an empire, there are many ways of controlling countries and their resouces, american doesnt need to invade to get what they want
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel.
If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too.
User was temp banned for this post.
why was this guy banned for this post?! Anyways the buffer zone removal by Saudis is only going to increase the chances or nuclear war. Having them be afraid of each other without any real advantage is the best way to deal with nuclear threats. If the USSR could nuke USA without taking any casualties i wouldn't be surprised if they took that opportunity.
He was banned more for the entirety of his posts in this thread. That was just the thread that broke the camel's back. It may be strange to see him banned for a specific post, but if you consider all of his posts, he deserved the ban.
On July 21 2010 10:10 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think that bases allover the world in strategical points , influence in countries in all the Continents ,
Quite different from being an empire.
and waging wars for profit and resources are the actions of an empire,
I cannot understand how people can still believe nonsense like this.
there are many ways of controlling countries and their resouces, american doesnt need to invade to get what they want
Then it doesn't share the same vulnerabilities as an empire.
On July 21 2010 10:10 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think that bases allover the world in strategical points , influence in countries in all the Continents ,
there are many ways of controlling countries and their resouces, american doesnt need to invade to get what they want
Then it doesn't share the same vulnerabilities as an empire.
Modern empires my friend the world changes , the empire adapts : ) Which other reason you had to invade iraq? other than the israeli lobby.. resources and strategical country to have troops and bases. "Then it doesn't share the same vulnerabilities as an empire" it falls the same way, internal implosion economic chaos.
"Then it doesn't share the same vulnerabilities as an empire" it falls the same way, internal implosion economic chaos.
Not if it adapted.
THe empires have their time , a new empire arises and to stay in power it as to adapt to the world, see hitler for example he gained the trust of the people using the jews as scapegoats for the economical problem of Germany, he "hypnotized" the masses with dellusions of grandeur, and made them believe it was for the greater good of the nation. -> Empire rises feeding of the dreams and fears of the people, adapting to their needs and expanding for pure greed or madness.
Saudi Arabia supports terrorists and havent been invaded yet ^^
1980s: Iraq
CNN found that intervention is often weighed against political and economic costs.
"Declassified U.S. government documents show that while Saddam Hussein was gassing Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. opposed punishing Iraq with a trade embargo because it was cultivating Iraq as an ally against Iran and as a market for U.S. farm exports."
All friends until...its time to go...then they are monsters and support terrorism.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel.
If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too.
You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America?
I certainly wouldn't want any more countries making them, but USA surely would not have won the Japan war without them and the world could have been in a different political mindset.
What? I'm sorry but you're completely wrong on this point. Do some research beyond just what they teach you in elementary school. Japan had already lost their main army forces in Russia as well as lost control of China before the US dropped the bomb. In fact, Japan was already in the state of sending it's surrender to the Soviets which was what prompted the dropping of the bomb. As mentioned there, the US role in WWII is severely overstated in most American textbooks. I'd argue their most significant contribution was Normandy and D-Day with Battle of Midway being a significant achievement in the Pacific theater. Beyond that though, by and large, WWII was won by the resistance efforts of England and the massive manpower the Soviets had to offer. Also the fact that Japan had to stretch it's lines so thinly just to cover the Chinese coast added to the maxim "never fight a land war in Asia". It was very much argued that Hitler's sole and costliest mistake was breaking the alliance with Stalin and choosing to shift the Luftwafte to bomb civilian targets in London rather than keep up the pressure on the RAF.
EPT
). In my opinion, Iran is one of the least hostile nations in the world. 
