|
On July 26 2010 10:04 Ramsing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 05:15 Pandain wrote:On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote:
You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims.... Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves. I don't buy that at all. When the Osirak reactor was blown in Iraq, it certainly did destabilize the region; in fact it had the opposite effect. Compare that to when the reactors that the Pakistanis were making were not blown up though, and you see quite clearly that the entire region was destabilized by them getting nukes (And the region remains destabilized to this day).The idea that blowing up Iran's reactors would somehow destabilize the region is simply ludicrous. When you put aside the issue of oil, which I don't doubt is why the Americans are pushing so hard on Iran, the issue of Iran's instability becomes a serious problem. Not only does the government not have the support of its own population, as evidenced by the massive protests around the country that have sporadically popped up every few years only to be brutally quelled by the countries security forces, but Iran is composed of several minority groups that could pose serious problems to Iran's long-term stability. Many of these minorities have strong militas too, with Baluchistan sticking out the most; consider that Baluchistan is basically what Afghanistan was when the mujahideen were supplied by the CIA back in the 80s...incidentally, it appears that the Baluchi's are being supplied by the CIA too. The Iran of today resembles Pakistan back when they were getting nuclear weapons (It might be interesting to point out that the Pakistanis also made the claim that they only wanted nuclear power too) and so, for the rest of the world this poses a serious concern that goes far beyond simply oil rights.
"stability" means US control. You're not using the word correctly.
|
So if this pops off the US will be involved in 3 wars. Awesome...
|
I love semantics.
It's americans trying to protect/expand their empire and Iran standing up against them. Because they know they're next on USA's agenda. They have what, 10% of the world's oil reserves, 3rd largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Canada?
To make matters clearer, why are they tougher on Iranians than they are on North Koreans in terms of sanctions or warnings? If it's threats, NK does a better job than Iran at that. Obviously, they don't have any oil.
Also, don't care to list Israel's wrong-doings as any educated person with half a brain would know that they're just racist, religious zealots who are trying to fulfill their destiny by trying to get some land that was promised to them by a guy with a beard some thousands of years ago. The territory was his to promise apparently, heh.
/rant
|
|
|
Zurich15359 Posts
This isn't the Youtube thread.
Anyone who thinks the US is actually going to attack Iran any time soon is just ignorant. No way Mr. Hayden of all people thinks that. His statements are just bluff and propaganda.
|
because Saudi Arabia is under american control
|
Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
|
Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad will screw us all!
Nuclear launch detected!
|
WW3? WW3 is least of our concerns!
Haven't you read the revelations? It's the end of the world!
|
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote:
Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq'
- CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US
- CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression
- Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
etc etc etc
|
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote:
Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
Hostile to who? Hostile to the states that have attacked (see US funding of Sadam's agressive war on Iran in the 80s) and threatened it relentlessly since the people of the country overthrew the US dictator? Bush called Iran 'evil' and that's based on nothing but the fact that Iran doesn't answer to the US. Iran has a terrible human rights record at home, but that never stopped any world power from maintaining the friendliest of relations. The US is not 'special', okay!? This is international politics mixed in with the usual propaganda messages which are aimed at the respective domestic populations and the populations of their "allies". You must understand that Europe is full of nukes and that Iran has not a single good reason to fire at it. None. The Iranian elite may be a littlke foolish to think that trying to get more powerful weapons will keep them safe but these people are not crazy. You are talking shit!
Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
|
On July 26 2010 22:47 zatic wrote:This isn't the Youtube thread. Anyone who thinks the US is actually going to attack Iran any time soon is just ignorant. No way Mr. Hayden of all people thinks that. His statements are just bluff and propaganda.
You are an american living in Germany, right?
Anyway, he may be delusional but I suspect you're the one who's "ignorant". Maybe you should go back and read the revelations of Seymour Hersh about what people within the military were telling him back in 2004. I haven't read any of his stuff recently.. I guess I'll go check for that right now so I can tell people who don't know shit what they don't even want to consider...
One more question.. Am I not allowed to post relevant video in this thread. It's not my desire to break any rules, I just think it might be interesting to crawl out of our own assholes in the search for truth. Just a thought.
|
On July 26 2010 10:04 Ramsing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 05:15 Pandain wrote:On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote:
You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims.... Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves. I don't buy that at all. When the Osirak reactor was blown in Iraq, it certainly did destabilize the region; in fact it had the opposite effect. Compare that to when the reactors that the Pakistanis were making were not blown up though, and you see quite clearly that the entire region was destabilized by them getting nukes (And the region remains destabilized to this day).The idea that blowing up Iran's reactors would somehow destabilize the region is simply ludicrous. .
I don't see what Pakistani nukes have to do with the destabilization of the region, is that wild conjecture or do you have any solid proof for that?.
|
I like this wadadde kid.
We will use the bases in Iraq and Afgan to right against Iran when this happens. Might be another reason why we invaded those countries and why we want to develop the Iraq so much to help against Iran because Iraq and Iran had conflicts before. Just a theory not sure if anyone has said this yet.
And who is this guy on the video? Why is he important and why should I believe what he is saying?
|
Zurich15359 Posts
On July 26 2010 23:52 wadadde wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:47 zatic wrote:This isn't the Youtube thread. Anyone who thinks the US is actually going to attack Iran any time soon is just ignorant. No way Mr. Hayden of all people thinks that. His statements are just bluff and propaganda. You are an american living in Germany, right? Anyway, he may be delusional but I suspect you're the one who's "ignorant". Maybe you should go back and read the revelations of Seymour Hersh about what people within the military were telling him back in 2004. I haven't read any of his stuff recently.. I guess I'll go check for that right now so I can tell people who don't know shit what they don't even want to consider... One more question.. Am I not allowed to post relevant video in this thread. It's not my desire to break any rules, I just think it might be interesting to crawl out of our own assholes in the search for truth. Just a thought.
Well you are definitely German by your posting.
I don't care what people were saying in 2004 and I don't know why you think it is relevant. The US is not going to attack Iran any time soon, and Mr. Hayder knows that well enough. If you disagree and think they will go ahead fine, but unless war actually breaks out I'll be right and you'll be wrong.
As to what you can post and what not: Just don't make one liner posts. You can post a link to a Youtube video along with your own post, just don't post nothing but a link.
|
On July 26 2010 23:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote:
Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse. At first i thought you were talking about the American Government - 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah etc etc etc
So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv?
1. The only thing I could find this on is Press Tv.
2. You need perspective
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US
3. Ever hear of the Church Commission Report?
4. You do realize what the word "allerged" means?
On July 26 2010 23:45 wadadde wrote:
you are talking shit!
Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 26 2010 23:45 wadadde wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote:
Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse. Hostile to who? Hostile to the states that have attacked (see US funding of Sadam's agressive war on Iran in the 80s) and threatened it relentlessly since the people of the country overthrew the US dictator? The US also sold weapons to Khomeini during the Iran-Iraq war.
Anyways, I think the rest of your post is right but that still doesn't leave any indication that they're at threat of an attack. It actually just further emphasizes the point that we're stuck in international relations territory here.
|
On July 27 2010 00:25 angelicfolly wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 23:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote:
Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse. At first i thought you were talking about the American Government - 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah etc etc etc So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv? 1. The only thing I could find this on is Press Tv. 2. You need perspective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US3. Ever hear of the Church Commission Report? 4. You do realize what the word "allerged" means? Show nested quote +you are talking shit!
Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS). With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that? Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth... I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
|
On July 27 2010 01:07 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 00:25 angelicfolly wrote:On July 26 2010 23:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote:
Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse. At first i thought you were talking about the American Government - 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah etc etc etc So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv? 1. The only thing I could find this on is Press Tv. 2. You need perspective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US3. Ever hear of the Church Commission Report? 4. You do realize what the word "allerged" means? On July 26 2010 23:45 wadadde wrote: you are talking shit!
Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS). With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that? Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth... I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue. Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
Yet, again you offer no substance...
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
|
On July 27 2010 01:12 angelicfolly wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 01:07 ImFromPortugal wrote:On July 27 2010 00:25 angelicfolly wrote:On July 26 2010 23:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote:
Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse. At first i thought you were talking about the American Government - 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah etc etc etc So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv? 1. The only thing I could find this on is Press Tv. 2. You need perspective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US3. Ever hear of the Church Commission Report? 4. You do realize what the word "allerged" means? On July 26 2010 23:45 wadadde wrote: you are talking shit!
Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS). With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that? Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth... I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue. Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse. Yet, again you offer no substance... Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
