» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: CatwomanofV on 02/11/07 at 5:01 pm
It seems that now things are going to hell in a handbasket in Iraq, the Bush Administration seems to be gearing up for things in Iran. Here is the lastest.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070211/ts_nm/iraq3_dc_2
The thing is, Iran has ALWAYS been supplying Iraqi insurgency with arms so what makes this news NOW?? Of course with Dubya's approval ratings in the toilet, I guess he has to show the American people that he will defend us by starting another war. After all, he is a "war-time president". ::)
Any thoughts? Comments?
Cat
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/11/07 at 5:27 pm
We're on the cusp of the greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States.
:o
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: LyricBoy on 02/11/07 at 5:43 pm
I think Putin and Bush should secretly agree to invade Iran so we can teach those sumbiches a thing or two. Settle that score from 1979.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: La Roche on 02/11/07 at 5:45 pm
If anything happens to Iran it will be via Israel. The Israeli's have pretty much threatend nuclear attacks on Iran.
Fact of the matter is, if Israel attacks Iran, the US will be blamed, no matter if they had anything to do with it or not.
Invasion - Nah, it's just not feasible.
With the Democrats controlling congress a draft is out of the question and Dubyah don't really have too many more troops to send off galavanting.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: ADH13 on 02/11/07 at 5:53 pm
With the Democrats controlling congress a draft is out of the question and Dubyah don't really have too many more troops to send off galavanting.
Yep, they forget all about congress.... it's so much more fun to solely blame Bush, I guess.
So yeah, I suppose if 2/3 of the Democratic elected officials wish to attack Iran, it could be a possibility.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: La Roche on 02/11/07 at 5:55 pm
Yep, they forget all about congress.... it's so much more fun to solely blame Bush, I guess.
So yeah, I suppose if 2/3 of the Democratic elected officials wish to attack Iran, it could be a possibility.
Still unlikely.
I doubt the general populace would stand for it.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: ADH13 on 02/11/07 at 6:11 pm
Still unlikely.
I doubt the general populace would stand for it.
Oh, I know.... and I'm sure a Democratic majority wouldn't vote for it either... that was just a reminder of who holds the cards.. I'm sure you see how many forgot about that after Iraq. ;)
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Davester on 02/11/07 at 6:12 pm
I think Putin and Bush should secretly agree to invade Iran so we can teach those sumbiches a thing or two. Settle that score from 1979.
The Iranians really should get over the U.S. overthrowing their democratically elected government in 1953...
Those farging bastiges...
Heaven forbid they hold a grudge for more than a generation... ;)
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Tia on 02/11/07 at 8:29 pm
yeah, an attack on iran will go over about as well as the christmas bombings did. that almost destroyed the country.
of course, i don't think this current lot will be happy until they've thoroughly raped america to death. conservatism is poison.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: La Roche on 02/11/07 at 8:56 pm
yeah, an attack on iran will go over about as well as the christmas bombings did. that almost destroyed the country.
of course, i don't think this current lot will be happy until they've thoroughly raped america to death. conservatism is poison.
I don't suppose the Liberal mob would be happy until they'd taxed the middle classes to death and elevated those who refuse to work to the status of kings.
Liberalism is poison.
:-*
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: witchain on 02/11/07 at 9:23 pm
http://www.darksideoutdoors.com/Forum/Smileys/default/duel.gif
You can count on WWIII if that ever happens...
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Foo Bar on 02/11/07 at 11:00 pm
We're on the cusp of the greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States.
Hey, we gotta do something to top the last one!
Then again, if I make half as much on the next war as I did on the current one, I'll be set for life, even on an after-tax basis. I like those odds.
(Yeah, I had a conscience. I traded it in for an attitude.)
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Tia on 02/11/07 at 11:03 pm
I don't suppose the Liberal mob would be happy until they'd taxed the middle classes to death and elevated those who refuse to work to the status of kings.
Liberalism is poison.
:-*
on the one hand, we have the same tired old bromides about taxes and howling about imaginary welfare queens.
on the other, we have... the last six years.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Foo Bar on 02/11/07 at 11:15 pm
on the one hand, we have the same tired old bromides about taxes and howling about imaginary welfare queens.
on the other, we have... the last six years.
And on the gripping hand, there are "l"ibertarians, if only they could get out from under the shadow of the fanatics in control of the "L"ibertarian party. A basic ethos of "initiate no force" would be an interesting way to run a society, on the sole virtue that it's about the only thing that hasn't been tried yet.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Tia on 02/11/07 at 11:23 pm
on some levels i like libertarianism, but the whole bit about complete deregulation of corporatism rubs me the wrong way -- to someone like me corporate entities seem pretty much in league with the government, so that when libertarians proper talk about small government but advocate enormous corporate influence, it strikes me as flagrantly contradictory.
the liberal/conservative binary is kinda a convenience, but one we've evidently all agreed to use. the guys at waco, far right guys, probably resemble a lot of hippy commune types more than either resembles moderates of either political stripe. and then there's all sorts of permutations, all kinds of people who endorse some conservative and some liberal ideas, or change depending on what day you catch em.
still, though, this current administration is about as ideologically right as you can imagine. in their case it's really not very ambiguous.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Davester on 02/12/07 at 1:45 am
You've hit the nail on the head, Tia. I've been a small "l" libertarian for years and a voting member of the party. But I'm ready to toss the party and stop registering so it will lose ballot status...
The Libertarian Party has no practical, pragmatic understanding of the fact that politics exists whether we like it or not, and that we have to deal with it. There are so many things that a movement can do that a party cannot. And there are so many things that the Libertarian Party cannot do because every voter can find at least two planks in our platform that offend them and because the press can't help portraying it as the Kook Party that wants to abolish the government...
We need to dissolve the Libertarian Party and form a club. Use our money, energy, and influence to work on specific issues. Instead of fighting over abortion and immigration, leave that stuff to the politicians. Work together to end the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, and corporate welfare. The Nature Conservancy for the limousine liberals, the Sierra Club for the greying Boomers, and even Greenpeace and PETA for the eco-militants all have accomplished more than the Green Party, for instance, and done it more suavely and with more bang for the buck. (Well maybe PETA ain't so suave but they sure do work cheap...) groove ;) on...
I surely apologize for the OT posting, I could not resist...
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: witchain on 02/12/07 at 3:28 am
This doesn't sound good.
:-\\
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Davester on 02/12/07 at 3:56 am
This doesn't sound good.
:-\\
This is interesting: Leading Experts Say Congress Must Stop An Attack on Iran: Is That Constitutionally Possible?
John Dean provides informative background on how Congress can impede the Bush Administration from again initiating a war on false pretenses. There's obvious but incremental movement toward a balance of powers today. Congressional debate (if only debate over debate) and the Libby and Watada trials show that things are shifting far from where we were in 2003. Without a new USS Maine or 9-11 provocation, it seems unlikely, to me, that Bush's neoconservatives ever again command so unquestioned and unfettered as they once did groove ;) on...
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Tia on 02/12/07 at 7:36 am
Without a new USS Maine or 9-11 provocation, it seems unlikely, to me, that Bush's neoconservatives ever again command so unquestioned and unfettered as they once did groove ;) on...
don't give em any ideas! :o
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: CatwomanofV on 02/12/07 at 2:17 pm
Yep, they forget all about congress.... it's so much more fun to solely blame Bush, I guess.
So yeah, I suppose if 2/3 of the Democratic elected officials wish to attack Iran, it could be a possibility.
The problem is that Dubya doesn't pay a lot of attention to Congress. Under the Constitution, it states that Congress shall declare war-but with Iraq, Congress gave that to Bush. Now, he feels that he has a free hand to do whatever he likes. Look at what is going on with "the surge". Many in Congress do not think it is a good thing but Dubya thinks as Commander in Chief, he can do whatever he wants. And I am afraid that he may try to do the same thing with Iran. I just hope that the Dems will put their pants on and reign in Dubya's "power" in Iraq, Afganistan AND Iran.
Cat
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/12/07 at 5:47 pm
The Iranians really should get over the U.S. overthrowing their democratically elected government in 1953...
Those farging bastiges...
Heaven forbid they hold a grudge for more than a generation... ;)
Karma +1
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumleft.gif
If anything happens to Iran it will be via Israel. The Israeli's have pretty much threatend nuclear attacks on Iran.
Fact of the matter is, if Israel attacks Iran, the US will be blamed, no matter if they had anything to do with it or not.
Invasion - Nah, it's just not feasible.
With the Democrats controlling congress a draft is out of the question and Dubyah don't really have too many more troops to send off galavanting.
That's what I mean. These guys talking war with Iran is like talking about driving from Boston to L.A. on half a tank of gas!
The only people I saw talking about a draft were Dems, especially Charlie Rangell. You can bet dollars to donuts no Dem is going to make a new draft an election platform issue, though!
Nonetheless, if they want war with Iran, they'll need a draft so exhausting it'll dwarf the one we had in Vietnam.
Whether it's the U.S., Iran, or Israel that fires the first nuke, the same genie will rise from the same bottle, and there will be no turning back from the inferno!
I don't suppose the Liberal mob would be happy until they'd taxed the middle classes to death and elevated those who refuse to work to the status of kings.
Liberalism is poison.
:-*
Whatcha got there, Michael Savage Cliff Notes?
A few more years of the current economic practices will innoculate us from the "middle class" disease. The employment base, the labor unions, and the tax structure that created what we know as the middle class is being dismantled by the Right in this country. When a Republican senator says "middle class," he means "rich."
It isn't taxes that's destroying the middle class, it's the destruction of the societal infrastructure born out of the New Deal that's doing the damage.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: ADH13 on 02/12/07 at 11:12 pm
The problem is that Dubya doesn't pay a lot of attention to Congress. Under the Constitution, it states that Congress shall declare war-but with Iraq, Congress gave that to Bush. Now, he feels that he has a free hand to do whatever he likes. Look at what is going on with "the surge". Many in Congress do not think it is a good thing but Dubya thinks as Commander in Chief, he can do whatever he wants. And I am afraid that he may try to do the same thing with Iran. I just hope that the Dems will put their pants on and reign in Dubya's "power" in Iraq, Afganistan AND Iran.
Cat
After re-reading the earliest posts on this thread, it probably came across as if my post was directed at you... it wasn't intended that way...
Congress voted to support the attacks on Iraq. Everyone who is anti-war still to this day seems to solely blame Bush, rarely making a mention of the fact that congressmen from both parties endorsed it. Mark my words here... if congress passes a resolution to block the surge, and the surge doesn't happen, how many anti-war people will we see crediting Bush for not following through with the surge? Same principle, same procedure...but in this case, liberals will credit congress 100%... I see the same scenario with Iran if any sort of military action ever became possible. If congress voted for it, it would be Bush's fault. If congress voted against it, it would be kudos to congress for stopping him.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Davester on 02/13/07 at 12:01 am
Not all Liberals are Democrat and not all Democrats are Anti-War and not all Anti-War are Liberals, &etc...
But I see where you're going - sniffing out inconsistencies. And you may be right. Dems have become rather adept at committing suicide over these past years and climbing onto a cross for a cause does nothing to win elections. Anti-war'ers will stop at nothing. Liberals are, well, just Liberals groove ;) on...
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: ADH13 on 02/13/07 at 12:56 am
Not all Liberals are Democrat and not all Democrats are Anti-War and not all Anti-War are Liberals, &etc...
I knew someone was going to call me on my terminology... I originally used the term anti-war instead of liberals... then I changed it because I think "anti-war" describes 99% of Americans... none of us WANT to be at war... the division is on the question of who is to blame for it.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Davester on 02/13/07 at 1:12 am
I knew someone was going to call me on my terminology... I originally used the term anti-war instead of liberals... then I changed it because I think "anti-war" describes 99% of Americans... none of us WANT to be at war... the division is on the question of who is to blame for it.
No, you're the one who did the calling out... ;)
These terms sort of leapt off the page at me upon first glance. But, I think it's important the differences are recognized. Let he (or she) who is without an agenda cast the first stone. Individual motivations are most important...
My non-answer of an answer betrays my conundrum. Who blames who when for what and why...
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: CatwomanofV on 02/13/07 at 4:30 pm
After re-reading the earliest posts on this thread, it probably came across as if my post was directed at you... it wasn't intended that way...
Congress voted to support the attacks on Iraq. Everyone who is anti-war still to this day seems to solely blame Bush, rarely making a mention of the fact that congressmen from both parties endorsed it. Mark my words here... if congress passes a resolution to block the surge, and the surge doesn't happen, how many anti-war people will we see crediting Bush for not following through with the surge? Same principle, same procedure...but in this case, liberals will credit congress 100%... I see the same scenario with Iran if any sort of military action ever became possible. If congress voted for it, it would be Bush's fault. If congress voted against it, it would be kudos to congress for stopping him.
I know you weren't directing your post at me personally and I DO understand what you are saying. And yes, I do blame Congress for allowing this fisaco to happen. And all those people who voted to give Dubya the "power" to invade are now saying they were duped. And the ones who saw through all the B.S. before the invasion are all saying, "I told you so." No, this mess is not entirely Dubya's doing-he had a lot help along the way. But, being the Comander in Chief, he is the one who is SUPPOSE TO take responsibility.
As for whether he will try to do the same in Iran as he did with Iraq, here is an interesting commentary (the bold print is my doing):
PAUL KRUGMAN: Scary Movie 2
Attacking Iran would be a catastrophic mistake, even if all the allegations now being made about Iranian actions in Iraq are true.
But it wouldn
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/13/07 at 6:01 pm
As I'm sure Krugman understands, these wars are not about winning. These wars are about draining the treasury into a few private hands. Halliburton is not about providing services. Halliburton is about theft. Dick Cheney is about theft. They are in it to fleece the world. Thse guys thrive on chaos. They're like looters in the middle of a hurricane.
The Democrats have been weak because they try to be Republicans and fail. They let the Republicans define all the issues because they have to answer to the same paymasters the Republicans do. The "New Democrat" power base must die.
This is for another thread, but it seems to me the only electable candidate we have is John Edwards.
We can't go to war with Iran. If we try, we will fail. We will fail because this country does not have it's sh*t together. If we had to confront the Axis powers like we did in 1941 today, we would lose.
Not only does this country have to get its industrial/information economy back, we also have to change how we view ourselves and vew the world. Sorry, George Soros is right, we have to "de-nazify." Dennis Kucinich has the right idea, but he frightens the macho ego of the American mainstream. This whole Christian Cowboy ethos has got to go!
::)
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Tia on 02/13/07 at 6:05 pm
As I'm sure Krugman understands, these wars are not about winning. These wars are about draining the treasury into a few private hands.
very nicely put.
war is a racket!
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/13/07 at 6:09 pm
very nicely put.
war is a racket!
Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler said the same thing prior to World War II. I've posted it before. Just enter "Smedley Butler" into Wikipedia.
The Dems also need the cojones to propose legislation that would make war profiteering treason and dare the Right to support the other side!
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Davester on 02/13/07 at 11:41 pm
The insurgent tactic most responsible for U.S. deaths and injuries in Iraq are IEDs and not small arms fire. It is disturbing to know that our impressive armor, and (more importantly) our flesh-and-blood troops are so vulnerable to relatively cheap and low-tech improvisation in this situation. Shaped charges are being touted by the saber-rattlers as some sort of high-tech, limited-source device, complete with serial numbers and perhaps even "Made in Iran" placards...
Are we to believe that the crude components of IEDs/shaped charges such as oil pipe, copper or steel sheeting, explosives, fuses &etc cannot be procured within Iraq or that such materials aren't commonplace in Iraq..?
Are we being led to believe, instead, that Iran can be the only source of all such devices so threatening to our occupation forces..?
Do Iraqi fighters really need Iran's participation in order to implement this technology..?
This is what is killing our soldiers in Iraq...
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-6/1193336/shaped-IED.jpg
Not this...
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-6/1193336/ak-47.jpg
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Tia on 02/13/07 at 11:44 pm
dude, check you out some "battle of tangiers." they teach it at the pentagon war college.
honestly, i'm looking forward to working my DoD subcontractor gig. maybe they'll let me bring a cd player and i can listen to death angel and HuG while i edit their proposals.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: annonymouse on 02/13/07 at 11:46 pm
If anything happens to Iran it will be via Israel. The Israeli's have pretty much threatend nuclear attacks on Iran.
Fact of the matter is, if Israel attacks Iran, the US will be blamed, no matter if they had anything to do with it or not.
Invasion - Nah, it's just not feasible.
With the Democrats controlling congress a draft is out of the question and Dubyah don't really have too many more troops to send off galavanting.
yeah, we really shouldn't get involved with the fighting between those two countries seeing as it's been going on for thousands of years.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Davester on 02/14/07 at 12:01 am
dude, check you out some "battle of tangiers." they teach it at the pentagon war college.
honestly, i'm looking forward to working my DoD subcontractor gig. maybe they'll let me bring a cd player and i can listen to death angel and HuG while i edit their proposals.
Man, I've been on the brink of purchasing the Criterion edition of that very movie for some time. I wanted something to sit right next to, and compliment Peter Davis' "Hearts and Minds". I've read reviews up the wazoo. Nothing but praise...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's sort of a pseudo-documantary style, boots on the ground view of a particullarly brutal engagement in the Moroccan uprising..?
Lay a linkie on me. You must've posted something about this DoD gig somewhere on here. If you happen to travel to the bloated corpse that was once Iraq, please remember to bring your knife-proof scarf, okay..? Seriously...
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Davester on 02/14/07 at 12:20 am
Oh jeez...
I was thinking of the movie "Battle of Algiers"...
Sorry 'bout that... :-\\
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Tia on 02/14/07 at 12:24 am
lol.
i'm actually playing the led zeppelin song "tangiers" right now. trying to get ready for this bad zeppelin gig.
honest man's mistake.
oops. i mean kashmir.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Tia on 02/14/07 at 12:25 am
all by way of saying, algiers is correct. tia's grasp of history is somewhat... irregular.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Davester on 02/14/07 at 12:34 am
And it's not a Moroccan uprising, Davester, but an Algerian one...
Okay, I'm going to leave and then come back in again...
Must be musicosis, Tia...
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Tia on 02/14/07 at 12:43 am
And it's not a Moroccan uprising, Davester, but an Algerian one...
Okay, I'm going to leave and then come back in again...
Must be musicosis, Tia...
i think my lox-stop cassette might not be sufficiently silencing my mecp2 gene.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/14/07 at 12:48 am
i think my lox-stop cassette might not be sufficiently silencing my mecp2 gene.
Is that English? ;D ;D
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Tia on 02/14/07 at 12:54 am
Is that English? ;D ;D
yeah! pfft! wait till you contract RTT.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: skittlesking on 02/14/07 at 9:20 am
It seems that now things are going to hell in a handbasket in Iraq, the Bush Administration seems to be gearing up for things in Iran. Here is the lastest.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070211/ts_nm/iraq3_dc_2
The thing is, Iran has ALWAYS been supplying Iraqi insurgency with arms so what makes this news NOW?? Of course with Dubya's approval ratings in the toilet, I guess he has to show the American people that he will defend us by starting another war. After all, he is a "war-time president". ::)
Any thoughts? Comments?
Cat
Somehow this whole things seems very reminicent of Hitler's making up reasons to attack it's neighbors. . .the only difference is that United Facists of America are not claiming it's over their "Religion". . .but I think the words and everything that is going on supports that history appears to be repeating itself. . .let's just hope something or someone intervenes.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: skittlesking on 02/14/07 at 9:32 am
As I'm sure Krugman understands, these wars are not about winning. These wars are about draining the treasury into a few private hands. Halliburton is not about providing services. Halliburton is about theft. Dick Cheney is about theft. They are in it to fleece the world. Thse guys thrive on chaos. They're like looters in the middle of a hurricane.
The Democrats have been weak because they try to be Republicans and fail. They let the Republicans define all the issues because they have to answer to the same paymasters the Republicans do. The "New Democrat" power base must die.
This is for another thread, but it seems to me the only electable candidate we have is John Edwards.
We can't go to war with Iran. If we try, we will fail. We will fail because this country does not have it's sh*t together. If we had to confront the Axis powers like we did in 1941 today, we would lose.
Not only does this country have to get its industrial/information economy back, we also have to change how we view ourselves and vew the world. Sorry, George Soros is right, we have to "de-nazify." Dennis Kucinich has the right idea, but he frightens the macho ego of the American mainstream. This whole Christian Cowboy ethos has got to go!
::)
Maxwell--you are one hundred percent accurate. . .the New Democrat is Republican? It's true though--every platform is almost identical. . .and the constitution being vulnerable because of it as any one party having total control puts it at risk, is sad. . .I am pursuing actively an immigration to Canada out of fear of future WW3 and U.S.A. being brought down to reality the way Germany was--scary but I see it unfolding before my eyes. . .new countries, new reason, same predictament.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/14/07 at 11:38 am
^ This is why it is vital to make war-profiteering unconstitutional. If military-industrial complex contractors could not longer make billions off the violent suffering of other human beings, you'd see a lot of the sabre-rattling disappear. Diplomacy would look more attractive from the start. If a belicose foreign policy is profitable, that's what we'll get every time!
::)
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Tia on 02/14/07 at 1:28 pm
nice one-liner in the UK: america wants to make up for being late for the first two world wars by being early for the third.
always liked that one, in a sad-but-true kinda way.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: La Roche on 02/14/07 at 1:36 pm
nice one-liner in the UK: america wants to make up for being late for the first two world wars by being early for the third.
always liked that one, in a sad-but-true kinda way.
Well, these things are cyclical.
The fact of the matter is this, whilst everybody likes to blame America... or Britain.. or France, Germany, Venezuela, Israel.. whoever's leader has done something stupid this week. We all know where the majority of problems are stemming from.
The middle east.
This is why the deal with Iran confuses me. Iran is NOT an Arab nation.. it's probably the most stable country in that region with the most civil libertys and similar ideals to the US. We're waaaaay more like Iran than freakin Saudi Arabia (which is a problem!).
God I'm gonna sound Liberal here.
Iran is not the enemy. Iran is simply a boogey man that's been provoked by hostile U.S foreign policy. If we stopped fuukin with them, they'd stop fuukin with us, simple as that.
Saudi Arabia - Problem.
Pakistan - Problem.
Syria - Problem.
Sudan - Problem.
Lebanon - Not a problem.
Iran - Not a problem.
Iraq - Never that big a problem... although definatly in need of a leadership turn around.
The reason the US polices the world is to prevent things like North Korea getting nukes. Let's face it, if left to their own devices, half the nations in the world would have Nuclear weapons.
The US is the only country powerful enough to do it. If it wasn't the US, it'd be Russia, or Britain or Japan.. whoever.
There will be worldwide conflict, probably in a similar manner to the crusades. It's religion being subverted to create idealogical differences.
Not to turn the tide of this discussion too much, but everywhere you look in most of these conflicts it's Christianity vs Islam. Eventually this will come to a head.
These things are so predictable and there's really not all that much we can or should do about it.
Much in the same way that we have huge global pandemic viral outbreaks to clean up the population.. we have wars. Big Big Bastard wars that kill 100,000,000 people and give us all a little more Lebensraum.
I'm not an advocate of warfare. I'm at the perfect age and physical specifications to be on the front line, with a rifle and a scared ass look on my face, but the fact is, no matter who's in control, it'll come. It's just the human psyche.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: CatwomanofV on 02/14/07 at 2:35 pm
Somehow this whole things seems very reminicent of Hitler's making up reasons to attack it's neighbors. . .the only difference is that United Facists of America are not claiming it's over their "Religion". . .but I think the words and everything that is going on supports that history appears to be repeating itself. . .let's just hope something or someone intervenes.
I have seen the similarities between Hitler & Dubya for many years now and have said so on this board. I know many people think that it is because of my "blind hatred" for the man why I say that-which it is not. I have studied History and as George Santayana once said, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. This man is VERY dangerous and it really floors me that people don't see it.
Cat
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: skittlesking on 02/14/07 at 10:40 pm
I have seen the similarities between Hitler & Dubya for many years now and have said so on this board. I know many people think that it is because of my "blind hatred" for the man why I say that-which it is not. I have studied History and as George Santayana once said, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. This man is VERY dangerous and it really floors me that people don't see it.
Cat
Ah--well it feels good not to be the only one who sees it so +1 Karma for you CatWoman--always was my fav character from the Batman series--much less of a pussy than any of the other bad guys--and it fits you well. . .Your comment "Those who cannot remeber the past are condemned to repeat it" is so true it's scary. . .
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: ADH13 on 02/14/07 at 11:00 pm
A military attack on Iran wouldn't be smart. Im sure there are radicals in Iran, just as there are in any other country. Iran, though, has a legitimate government, where Iraq did not.
The Iranian government has done some good things. They detained several al-qaeda suspects, as well as (I believe I remember correctly) detaining several in an embassy bombing plot.
Since most of the insurgent attacks lately have been against Shiites by Sunni sympathizers, I have a bit of a problem with the concept of mostly Shiite Iran supporting it. (Although I'm sure there could be rebels in Iran who support it)
Iranians who enter Iraq, of course, need to be dealt with...but as long as they stay in Iran, I don't see any reason to bother them.
As far as the nuclear stuff, there is a big difference there too... Iran is not stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon, as their entire nation would be annhialated as soon as they press the button. Saddam probably would have been stupid enough, if he had the opportunity.
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: Davester on 02/14/07 at 11:44 pm
Iranians who enter Iraq, of course, need to be dealt with...but as long as they stay in Iran, I don't see any reason to bother them.
I agree. Seal. The. Border...
But, far more material has been found to be of Czech, Russian, and even American origins. It doesn't suit the Bush team to advertise it. We are unlikely to retaliate against those who have for years now been clearly identified as having released to Iraqi insurgents hundreds upon hundreds of tons of explosives, from the Al- Qaqaa and Ukhaider weapons depots, and other locations. The prime culprit in these massive and well-documented releases of explosives to insurgents- in quantities sufficient to supply decades of insurgency at present levels was...
The United States...
al-Qaqaa
Ukhaider
Subject: Re: Could Iran Be Next?
Written By: witchain on 02/15/07 at 5:40 am
Yesterday's press conference.
Iran isn't the only nugget of insanity GWB was spouting about yesterday, but it was the main focus.