USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]Are you referring to Dukes faked up KKK pictures?

I'm also reffering to your posted picture as well, both are fake.

Quote[/b] ]Are you referring to an attack on Iran? I think you mean Somalia.

The US Should attack Iran; the US is attacking Somolia

Quote[/b] ]As far as the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower goes it was not involved in the bombings as you call them in Somalia. It was on station to ensure no one escaped by sea.

Lets look at what a said;

Quote[/b] ]USS Dwight D. Eisenhower left its original post in the Persian gulf to assist in the bombings

.

notice how I said assist; not attack.

Quote[/b] ]The US air actions at the Battle of Ras Kamboni in Somalia were by UAV providing targeting information for two AC130 gunships out of Djibouti.

don't start trying to get us posting in circles, I know this. If you would have read this:

Quote[/b] ]They were striking suspected hideouts for al-Qaeda.

---

Quote[/b] ]US attacking Iran in any form right now would explode right in the US faces in Iraq. You don´t have to be a genius to know that.

Do you think the US would have any idle unit after the bombings? You also don't have to be a genius to understand that Iran in geographicly flanked. Iran realised this a while back and made a pact with Syria.

Quote[/b] ]Why are you so hungry for another front in Iran ?

If you would have read my post in its entirety you would know the answer to that. I'll give you a hint, it deals with Israel.

Quote[/b] ]With the war in Iraq the US has lost it´s ability to stage a campaign in Iran.

the Army has; but the Air Force, Navy, and Marines all have the ability to carry out a short-term campiagn. But you have to know that Iran is already in the UN spotlight. actions have already been made to combat the nuke programs. If it gets close to when Israel will strike, the US will certainly get the UN moving.

Quote[/b] ]How is this [adding troops] going to be the way to victory ?

don't ask me, the problems are political not militaristic in nature. The Iraqi government still needs some problems ironed out. after all, it took the US 13 years to get a strong government together and now you asking Iraq to do that in a fraction of that time.

@fardwark: That is more of an "Iraq War" thread post. It's hard to keep them seperate but somehow it ends up over to the Iraqi topic. Something i think will happen when I go to reply to Balschoiw's post.

[fardwark 0]

Why should the US attack Iran? I don't really see a good reason for it, unless you want to use the tired excuse that they are evil or whatever.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'll give you a hint, it deals with Israel.

Israel should be capable enough to deal with that on their own if they are really after it. Else it will look like the US is just a puppie of Israel. Apart from that right now it looks like Israel is more agressive in it´s military actions than any other Middle east country. I´ll leave it aside if those actions made sense or not, but they are not the good guys per se.

Quote[/b] ]but the Air Force, Navy, and Marines all have the ability to carry out a short-term campiagn.

Great, you can bomb but what will you do afterwards ? Do you really think the iranians would leave an attack on their soil go unanswered ? In fact the geopolitical position of Iran has reached new hights and they KNOW that. That´s why there is no A+B = C plan. Maybe in some wet dreams, but not in reality. If Iran is attacked it will close the seaways and even IF there were enough forces to hinder or end such it would come at a higher price anyone is currently willing and able to pay.

By starting the incredibly stupid war in Iraq the US hindered themselves from interventions in North Korea and Iran.

Not that noone would have said that prior to the war...

Israel is not able to strike on iranian soil without the help of US forces. So if Israel strikes, the US will be part of the strike and that´s what the White House and the regional leaders are aware of. It would open up a second front, a front the US is not capable of dealing with right now and they are not even interrested in such developement right now.

For once the US should hold their warmongering feet still and reinforce the UN sanctions and international approach before rushing in with no strategy again.

Quote[/b] ]and now you asking Iraq to do that in a fraction of that time

WE don´t ask, it´s your government that wants them to be ready by november wich is just a cheap trick to get rid of the responsibilities the US has earned when starting the war in the first place. If anyone is responsible right now, it´s the US who are obliged to get things working, not some mumbo-jumbo government.

[Duke 0]

2nd front? we've already got two. Remember Afghanistan? You know.. that Country that we invaded and gave hell after 9/11? You know, the country the Soviets invaded?. Sorry, seems like many people forget that we are still in Afghanistan. But aside from that,

If Israel wants to strike Iran. Let them do it, for once we shouldn't interfere with that. Israel is tired of sitting around taking shots from several countries. Israel was directly threatened by Iran. Iran's prime Minister specifically stated, numerous times, "Israel needs to be whiped off the map" That's provoking enough to start something right there. I wouldn't feel bad if Israel blackened the skies over Iran for the next 50 years, and force them to re-invent the friggin wheel. Israel has every right to defend itself. As for us Americans, We should let Israel do it. We shouldn't stop them for a second. Would we HAVE to help Israel? No we wouldnt. Their forces are plenty capable of a strike on Iran. BUT, If we do set Iran in its heels. We have plenty of opportunities and ways of doing so. I guess we'll see what happens when the ball gets rolling.

[Messiah 2]

Israel attacking Iran because they dont like each other is in no way 'defending itself'... its pre emptive at best.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]2nd front? we've already got two. Remember Afghanistan? You know.. that Country that we invaded and gave hell after 9/11?

Hehe check the numbers of NATO contigent and check numbers of OEF contingent. It´s not a solo-US operation. At best the US is participant, but neither running it, nor being largest force.

As we already know knowledge isn´t your number 1 thing.

Quote[/b] ] That's provoking enough to start something right there.

It is ? Maybe if something like diplomacy hasn´t been invented some time ago... Maybe you will learn about it at school oneday.

Quote[/b] ]Israel has every right to defend itself.

Has Israel been attacked by Iran ? No ? So where is the defending point ? You sound like an angry kid...

Quote[/b] ]Their forces are plenty capable of a strike on Iran.

No. Get your fact updated.

Quote[/b] ]We have plenty of opportunities and ways of doing so.

That would be ? Enlighten us with your indepth knowledge.

Quote[/b] ]I guess we'll see what happens when the ball gets rolling.

It´s not "when" it´s "if", makes a bit of a difference.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Iraq war was the biggest foreign policy blunder ever made.

It has left the US and coalition looking like a paper tiger.

As a result North Korea is testing nukes willy nilly. Iran is ignoring anything the US says.

Israel did the same in the war on hezbolah.

As to US and Coalition standing with the rest of the world its word is now worth little. Everyone just says the "Boy who cried wolf"

However democracy has a simple solution for failed war leaders such as TBA and TBA2. The courts.

Indite the lot of them and replace them with an effective administration that is not a bunch of failures.

As to TBA2 there is already talk about Tony Blair being indigted for war crimes since the criterion for war require a real and present danger of WMD.

The Jeff Gannon Affair

We can start the US court cases off with a look into the Jeff Gannon affair.

The Secret Service records show Jeff Gannon had access to the White House long before the fake virtual News Agency Talon was formed. In fact the Secret Service records show Jeff Gannon was over-nighting at the White House. As at the time Jeff Gannnon was listed on his own website as a $200.00 a night gay prostitute, it seems perfectly resonable in the light of the security implications to investigate who gave Gannon the Invitations and why?

Also since the secret service records show Jeff Gannon over-nighting at the White House, it seems reasonable to ask in who's bed did Jeff Ganonn sleep when the newly released Secret Service records show he was at the White House over night.

http://rawstory.rawprint.com/0405/guckert_access_a1.php

Kind Regards Walker

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why should the US attack Iran?

have you been hiding under a rock? I'm not even... *shakes head*

Quote[/b] ]Apart from that right now it looks like Israel is more agressive in it´s military actions

That's the problem, If Israel gets a permit to cross through Iraq it would take out Syria and Jordan before it gets to Iran.

Quote[/b] ]Great, you can bomb but what will you do afterwards ? Do you really think the iranians would leave an attack on their soil go unanswered ?

9 times out of 10 an army with no air support will be destroyed. If you take out the Iranian air force (not hard for the modern F-22), and other anti-aircraft ability (not hard for the F-117, B-52, or B-2), you will be able to easily destroy the country's military. All that will be left would be targets of opportunity. So unless some Iranian has AAA hidden in his garage --which even then it would last long, air strikes would ultimately turn Iran into a clan versus clan country. But don't let me stop there, air force jimmy can press a button and make any armed mob trying to cross the boarder disappear! It's, It's magic! Modern Equipment! WOW!

Quote[/b] ]Israel is not able to strike on iranian soil without the help of US forces.

With a missile (called the Jericho 2) that can be chucked 4,000 Km, It can reach clear on to Tibet. If you want to go to the standard version of the Jericho 2, which can reach 1,500 Km, Tehran can be hit. They will be stretching a little bit but they won't be in the Goland Heights. But think of it this way, Israel has nukes. If you think they will lob a missile that can take a 1,000 kilogram friend along for the ride do you think they can pack a few nukes into it? So... Get your facts updated!

Quote[/b] ]it´s the US who are obliged to get things working

"you better get things done before the end of the year" sure sounds like a swift kick in the a$s to get things working to me.

Quote[/b] ]Israel attacking Iran because they dont like each other is in no way 'defending itself'... its pre emptive at best.

Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map and then getting a nuke sure puts Israel in a bad spot.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe you will learn about it at school oneday.

Last time I checked threatening someone would get you a free set of orange jumpers and a vacation as Bubba's "buddy." Diplomacy looks like its failing now, Iran --even after sanctions-- is still going on with its nuke program.

Quote[/b] ]Has Israel been attacked by Iran ? No ? So where is the defending point ?

If i dropped a nuke on your house do you think I would go into it later and use it as my own? do you think i would bother tossing a grenade into it after the blast? Point being, you really can defend against a nuke once its fired. its not like everyone can put on a flak vest and duck and cover. chances are Iran will get ticked off at Israel and chuck a naughty november into Israel's back yard. Then they will feel satisfied after seeing a mushroom cloud over Israel and go on with their lives.

[EiZei 0]

But don't let me stop there, air force jimmy can press a button and make any armed mob trying to cross the boarder disappear! It's, It's magic! Modern Equipment! WOW!

The difference of course being able to tell that and a wedding party apart. Something that the USAF is'nt excatly renowned for.

Quote[/b] ]

With a missile (called the Jericho 2) that can be chucked 4,000 Km, It can reach clear on to Tibet. If you want to go to the standard version of the Jericho 2, which can reach 1,500 Km, Tehran can be hit. They will be stretching a little bit but they won't be in the Goland Heights. But think of it this way, Israel has nukes. If you think they will lob a missile that can take a 1,000 kilogram friend along for the ride do you think they can pack a few nukes into it? So... Get your facts updated!

Don't those things have CEPs measured in kilometres? Not very useful if you are trying to take out hardened relatively small targets. More useful if you are trying to outdo the holocaust.

Quote[/b] ]

If i dropped a nuke on your house do you think I would go into it later and use it as my own? do you think i would bother tossing a grenade into it after the blast? Point being, you really can defend against a nuke once its fired. its not like everyone can put on a flak vest and duck and cover. chances are Iran will get ticked off at Israel and chuck a naughty november into Israel's back yard. Then they will feel satisfied after seeing a mushroom cloud over Israel and go on with their lives.

I think the cold war pretty much proved that you can defend against nukes.. by having your own nukes.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think the cold war pretty much proved that you can defend against nukes.. by having your own nukes.

That's not an applicable example. The Kremlin was, for the most part, a rational body. The ideologies of the US and the USSR may have differed greatly, but in the end both sides were sensible and wished to avoid nuclear apocalypse. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given plenty of reasons for us to believe that he is, for practical purposes, batshit insane. For all that we know, he may very well see a nuclear apocalypse as the perfect way to bring back his beloved 12th Imam. Deterrance, after all, only works when both sides wish to avoid destruction.

[Baff1 0]

How about India and Pakistan then, is that a good example?

Or Russia and China maybe?

And Armadinejad is hardly less sane then Bush with all that God told him to invade Iraq nonsense, and his stated desire to topple every Middle Eastern government and turn them all into American styled democracies.

It's America and the Israeli's that have been threatening to use nukes, not the Iranians.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]have you been hiding under a rock? I'm not even... *shakes head*

You can sake all that you got but when I checked lately Iran has not attacked the US, so the case of defending yourself is not void.

We have learned that the intelligence gathered prior Iraq war was nothing but bullshit, but now you surprisingly know better about Iran ?

We live in a world where a nation like the US is not a solo-stuntman that can pull of an indefinite number of stunts and "invite" others to clean up the mess. We´ve had already plenty of them. So just incase you missed it given the methology of world community it would be another illegal war started by the US, shining beacon of whatsoever.

Quote[/b] ]That's the problem, If Israel gets a permit to cross through Iraq it would take out Syria and Jordan before it gets to Iran.

Very funny, they were not even able to fulfill their tasks in Lebanon. If we have learned anything from the Lebanon conflict it´s that the israeli army certainly has some huge deficits.

We´re not talking about a ground mission here, we´re taliknk about airstrikes. The israeli airforce is not able to go to Iran , lob some bombs and return home without the strategic and logistical help from the US forces for simple technical reasons. So any israeli strike on Iran would be accompanied by US forces and this is something the GW administration simply can´t support right now due to their brave engagement in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]If you take out the Iranian air force (not hard for the modern F-22), and other anti-aircraft ability (not hard for the F-117, B-52, or B-2), you will be able to easily destroy the country's military.

You assume the iranian military only consits of cowards. You´d be surprised to know that they have a working AA system and are prepared and uparmoured. It´s not like Iraq where such weapon systems simply had no existance due to GW1 and UN actions.

We´ve heard all that talk about allmighty weapon systems before. They even didn´t work that well against Iraq, why should they now work against Iran. If anything has been learned from Iraq it´s that you need a vast amount of groundtroops to accomplish a mission. I fail to see why this would be different in a country that has a much more capable military and some nasty russian weapon systems that do work and are not that outdated as the iraqui equipment.

On a sidenote, any airspace violaters will be given a warm welcome by HAWK AA systems supplied by the US.

Once more you also have a blind eye for their direct neighbour, Iraq. You got an idea of what would be happening in Iraq if Iran would be attacked aswell ? Right now people in Iraq do appreciate the financial help from Iran very much and an attack on Iran would certainly not improve the situation of US troops in Iraq if even more people turn against them and simply don´t give them no space to breathe anymore.

Quote[/b] ]With a missile (called the Jericho 2) that can be chucked 4,000 Km, It can reach clear on to Tibet. If you want to go to the standard version of the Jericho 2, which can reach 1,500 Km, Tehran can be hit. They will be stretching a little bit but they won't be in the Goland Heights. But think of it this way, Israel has nukes. If you think they will lob a missile that can take a 1,000 kilogram friend along for the ride do you think they can pack a few nukes into it? So... Get your facts updated!

If any nuclear launch, no matter where on the world is detected the answer from defense systems worldwide is the total annihilation of the location where the NBC carrier was launched from. There will be no telephone calls, no explanations. A nuke launch against any target will ring bells worldwide and you can be sure that Israel would seize to exist the day they launched one. Those things are not meant to be used, they are meant to be there.

Quote[/b] ]"you better get things done before the end of the year" sure sounds like a swift kick in the a$s to get things working to me.

GW better kicks himself in his porcelaine butt. It´s pretty lame to put the burden for the outcome of a totally gone -wrong US military and political campaign on the ones who had to suffer from it in the first place.

Old rule: You break it, you mend it.

Quote[/b] ]Last time I checked threatening someone would get you a free set of orange jumpers and a vacation as Bubba's "buddy."

Oh, so GW is wearing orange only ? He´s got quite a record to threaten countries with anything that came to his mind. Oh , I forgot, he even took it further and attacked a country for nothing. Look who´s talking.

Quote[/b] ]If i dropped a nuke on your house do you think I would go into it later and use it as my own? do you think i would bother tossing a grenade into it after the blast? Point being, you really can defend against a nuke once its fired. its not like everyone can put on a flak vest and duck and cover. chances are Iran will get ticked off at Israel and chuck a naughty november into Israel's back yard. Then they will feel satisfied after seeing a mushroom cloud over Israel and go on with their lives.

According to this logic the US needs to nuke half of the planet and themselves to protect them as there´s always a risk of some madman coming into control of the arsenal and having fun pressing buttons. I bet GW already had some wet dreams about it with all that babbeling of being a messenger from god and such.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]The difference of course being able to tell that and a wedding party apart. Something that the USAF is'nt excatly renowned for.

well i would say you have to hand it to him for going over to the button... but then theirs something called wheeled seats.

Quote[/b] ]I think the cold war pretty much proved that you can defend against nukes.. by having your own nukes.

neither the US or the USSR threatened to wipe the other off the face of the earth.

Quote[/b] ]How about India and Pakistan then, is that a good example?

I'm not so sure they have the delivery system that makes anyone shake in their boots. I could be wrong, SEATO's AO isn't really my strong suit.

Quote[/b] ]We have learned that the intelligence gathered prior Iraq war was nothing but bullshit, but now you surprisingly know better about Iran ?

The intel on Iraq was proficient, not so much on Afghanistan... no one really had a good map named "boondocks of the boondocks."

But! since the age of information came along the civilian population can now see what is going on in Iran. take a look Here (GlobalSecurity.org).

Quote[/b] ]Very funny, they were not even able to fulfill their tasks in Lebanon.

Not as funny as you overlooking the big picture. Israel has been going toe-to-toe with Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen for some time now (dating back to 1947!. Israel can do A LOT more than just slap people on the wrist. but lately it's all politics.

Quote[/b] ]You assume the iranian military only consits of cowards.

I'm saying a Kalashnikov won't do much to a stealthy F-22 roaring by... you can't exactly put a bullet right where you want it in this case.

Quote[/b] ]It´s not like Iraq where such weapon systems simply had no existance due to GW1 and UN actions.

no, they have old US equipment left over from before the islamic revolution; Soviet made tanks, US-Soviet Frankien-Tanks, US-UK Franken-Tanks, and something called the Tosan. The later seems like a real contender, but i doubt it can take a Javelin in the turret. And that's just shoulder fired, I know the air force has better bangs than that.

Quote[/b] ]If any nuclear launch, no matter where on the world is detected

scenario:

1) Israel launches nuke

2) US and Russia both detect the missile

3) Both the US and Russia call each other to ask if it's theirs

") They both sit and watch the thing for a while

") After review they now know who shot it

") the PRC calls Russia to find out whats going on

") Russia hangs up the phone

") EU calls both Russia and the US asking who's it is

") EU, US, and Russia all watch the missile

") US alerts units in Iraq about the incoming missile

") Iraq calls the US to find out whats going on

") the US units now see the missile overhead but stand fast

") Iranian shopkeeper sees a black dot

") Mushroom cloud over Tehran

") Both the US and Russia say "huh"

Quote[/b] ]Look who´s talking.

the country that keeps being pulled into Europe's problems.

Quote[/b] ]According to this logic the US needs to nuke half of the planet and themselves to protect them as there´s always a risk of some madman coming into control of the arsenal and having fun pressing buttons.

there are only 9 states that have major nukes. of the 9: 5 of them are tagged and noted as controlled (US, Russia, UK, France, PR China), 3 have offset purposes (Pakistan, India, and Israel). and the last one is being contained (North Korea).

[Duke 0]

Sophion-Black,

I love your points of view. You are a very intelligent individual. BUT, talking to this lot and getting them to see any light is like talking to a wall. Sophion-Black, as for your comment on, "sleeping under a rock" hell, I don't think he's ever come out of the caves yet.

As for Israel being threatened... Uh, you say I don't have knowledge? You've got very little common sense my little friend. A threat for Israel to be whiped off the map is a threat enough let alone an attack. I would hate to see you a leader of any country. Maybe our President isn't perfect. Maybe our Govt isnt always right. BUT, Reguardless, A war cannot be "Illegal" there is nothing in the Criminal Justice/Law Enforcement saying that Declaring a War on Terrorist Organizations "Illegal". Oh I'm sorry. I'll go declare war on a Country illegally. You're not going to get your flashlight and badge out and chase me down now are you. Bush stated after 9/11. You're either with us or Against Us" I can't see where that could have been put any better. I love how, these countries out there do not believe in what the terrorists did to us on 9/11, But as soon as we want to retaliate in any way against them, they think we're wrong? Rofl, Please.

As for Israel being able to take Iran. it can be very well done. Once Anti-Aircraft defenses are taken out, Communications Equipment destroyed, and Power. When that is done, You've basically crippled their Military Structure. Look at the Gulf War. Every bridge we destroyed, Every militarized Target that existed, we hit. our planes were even coming back with their payloads, because they ran out of targets. Same thing with this war, We collapsed their Military again, By Air. Do you not think Israel has those capabilities? because they do. Who was it that said US Air Force isnt exactly smart? or whatever it was about targets? Yeah? Well tell me what Air Force is absolutely perfect, never missing targets etc... along with intelligence. Nothing is Perfect, but we're damn close.

[Baff1 0]

[

Quote[/b] ]If you take out the Iranian air force (not hard for the modern F-22), and other anti-aircraft ability (not hard for the F-117, B-52, or B-2), you will be able to easily destroy the country's military.

You assume the iranian military only consits of cowards. You´d be surprised to know that they have a working AA system and are prepared and uparmoured. It´s not like Iraq where such weapon systems simply had no existance due to GW1 and UN actions.

We´ve heard all that talk about allmighty weapon systems before. They even didn´t work that well against Iraq, why should they now work against Iran. If anything has been learned from Iraq it´s that you need a vast amount of groundtroops to accomplish a mission. I fail to see why this would be different in a country that has a much more capable military and some nasty russian weapon systems that do work and are not that outdated  as the iraqui equipment.

Make no mistake the U.S. airforce is every bit capable of reducing Iran from the air.

Iran isn't Serbia.

They have overwhelming force, no cloud cover, the technology and the airbases.

Isreal does not. It has some short range F-16's and vintage f-14's and a the odd tanker.

With regards to threat of Isreal being wiped off the map, (the state that is not the people), the context of it is that the Palestinians were going to wipe it off the map not the Iranians.

[Sertorius 0]

How about India and Pakistan then, is that a good example?

Or Russia and China maybe?

And Armadinejad is hardly less sane then Bush with all that God told him to invade Iraq nonsense, and his stated desire to topple every Middle Eastern government and turn them all into American styled democracies.

It's America and the Israeli's that have been threatening to use nukes, not the Iranians.

What is your point? India, Pakistan, Russia, and China all have reasonably rational leaders. Their rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. They may spew inflammatory talk and rattle their sabers, but their leaders are not religious madmen who would like to see an apocalyptic nuclear disaster.

Second, comparing Bush to Ahmadinejad is like comparing Snidley Whiplash to Hitler. Bush's beliefs might've given him a reason to justify his invasion of Iraq, but the reason that the war was actually launched had to do with grossly naive neoconservative policy. Bush didn't invade Iraq because he wished to trigger an apocalypse. He's a devout Christian, but he's not a full-bore wannabe religious warrior who would like to help create Armageddon. As for wanting to turn Middle Eastern governments in American-style democracies, that's a reflection of the silliness of neoconservatism, it's not religious. It would be an improvement to the local problems of cultural stagnation, Blame-The-Jews politics, and violent religious fanaticism, but it's not a realistic solution. Still, it's a real problem, unlike Ahmadinejad's apparent belief in the "problem" of the whole world not being under Islamic rule.

Third, I don't see how the US has been threatening to use nukes, and Israel isn't threatening to casually nuke Iranian civilians. The most I heard was a plan to use tactical nuclear weapons to knock out Iranian nuclear facilities. As for Iran not threatening to use nuclear weapons, it doesn't matter that they haven't directly said "We want to nuke Israel". The Iranian government has made frequent comments that are violently hostile, has funded proxy armies that have launched attacks on Israel, and is now engaging in a nuclear development program. That seems pretty damn hostile to me. I've seen news stories concerning the purchase and/or development of nuclear materials appropriate only for weapon creation, and I seriously doubt that Iran is only developing nuclear energy to create power reactors. The Israelis might be forced to take some form of action, as they can't exactly be expected to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear over Tel Aviv before they act.

Quote[/b] ]As fore the threat of Isreal being wiped off the map, (the state that is not the people), the context of it is that the Palestinians were going to wipe it off the map not the Iranians.

It's pretty hard to disconnect his desire to wipe out Israel with a desire to wipe out Israelis. Not to mention, Iran is actively attempting to kill Israelis through its Hezbollah proxy army.

[Baff1 0]

How about India and Pakistan then, is that a good example?

Or Russia and China maybe?

And Armadinejad is hardly less sane then Bush with all that God told him to invade Iraq nonsense, and his stated desire to topple every Middle Eastern government and turn them all into American styled democracies.

It's America and the Israeli's that have been threatening to use nukes, not the Iranians.

What is your point? India, Pakistan, Russia, and China all have reasonably rational leaders. Their rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. They may spew inflammatory talk and rattle their sabers, but their leaders are not religious madmen who would like to see an apocalyptic nuclear disaster.

Second, comparing Bush to Ahmadinejad is like comparing Snidley Whiplash to Hitler. Bush's beliefs might've given him a reason to justify his invasion of Iraq, but the reason that the war was actually launched had to do with grossly naive neoconservative policy. Bush didn't invade Iraq because he wished to trigger an apocalypse. He's a devout Christian, but he's not a full-bore wannabe religious warrior who would like to help create Armageddon. As for wanting to turn Middle Eastern governments in American-style democracies, that's a reflection of the silliness of neoconservatism, it's not religious. It would be an improvement to the local problems of cultural stagnation, Blame-The-Jews politics, and violent religious fanaticism, but it's not a realistic solution. Still, it's a real problem, unlike Ahmadinejad's apparent belief in the "problem" of the whole world not being under Islamic rule.

Third, I don't see how the US has been threatening to use nukes, and Israel isn't threatening to casually nuke Iranian civilians. The most I heard was a plan to use tactical nuclear weapons to knock out Iranian nuclear facilities. As for Iran not threatening to use nuclear weapons, it doesn't matter that they haven't directly said "We want to nuke Israel". The Iranian government has made frequent comments that are violently hostile, has funded proxy armies that have launched attacks on Israel, and is now engaging in a nuclear development program. That seems pretty damn hostile to me. I've seen news stories concerning the purchase and/or development of nuclear materials appropriate only for weapon creation, and I seriously doubt that Iran is only developing nuclear energy to create power reactors. The Israelis might be forced to take some form of action, as they can't exactly be expected to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear over Tel Aviv before they act.

Quote[/b] ]As fore the threat of Isreal being wiped off the map, (the state that is not the people), the context of it is that the Palestinians were going to wipe it off the map not the Iranians.

It's pretty hard to disconnect his desire to wipe out Israel with a desire to wipe out Israelis. Not to mention, Iran is actively attempting to kill Israelis through its Hezbollah proxy army.

America has directly threatened to use nukes pre-emptively to destroy Irans underground facilities. Just as Israel has.

Bush has threatened to overthrow foreign governments, Ahmenijad has not.

Bush has stated that the overthrow of Saddam was something God told him to do. This cannot be interpreted as anything other than religious.

He's religious and and he's directly threatened nuclear attack on at aleast two countries in the past 2 years. That is somewhat closer to armageddon than any Iranian leader has ever approached.

Bush has stated that he intends to overthrow all the Middle Eastern governments and replace them with Western styled democracies, this is entirely equivicable to Muslim leaders calling for other nations to adopt their own systems of government such as Sharia law.

NB all warriors are holy warriors, ours and theirs.

In the day the leaders of Russia and China were vilified too.

The installations Israel and America have threatened to nuke are all civilian installations.

Not comparable? They are highly comparable.

I don't know who Sidney Whiplash is, but I know who Hitler is, and around the world, Bush is commonly compared to him.

Iran is no direct threat to Israel. Israel is a direct threat to Iran.

If Iran has nukes, it still can't nuke Israel without ensuring it's mutual destruction. In fact it would be very foolish to mount any serious direct assault. Iran already has the capability to flatten Israel. If it had wanted to, it already would have done it.

It doesn't want to, presuambly because Israels retaliation would be rather to painful to make it worth while.

Or perhaps they are just too civilised a people and don't believe in genocide. Certainly their religion specificly requires that they do not attack civilians.

Israel on the other hand, is able to attack Iran without serious retaliation due to it's nuclear capability and has directly threatened to do so.

Is the goal of Hezbollah to kill Israeli's? Or is it to defend Lebanon.

While sponsored by Iran, it would be a mistake to assume Hezbollah are controlled by Iran, anymore than the American sponsored IRA, Afghan warlords or even the armed forces of Israel were/are under U.S. governmental control.

Quote[/b] ]It's pretty hard to disconnect his desire to wipe out Israel with a desire to wipe out Israelis.

And yet it is so easy to disconnect the overthrow of North Korea or Iraq's or Irans goverment with a desire to kill Koreans, Iraqi's and Iranians?

The difference here, is that Ahmadinejad says he expects to see Isreal wiped off the map, inevitably and historically defeated by the people of Palestine and the sands of time, while Bush is looking to directly precipitate regime change in places he dislikes by force himself.

In fact he's already done so twice already.

There are many justifications for war, morality is not among them.

[Duke 0]

"and around the world, Bush is commonly compared to him."

-----------------

That alone shows how much your side of the world really pays attention to History lessons. For fucks sakes.

Did Bush Want the "Perfect German Race" ? Did Bush want to completely destroy any sort of "racial problem" ? Did Bush intentionally for the sake of Power, invade many different countries across Europe?. if you can find these sources of proof, I'd really love to see them. Were you around to witness Hitlers Reign of Terror? Most likely not. I'd love to see people in Europe during that time period who hated Hitler, compare him to Bush today. I can't believe anyone from the Euro world would even say anything like that. Remember, Hitler basically ruled a big part of Europe at the time, and almost the UK. I don't see Bush ruling and/or dominating any other countries. He is the Commander & Chief of the United States America. He doesnt wear any sort of symbol as a fearful symbol. He doesnt have the incentive of whiping out an entire race, nor does he have the intention on World Domination. Maybe some of you wanna see us Dominate the World some day. God forbid the world isnt perfect. Whatever would you do if you had nothing to complain about.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

I apologize to the readers for doing the quote-response reaction. I am beginning to think there should be a separate thread for baseless opinions.

Quote[/b] ]Iran is no direct threat to Israel. Israel is a direct threat to Iran. If Iran has nukes, it still can't nuke Israel without ensuring it's mutual destruction. In fact it would be very foolish to mount any serious direct assault. Iran already has the capability to flatten Israel. If it had wanted to, it already would have done it.

It doesn't want to, presuambly because Israels retaliation would be rather to painful to make it worth while.

Or perhaps they are just too civilised a people and don't believe in genocide. Certainly their religion specificly requires that they do not attack civilians.

Perhaps thats true of the people, the leadership is a different story. Ahmenijad has expressed his willingness to sacrifice the lives of many in Iran to destroy Isreal. You truely believe he intends to destroy the country and send the people on their merry way?

Further Ahmadinejad has reportedly said that there was no such nuclear weapons program and that such a policy was "illegal and against our religion." However he is part of the Haghani Circle which includes Ahmadinejad's ideological mentor and spiritual guide Mesbah Yazdi who believes that slavery and aggression are justifiable under Islam and supports suicide bombing against Israel. Other members of the circle have stated that the use of nuclear weapons is legitimate under Islam.

The fact is Ahmadinejad actually has no control over nuclear policy, it is controlled by the Supreme National Security Council.

Quote[/b] ]Is the goal of Hezbollah to kill Israeli's? Or is it to defend Lebanon?

Hassan Nasrallah, the current Secretary General of the Lebanese Islamist party Hezbollah said, "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." So i guess that answers that...

Quote[/b] ]The difference here, is that Ahmadinejad says he expects to see Isreal wiped off the map, inevitably and historically defeated by the people of Palestine and the sands of time, while Bush is looking to directly precipitate regime change in places he dislikes by force himself.

While there has been some debate over the actual meaning of the translation "wiped off the map," Ahmadinejad was actually quoteing directly the late Ayatollah Khomeini in calling for Israel to be "wiped out from the map." There really is little difference since Iran actively supports anti-Israel groups with both money and weapons. They are hardly waiting passivly for the "sands of time."

Quote[/b] ]There are many justifications for war, morality is not among them.

Did you make that up? I like it, good line.

[Baff1 0]

[Perhaps thats true of the people, the leadership is a different story.  Ahmenijad has expressed his willingness to sacrifice the lives of many in Iran to destroy Isreal.  You truely believe he intends to destroy the country and send the people on their merry way?

When did he mention this exactly?

I suggest you check your sources.

I truely believe that he wishes to see Israel, returned to it's previous owners. Many people do.

I can even believe that he condones suicide bombing against Israel, although I see no evidence of any support.

(Saddam on the other hand sent finacial compensation to the bereaved of suicide bombers).

Approving of palestinian suicide bombers in their struggle against the occupying powers is hardly the same threstening to nuke someone.

I'm suprised that you failed to recognise the difference.

[Baff1 0]

"and around the world, Bush is commonly compared to him."

-----------------

That alone shows how much your side of the world really pays attention to History lessons. For fucks sakes.

Did Bush Want the "Perfect German Race" ? Did Bush want to completely destroy any sort of "racial problem" ? Did Bush intentionally for the sake of Power, invade many different countries across Europe?. if you can find these sources of proof, I'd really love to see them. Were you around to witness Hitlers Reign of Terror? Most likely not. I'd love to see people in Europe during that time period who hated Hitler, compare him to Bush today. I can't believe anyone from the Euro world would even say anything like that. Remember, Hitler basically ruled a big part of Europe at the time, and almost the UK. I don't see Bush ruling and/or dominating any other countries. He is the Commander & Chief of the United States America. He doesnt wear any sort of symbol as a fearful symbol. He doesnt have the incentive of whiping out an entire race, nor does he have the intention on World Domination. Maybe some of you wanna see us Dominate the World some day. God forbid the world isnt perfect. Whatever would you do if you had nothing to complain about.

Bush has invaded two countries so far. .

Not in Europe but the Middle East.

Hadn't you heard?

Like the Germans in WW2 he has set up puppet regimes in both.

He has the specific declared incentive of Middle Eastern domination.

He has opened up concentration camps for Muslims.

His stormtroopers commited atrocities.

He is frequently pictured next to the U.S. flag, that is his symbol of fear. Hitlers flag looked a little different.

Like the Reich, another symbol of his power is the Eagle.

No one outside of America wants to see America dominate the world. I would have thought that much would be obvious.

[Duke 0]

"He has opened up concentration camps for Muslims."

---------------------------------------------------

what the fuck?

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

"He has opened up concentration camps for Muslims."

---------------------------------------------------

 what the fuck?

Well said.

I'm sure the Cuban political prisoners would gladly give a finger or toe to trade palces with those in Guantánamo.

Of course Cindy is only concerned about the ones that are well fed and visited by diplomats and "health" organizations to make sure they are well treated.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

I sincerely don't understand this Bush administration... Now they want to send in 21,500 troops, and expect all problems to be solved by November 2007? The iraqui government can't even secure whatsoever with the international forces present in Iraq (most embarassing are the cases in which terrorists disguise themselves as governmental forces) - and no government has so far been able to stop sectarian violence through imposition of it's own will. Since it is known that foreign terrorist organizations are involved in the violence, and acknowledging that even the U.S. hasn't been able to completely erradicate any such organization, I think the U.S. is finally drawing the line of retreat, timewise, leaving the iraquis to their own fate - but why send in more troops now? I just don't get it...

[Duke 0]

We started off this war with not the amount of manpower we needed. It seems to be that, the more men we have, the more that can get done. Like, we have a shortage of troops that are training the Iraqi Army/National Guard. The one Colonel stated that, if we have more manpower in Iraq, we'll be able to concentrate more on the Iraqi Training, and missions of our own. Rather then splitting half and half and trying to get one done and not watching the other at the same time.