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?
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...
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?
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...
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?
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...
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?
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...
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?
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...
On July 26 2010 23:40 ImFromPortugal wrote: [quote]
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?
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...
"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..."
I was ....so you wanna say anything about the killing financed by the USA ? or its just "lol" ?
The CIA and Crack Cocaine US secret wars fought in South America Chile (PinoChet) Indonesia (Overthrow of Indonesia ) Cambodia Laos Secrets of The CIA - Congo Secrets of The CIA - Afghanistan
[quote] 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...
"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..."
I was ....so you wanna say anything about the killing financed by the USA ? or its just "lol" ?
I have no clue now what you're trying to say. You don't get to write what you want into my post. And it seems I have to hold your hand on understanding this little "lol" moment you keep bashing. It was in contrast to you trying to promote the AnglolAN civil war to be the same as Iran's proxy Armies.
So it would be in your best interest to stop with the provocative liners. AND read that link I posted.
I'm not dealing with videos (this isn't YouTube), find the articles you like and post them.
On July 27 2010 01:07 ImFromPortugal wrote: [quote]
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...
"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..."
I was ....so you wanna say anything about the killing financed by the USA ? or its just "lol" ?
I have no clue now what you're trying to say. You don't get to write what you want into my post. And it seems I have to hold your hand on understanding this little "lol" moment you keep bashing. It was in contrast to you trying to promote the AnglolAN civil war to be the same as Iran's proxy Armies.
So it would be in your best interest to stop with the provocative liners. AND read that link I posted.
I'm not dealing with videos (this isn't YouTube), find the articles you like and post them.
YOu are right this isnt youtube, ive edited my post now, too many videos anyway. What i was trying to say is that Americans have used and still use other countries to fight their proxy wars , with extreme destruction and consequences to the inhabitants of the countries targeted, ex: Angola.
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...
"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..."
I was ....so you wanna say anything about the killing financed by the USA ? or its just "lol" ?
I have no clue now what you're trying to say. You don't get to write what you want into my post. And it seems I have to hold your hand on understanding this little "lol" moment you keep bashing. It was in contrast to you trying to promote the AnglolAN civil war to be the same as Iran's proxy Armies.
So it would be in your best interest to stop with the provocative liners. AND read that link I posted.
I'm not dealing with videos (this isn't YouTube), find the articles you like and post them.
YOu are right this isnt youtube, ive edited my post now, too many videos anyway. What i was trying to say is that Americans have used and still use other countries to fight their proxy wars , with extreme destruction and consequences to the inhabitants of the countries targeted, ex: Angola.
Your edited post still doesn't help with the generalities. I didn't ask for titles also.
Secrets of The CIA (the last two, and same with US secret wars) Does nothing for me, to know what your aiming at.
Read up again on Angola little event, and you will find you cannot make some claims you are trying to now.
What's the difference between American so-called proxies, and Irans? One the cold war (this is actually the most or biggest element here). Two the goals involved in each. Three US criticizes those who it supports/aids, and goes after rouge elements.
On July 27 2010 01:15 ImFromPortugal wrote: [quote]
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...
"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..."
I was ....so you wanna say anything about the killing financed by the USA ? or its just "lol" ?
I have no clue now what you're trying to say. You don't get to write what you want into my post. And it seems I have to hold your hand on understanding this little "lol" moment you keep bashing. It was in contrast to you trying to promote the AnglolAN civil war to be the same as Iran's proxy Armies.
So it would be in your best interest to stop with the provocative liners. AND read that link I posted.
I'm not dealing with videos (this isn't YouTube), find the articles you like and post them.
YOu are right this isnt youtube, ive edited my post now, too many videos anyway. What i was trying to say is that Americans have used and still use other countries to fight their proxy wars , with extreme destruction and consequences to the inhabitants of the countries targeted, ex: Angola.
Your edited post still doesn't help with the generalities. I didn't ask for titles also.
Secrets of The CIA (the last two, and same with US secret wars) Does nothing for me, to know what your aiming at.
Read up again on Angola little event, and you will find you cannot make some claims you are trying to now.
What's the difference between American so-called proxies, and Irans? One the cold war (this is actually the most or biggest element here). Two the goals involved in each. Three US criticizes those who it supports/aids, and goes after rouge elements.
Angola little event that killed 500k people ..."and you will find you cannot make some claims you are trying to now. " are you crazy then? are you? lol..im not making claims im telling you the facts.
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.
So all those US and Israeli warships chilling out in the Red Sea are there just for a fishing trip? And the US taking over Canadian military operations in Kandahar and most of eastern Afghanistan has nothing to do with the fact that Afghanistan borders Iran? C'mon Zatic, the clues are obvious here. You're trusting the American government more than they deserve. Look at the rest of the Middle East, virtually every nation has US military presence in it with the exceptions of U.A.E., Pakistan and of course, Iran. Yet, Iran is essentially boxed in. So from a colonistic perspective, (something the US has yet to abandon) it only makes sense to take over Iran as well, especially since they have 10% of the world's oil reserves. Complete hegemony over the Middle East is what the US strives to achieve.
There are over 700 foreign US military bases in the world. Guess how many other countries have foreign military bases inside the US? That's right, ZERO! Colonistic ideals, gotta love em.
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.
So all those US and Israeli warships chilling out in the Red Sea are there just for a fishing trip? And the US taking over Canadian military operations in Kandahar and most of eastern Afghanistan has nothing to do with the fact that Afghanistan borders Iran? C'mon Zatic, the clues are obvious here. You're trusting the American government more than they deserve. Look at the rest of the Middle East, virtually every nation has US military presence in it with the exceptions of U.A.E., Pakistan and of course, Iran. Yet, Iran is essentially boxed in. So from a colonistic perspective, (something the US has yet to abandon) it only makes sense to take over Iran as well, especially since they have 10% of the world's oil reserves. Complete hegemony over the Middle East is what the US strives to achieve.
There are over 700 foreign US military bases in the world. Guess how many other countries have foreign military bases inside the US? That's right, ZERO! Colonistic ideals, gotta love em.
Well they are in and outside of the Red Sea to fight Somali pirates. The Red Sea isn't exactly near Iran anyway. The military is in Afghanistan, well, because there is an actual war going on. They concentrate on the East because that borders to Pakistan where most of the action is taking place. They are in Iraq because until recently there was a war going on, and you can at best call Iraq somewhat stable, but not at all peaceful. They are in Kuwait and Qatar as a result of the first and second gulf war.
Point is, if military presence in the region would be an indicator they should have attacked Iran 20 years ago. It's not like they have more oil of a sudden so that hasn't changed either. So I can safely give it another 20 years from those "clues" alone which is within my "any time soon" constraint.
And I don't trust them. I said repeatedly in this thread that I call BS on former CIA chief Hayden's claim an attack is more likely than ever.
On July 27 2010 03:16 ImFromPortugal wrote: What you think of this guys? Is Iran trying to buy some time?
Definitely, Iran is simply playing the game (and the system), the talks will go nowhere, because they don't want them to go anywhere. Iran may try to use it as a major bartering chip to get something out of the UN or US.
I personally wish US would just get the hell out of there, I do. It's not as if we've ever really done any good in the region, but I don't know if there's a way to extract ourselves at this point. Are corporate master's interests not withstanding, there's a very real reason to stop Iran from getting the bomb.
I'd dare say that their relentless pursuit of the bomb puts them in more dire straights than not, and though they may have reason to fear attack, that's largely due to the actions of their proxy armies and the policies they support.
Their recent elections is also one of the major reasons I have a strong dislike for the idea of them possessing the bomb, they are decidedly not-stable, and could break out in revolution within a few years potentially (if some sources are to be believed), and that's never good for military discipline and control.
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?.
Did you miss the whole nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India that's been happening for the last few decades?
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?.
Did you miss the whole nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India that's been happening for the last few decades?
Pakistan has nukes since 1998. If anything the region is pretty stable compared to the 3 wars they were fighting in the previous decades, wouldn't you think? The term "Nuclear standoff" itself carries a very "stable" connotation.
Historically there has been no better bringer of peace than nuclear weapons. They certainly helped in the case of India and Pakistan.
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?.
Did you miss the whole nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India that's been happening for the last few decades?
Pakistan has nukes since 1998. If anything the region is pretty stable compared to the 3 wars they were fighting in the previous decades, wouldn't you think? The term "Nuclear standoff" itself carries a very "stable" connotation.
Historically there has been no better bringer of peace than nuclear weapons. They certainly helped in the case of India and Pakistan.
Are you familiar with the 1962 Cuban missile crisis? I am inclined to argue that nukes are the harbinger of doom upon learning just how close we were to annilihation.
India and Pakistan may accept the Great Equalizer of nukes to stand down, but the US is a global tyrant who doesn't accept anything less than 1st place - even in the face of obliteration.
BAGHDAD – The U.S. Defense Department is unable to properly account for over 95 percent of $9.1 billion in Iraqi oil money tapped by the U.S. for rebuilding the war ravaged nation, according to an audit released Tuesday.
The report by the U.S. Special Investigator for Iraq Reconstruction offers a compelling look at continued laxness in how such funds are being spent in a country where people complain basic services like electricity and clean water are sharply lacking seven years after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
The audit found that shoddy record keeping by the Defense Department left the Pentagon unable to fully account for $8.7 billion it withdrew between 2004 and 2007 from a special fund set up by the U.N. Security Council. Of that amount, Pentagon "could not provide documentation to substantiate how it spent $2.6 billion."
EPT
