What is the reason, for a war against Iran ?

[Catfish]

Following the CIA and authoritative reports by other international services, the iranian programme for nuclear weapons is inexistent, or at least not really developed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHfBvAoo7lw&feature=related

- not only because there was not much done before, but a lot of installations have mysteriously blown up in the last months - accidentally, of course.
Now, what's that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmNOkdRKq-s
lol
With or without this programme and with or without Israel, disregarding the Dollar lead currency and trying to sell their oil in other currencies will most certainly mean war between the US and Iran. Could this be the real reason ?

It is just that the by-force inthronized Shah became so unpopular back then, that even a man like Khomeini could become head of that state - this would have been impossible, before or without the tortures and atrocities of Shah Mr. Pahlewi. Even now a lot of iranians are against their own leadership.

And this is imho why a military strike or war will only make things worse, this by all means has to be a secret services procedure, but as rumours are even the israelian government has turned away from its much more effective Mossad, now killing lots of innocent people with military strikes instead of pinpoint action.

Don't get me wrong, i am all with Israel in that matter, but the people of Iran are not per se Israel-haters, they have an entirely different ethnicity and belief. Muslims are the majority (thanks Osmium Steel !), but the non-official and non-governmental muslims there, have nothing against Israel or the Jews.
Certainly, do not underestimate the russian and arabian influence, on Iran's "religious" leaders - a war with Iran could spark another World war.

[Catfish]

Hello Osmium, i put your answer here, since i changed the other thread and made a new one here:

I'm assuming you mean Iran is not majority arab. It certainly IS majority muslim. 90% muslim in fact. Now, if you don't consider Shia to be "real" Islam, that's another matter.

SOURCE (http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/places/iran.htm)

As to the rest, I don't disagree. My mother and both sisters are/were Bahai'i. I grew up around the faith and the many Iranian ex-pats involved in the faith here in the states.

In general, Iranians over 60 and under 30 have no ill will toward the US. Quite the contrary.

[Oberon]

:hmmm: I'd say it was a bit of a stretch to say that a war with Iran could cause a World War. Certainly the PRC and Russia (nearly wrote USSR there...freudian slip perhaps?) would look to protect their interests in the region (geo-political in Russias case and Oil in the PRCs) however I do not think that they would intervene directly against a US or Israeli based assault, however it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that lots of S-300s will suddenly find their way across the Caspian Sea.
Any war against Iran would be purely an air and naval war.
The naval war would be against lateral targets (suicide boats) and mines. The anti-submarine war would not take long to complete, in fact the Kilos will probably be sunk in port, likewise most of Irans actual naval fleet will soon find itself in pieces. However, merchants flying false flags dropping mines...a lot harder to find and kill and Midget subs could be a nuisance.
The rest of the naval war would primarily consist of lobbing TLAMs into the country.
The air war would be a lot more of a logistical nightmare, Israel has one shot before diplomatic pressures force Irans neighbours (in particular Saudi Arabia and Iraq) to shut their airspace. After that Israel is stuck either using Ballistic missiles or violating said airspace, and the longer it does the latter the more heat it gets from the international community.
Israel is no stranger to going it alone, and it's no stranger to doing something that will be unpopular in international opinion if it secures Israels borders and keeps it secure. However, its weakest link is the US, if it loses support from the US, the hungry wolves around it will be sure to start drawing up plans, I'm looking at Egypt here, since Syria is so screwed it can't even invade itself at the moment let alone the Golan Heights.
So any Israeli 'war' on Iran would be a strictly one or two night affair, and it would probably just delay the nuclear program rather than destroy it...to destroy it Israel would need to employ the Samson option, which no-one in Tel Aviv really wants to do because it would damage Israel more than it would Iran.

If the US follows Israel with strikes then the event drags out a bit more, the US has the logistical power and the airbases to attrition Irans airpower into nothing and then set about destroying every single nuclear facility that it knows of, as well as every single nuclear scientist it knows the location of. However, even then it may not be enough to utterly destroy the program but just to set it back by a matter of at most a decade.

The Russians and Chinese will both bluster in the UN and try to pass stuff in the General Assembly, but just about everything that comes out of the General Assembly isn't worth the paper its written on in terms of actual strength, what matters is what comes out of the Security Council, and the US can veto anything that the Russians and Chinese stir up in there.
I would be extremely surprised if the Russians actually got involved though, because there will not be a ground invasion, not unless Washington is feeling particularly suicidal. As Condie famously said once "Iran is not Iraq", and any ground war in Iran would sink any Presidents campaign for re-election, not to mention cause massive international blowback.
There might be enforced 'No-Fly Zones' like Iraq, but I think that it's quite unlikely, more likely that they'll just go in, blow up as much stuff as they can as quickly as they can and then get out.

It'll be quite lucrative for Russia and China though, because they will get the contracts to rebuild the Iranian Navy, Airforce and Army and they will get the political prestige of being able to condemn the US and/or Israel for the attack, thus giving them more support from anti-US Middle Eastern and African nations (which means more nice trade contracts, military purchases, and oil).

Is a nuclear armed Iran a problem?
That depends entirely on your point of view of the stability and mental viewpoint of the Iranian leadership, and I don't just mean Dinnerjacket, I mean the Ayatollah as well.
Would a nuclear weapon be used in a jihadist strike?

Well, wouldn't you? If you wanted to strike a major blow to your enemy in a manner in which they would not be able to recover for at least a decade (if not longer) and the cost would be the possible destruction of some of your people (a good portion of whom probably hate you anyway) or quite possibly just some airstrikes (depending upon whether the moral high ground is taken) then what a perfect idea a nuclear strike would be.
Furthermore, it would just deepen the divide between Muslims and other people in the fallout (literally) of the attack, thus creating the fertile grounds for more angry disaffected Muslims to join extremist cells and building up to an all out Holy war.

Of course, given the reliability of Iranian weapons, you'd need at least ten per target in order to stand a chance of hitting it, and you'd probably want to pick a target that's not expecting it...like Europe...rather than one who is and is armed with more ABMs than Moscow...like Israel.

That's what I would do anyway, if I were in Irans shoes and wanted to hit the west. But I'm not, and who knows what goes through the mind of Dinnerjacket and the Ayatollah.

[Catfish]

Some good points :hmmm:

I also think an invasion of any kind would not happen, but it will be a case of "shooting projectiles into a continent and call this a war", as J. Conrad would say.

But i do not mean the tactical process of strikes, i would like to hear of the official reason why such a strike should be made - ?

Certainly Israel could do it alone, and if it has some vital inside information indicating a real threat from Iran, it will. I doubt this threat to be real, but then i certainly do not know. Terrorists, well, we have seen it is not easy to kill certain terrorists from above with drones, apart from collateral damage also backfiring in the worldwide media and international perception. Special teams are much moe effective, but they require intelligence, and people knowing what they are doing. Seems a lot of nations have abandoned the infiltration concept for military strikes featuring expensive technological crutches - not entirely, but a (bad) trend.

The US are certainly able as well, but - why ? If the threat of weapons of mass extinction do not exist, and the US does not intend to invade Iran and get the oil wells, what is the reason ? Official, and real ?

Threats from Ahmadinejad like closing the strait of Hormuz ?
How would he do it ? Maybe he could block some civilian tankers and merchants for a day, but even then it would hurt Iran more than anyone else. And come on, no one takes that serious ?

Or does he want to sell oil not in dollar currency ? This would destabilize the market, the US has always seen to provide the lead currency (dollars), and Iran selling its oil in Euro, Yen or Rubel would take that monopoly away, badly damaging (US) economics, but not only the US of course.
But even then, Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollas do NOT threaten to sell their oil other than in dollars. All the threats I myself have seen have not come from Iran. Ahmadinnerjacket is boasting as always but who gives a ... Fox News lies, as usual, but even they have no convincing proposal.

The media are desparately trying to build up a massive hype to "counter this Iran threat", but what threat can this be ?

What's the real deal about the US vs. Iran war hype all the time ?

[Oberon]

The reasons are, I suspect, geopolitical. Iran has the potential to become a threat in the region within the next five years, be it through military or economical reasons. Nipping that threat in the bud will help to maintain Western influence in the area, well...that's in the best case scenario.

There's also the possibility that Iran itself is fabricating the state of its nuclear program, daring Israel and the West to hit it so that it can claim greater prestige for itself as the 'wounded victim', the 'innocent party' in the attack. Particularly if, after the attack, the IAEA is allowed to look at the sites and find that there's nothing there except 'baby milk factories'.

It's a pretty low blow, but when your enemy has superior firepower, then you have to focus on thinking outside the box in ways to disgrace your enemy, to trick them into falling into traps that you've prepared for them.

[mapuc]

Catfish, I've been thinking the same, who's interest is it, to press USA and Iran into a war?

Is it our media(third power)?

I my self do, after reading, seeing and listening to news, believe Iran is working on to get nuclear weapon itself.

If you take a tour on youtube, you will find that some of the reason is oil. USA wants to have control over the oil in middle east. First Iraq, then Iran and later on SA( these "facts" are for me nothing but conspiracy)

Markus

[the_tyrant]

I have to pitch in here:

China and Iran is fundamentally ideologically incompatible.

No problems with China, after all, China is "Communist" while its economical policies are more capitalist than actual "Capitalist" countries. Chinese people know and accept (or even like) this doublespeak.

Iran however, might very well object to the Chinese Ideology. Or as I will quote here: "The people have not been raped enough by the 'ideologies' to learn to enjoy the lies and hypocracy."

Why would this prove to be a problem?

Islam and communism has always had conflicts. Now in the Chinese textbooks, Islams is being attacked from all angles. Theocracies like Iran are being portrayed as "Backward" and "Ridiculous".

Add the new Chinese anti religion campaign, and I can just see the conflict sparking here.

Chinese people know that it is just talk, it is just for the government to save face. The amount of religious Chinese people increase with every passing day, and as long as the religious organizations do not cause trouble, the government never does anything.

Now the thing is, Iran is a heavily ideologically motivated nation. I doubt they would turn a blind eye and ignore this. Even if their secular leadership is willing to, their religious leadership is probably not willing to ignore this. There has been minor conflicts caused by this in the past, but nothing major yet.

Iranians are very proud (as of now), they are probably not willing to accept a compromise with China. After all, Pakistan had a rocky relationship with China before a string of total military defeats to India.

In conclusion, Iran might work with China now. But I really do not expect a long term alliance or relationship. The moment Israel and the US stop being a problem with Iran, I would bet on the likelihood of conflict between Iran and China.

[Platapus]

Why a war with Iran?

Well the Military Industrial Complex needs a "boogieman" in order to get funding. Russia is getting old. It is tougher to stir up scary things about China as they are just too busy making money.

North Korea has a big army, impossible terrain, and even though they could never win, they could cause a lot of damage to countries we like lose-lose situation.

Who else can we use to instill fear??? AQ? They are fragmented and besides there is no real money in fighting non-conventional non-state actors. We need carriers, submarines, bombers, and missiles $$$$ that's where the real profit is.

Remember, we are facing Draconian cuts to the military. We desperately need a circumstance where congress can say "well, sure we intended to cut the military as a means of bringing spending down... but after xxx we (ahem) (cue straight face) 'have no choice' but to plus up military spending." :|\\

So who don't we like who is surrounded by other countries we either don't like or don't like all that much? :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

And it has to be a country with a culture different from ours and one where we don't have a lot of citizens (voting significant numbers) from that culture???:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

And just to play it safe, it really should be a country that does not have the ability to directly attack the US proper. :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information. :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

So why a war with Iran?

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy. :yep:

[Skybird]

That the IAEA - not really a friend of US policies, since some months is warning openly of a nuclear weapons program, and effectively has U-turned on its former polciies especially under Al-Baradei, seems to habe taken no note of?!

That the CIA has been ordered in 2002 and 2003 to produce the "evidence" needed by the Bush administration to giove an excuse for the Iraq war, and got terribly burned over its staged claims of mobile bio-weapon labs, Anthrax production and the Iraqi bomb program still going on - that this CIA now may be very shy and desperately tries to avoid making the same mistake again, seems to be an unreasionable thought now?

The the IAEA openly has objected the CIA claim, is of no interest?

The the same CIA that took orders by Bush to produce the wanted "evidence" may also accept orders by Obama to produce the wanted absenc e of evidence, is a far-fetched thought?

That Obama wants to keep pressure on Israel to discourage them from stirking at least before the US elections, and that Obama in general is very uncomfortable over going to war with Iran, must not be mentioned?

That Iran has been monitored and reported since some years now to move key sites of its research and production program deep into mopuintaisn and thus can give up the open, more vulenrable sites it used before, is invalid a finding now?

That Iran is developing carrier systems and fuses for nuclear bombs (and only for these), is meaningless?

That Iran has a completely understandable interest, from its perspective, to go after the bomb, is sneaking to the point from where to go into the final production stage so to make reaction time for the West as short as possible, and that both the current regime as well as all rivals of Amadinjadh - even the hilariously so-called "moderates" that the West loves so much - have publicly announced to continue the program, mjst not be taken serious?

That the risks of a nuzclear arms race b etween Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, is incalculatable, takes place in a totally instabile region driven by centuries-old hostilities and religious hysteria , must not worry thre world?

Proliferation has meanwhile become a word of the past, not having meaning anymore?

The CIA was not to be trusted in the past. It was not to be trusted in 2003. But now, when it claims something that fits a personal opinion and fulfills the hiunger for wishful thinking on the matter of peace and freedom - then it suddenly is trustworthy again?

Well.

[Stealhead]

Why a war with Iran?

Well the Military Industrial Complex needs a "boogieman" in order to get funding. Russia is getting old. It is tougher to stir up scary things about China as they are just too busy making money.

North Korea has a big army, impossible terrain, and even though they could never win, they could cause a lot of damage to countries we like lose-lose situation.

Who else can we use to instill fear??? AQ? They are fragmented and besides there is no real money in fighting non-conventional non-state actors. We need carriers, submarines, bombers, and missiles $$$$ that's where the real profit is.

Remember, we are facing Draconian cuts to the military. We desperately need a circumstance where congress can say "well, sure we intended to cut the military as a means of bringing spending down... but after xxx we (ahem) (cue straight face) 'have no choice' but to plus up military spending." :|\\

So who don't we like who is surrounded by other countries we either don't like or don't like all that much? :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

And it has to be a country with a culture different from ours and one where we don't have a lot of citizens (voting significant numbers) from that culture???:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

And just to play it safe, it really should be a country that does not have the ability to directly attack the US proper. :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information. :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

So why a war with Iran?

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy. :yep:

I must say that I completely agree with what you said.

[Hinrich Schwab]

I have to pitch in here:

China and Iran is fundamentally ideologically incompatible.

No problems with China, after all, China is "Communist" while its economical policies are more capitalist than actual "Capitalist" countries. Chinese people know and accept (or even like) this doublespeak.

Iran however, might very well object to the Chinese Ideology. Or as I will quote here: "The people have not been raped enough by the 'ideologies' to learn to enjoy the lies and hypocracy."

Why would this prove to be a problem?

Islam and communism has always had conflicts. Now in the Chinese textbooks, Islams is being attacked from all angles. Theocracies like Iran are being portrayed as "Backward" and "Ridiculous".

Add the new Chinese anti religion campaign, and I can just see the conflict sparking here.

Chinese people know that it is just talk, it is just for the government to save face. The amount of religious Chinese people increase with every passing day, and as long as the religious organizations do not cause trouble, the government never does anything.

Now the thing is, Iran is a heavily ideologically motivated nation. I doubt they would turn a blind eye and ignore this. Even if their secular leadership is willing to, their religious leadership is probably not willing to ignore this. There has been minor conflicts caused by this in the past, but nothing major yet.

Iranians are very proud (as of now), they are probably not willing to accept a compromise with China. After all, Pakistan had a rocky relationship with China before a string of total military defeats to India.

In conclusion, Iran might work with China now. But I really do not expect a long term alliance or relationship. The moment Israel and the US stop being a problem with Iran, I would bet on the likelihood of conflict between Iran and China.


I agree with this and want to add a little bit. Since Russia is in this mix, as well, one has to consider its position. Russia is still smarting from the end of the Cold War. Its relations with China, despite and pretense, are strictly economic. So long as China is willing to purchase Russian military hardware, Russia will be a friend to PRC. Russia will not allow itself to play "second fiddle" to China in any way. If a better opportunity came along for Russia to advance without China, China would be dumped in a heartbeat. The Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1969 is an example of these nations at loggerheads and it wouldn't surprise me if another incident occurred if one felt short-changed by the other. Russia's interest in Iran is strictly geographic; Caspian Sea access. Supporting the nation on the other side of a buffering inland sea is a no-brainer, regardless of any true disagreements with that regime. Any nation that controls Iran will be seen as a threat to Russia for this reason alone.

There is one and only one lynchpin uniting these three very disagreeable allies; disagreement with the United States. The easiest way to deal with Iran is to leave them be and let them and their "allies" chew on each other for a while.

[tater]

Well, they did attack sovereign US territory in 1979 (embassies are just that), taking diplomats hostage (which is a de facto way of saying to are uninterested in ever negotiating a peace). Their creatures in Beruit then killed a couple hundred Americans.

As far as I'm concerned, we should have been at war ever since November, 1979. The fact they are still around to even have a nuke program shows how badly their previous transgressions were dealt with by both US political parties.

[August]

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy. :yep:

We don't need all those mental gymnastics, we still owe them for 1979, especially that Ahmadinejad guy who was one of the ringleaders.

[Stealhead]

I think we got them pretty good for 1979 when that US Navy ship accidentally shot down an Iranian Airliner in 1988 killing all 290 people on board.The Islamic Jihad bombing of the Marine Barracks killed 241 Marines and no one was killed in the embassy take over and the Men that died during Eagle Pull died because of poor planning not by Iranian bullets so their deaths I blame on the DOD and we just left their bodies as well Iran made a postage stamp of a burned airman.

So I think death wise we are about even.

Ahmadinejad was in no way involved in the embassy take over in 1979.That misinformation can be explained in the statement by Platapus;

"It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information."

With this line of thinking why not start the Civil War again I think we southerners owe you northerners for burning down Atlanta.

The Japanese could say that they owe us the deaths of a few hundred thousand US citizens for the Japanese one killed by fire bombing in 44 and 45.

Such ideas are very poor reasons to go to war in a modern world in particular.How many thousand Iranian and American soldiers must die to satisfy what is owed?

Some kid beat me in a fight when I was 10 years old I must track him down and beat him in hand to hand combat I owe him.

[Catfish]

I do not agree with that the US is owing "them" (Iran) something, for 1979.
Then maybe Argentina also owes the US something for 9/11, 1973 ? Or the Philipines ? Or the Indians ?
This all was generations ago, and people talking about "not to forget history" often (!) only want to stir the pot, for their own revenge.
Because, imho, few have ever really (!) learned from history.

Iran had been built up as a bulwark against communism by the west, its army in the 1970ies was the 4th biggest worldwide, armed by a lot of western nations including Germany b.t.w.. Oil was also important, at that time it was more british BP than US companies, but ...
The main enemy then was communism, the USSR and its influence, not Islam. Against that, there was Israel.

As well the forced inthronization by the west, of Shah (king) Reza Pahlewi, did not go well with the iranian population, especially when he began to kill and torture his own subjects en masse. He was just a very bad dictator, much worse than Saddam Hussein, but if the devil himself was anti-communist the west would have welcomed him. ;)

Which is what i meant with Ayatollah Khomeini would never have stood a chance, if the iranian people would not have been harrassed by its own government before - this was pure despair, and they wanted to get rid of the Shah. They blamed the Shah on those who had inthronized him - the west. Big chance for a religious, or at least anti-western regime.
(This is also what i mean with we have not really learned from history, "we" are still mostly supporting the wrong nations, and the wrong regimes - Libya was the first time done better, but the west was not used to support the people other than militarily, and just overslept the chance of taking influence on a democratic birth of a new republic)

And on the contrary to the "usual revolutions", the one in Iran was a relatively unbloody one - sure the military shot at demonstrants, but instead of running away there were more deomstrants by the minute, filling up the rows without shooting, until the commanders (wisely) decided to retreat to the barracks instead of massacring their own people.

Imho the iranian regime still justifies its own reign by the deeds of the Shah.
A better idea than bombing would be to strategically place persons at the right points, and slowly convince the people of a better way of life. As said before, most Iranians do not have anything against the US, or Israel. Just tell them, convince, also admit faults and failures in the past, generate trust and reliance, exchange students. If this is done properly and sustainably, any unfree regime will overthrow itself in the long run.
This, is certainly not the short fuse solution the media or whoever are wanting us to believe is necessary.


Israel: Other than the US, they face a threat directly and have to act accordingly. But why don't they try to alter the perception of "the arabs" instead of cluster-bombing and assassinating everything thus generating more hate and terrorists ? What is with clandestine operations, changing from within ? Those student exchanges i mentioned, civilian spy jobs (well i take it they do, but to what extent?), or just talk and exchange well-nown persons like actors, spokesman, whatever. Certainly this is not easy, but Israel has shown it is intelligent enough and could - with the political will.

Certainly even for non-religious western young (dumb) folks it is easier to follow those left slogans and beliefs like how "jews kill innocent arabs and drive them from their land", and then settling there. The problem is this is easier to understand for a dumbnut than what lies behind. In the long run, there can only be the chance of education, for the arabian generations to come. So why do not help them and fill the vacuum ? You will storm open doors ..

Even if Israel makes a necessary military strike, why are they content to then hold back and wait for the next threat to happen ? Why don't they actively act bilaterally civilian and militarily, trying to convince ? I understand especially jews do not want to wait, not wanting to act the victim anymore after centuries of pursuit and being conveniently blamed for all by others, but i think they will not succeed if they do not build up a second branch of civilian persuasion.


I still do not know what you mean with China and Iran, as a reason for war between the US, and Iran ? A substitute war, a warning ?
Iran selling oil for Yen ?
Or is it Israel asking the US to help ?
While the cynical idea of the weapons industry needing a new playground and a pretext for funding the military, i am not convinced this alone is the truth ? :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

So why a war with Iran?

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy.
Well said.
You miss out one reason though.......
It was spelled wrong last time;)


Well, they did attack sovereign US territory in 1979 (embassies are just that),
How many times are you going to repeat that nonsense tater?
Would you like to go through it again so you can say "ooops I got it wrong" again?
How long would it be until you repeat the same mistake again ......and again and again?


we still owe them for 1979
Someone is on the same brainlevel as the mad mullahs who say you still owe them for 1953:doh:

[MothBalls]

What is the reason, for a war against Iran?Someone already answered it. Military Industrial Complex. We need our military out there doing their primary mission; shoot, move, and communicate. We really don't care who they shoot at, as long as they use up beans and bullets.

Ever since WWII we've always had a war, had an enemy on the horizon, or had to protect "our interests abroad" in one way or another. Every day almost every media outlet is warning us about someone or something that is our next threat, to humanity, to freedom, to any buzz word that needs to be solved with beans and bullets. Our media always has an enemy waiting in the wings. Every day the press is full of horrible stories about the atrocities committed by our next enemy.

Lately it has been North Korea and Iran. (We keep hinting at China but can't afford to go that route yet.) It just makes it easier to sell when the time comes. (The time when our stockpiles of weapons start to grow and we need to put some down range.)

This is an election year. A few well placed attacks are always worth a few points in the polls. An invasion would seal the deal, instant re-election.

[Sammi79]

Why?

I think because Israel and by proxy USA governments feel a need to keep their position as the top military power in the ME, Israel because of its small size and feelings of vulnerability and USA because of cold war politics and oil.

and besides,

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/430663_358958057477439_117723038267610_1039411_125 5382830_n.jpg

Regards, Sam.

[Flaxpants]

Lol!

[Oberon]

I'd be very surprised if the US attacked Iran, very surprised indeed, particularly under a Democrat government.

Israel though, it's not a matter of if but when.

[August]

I think we got them pretty good for 1979 when that US Navy ship accidentally shot down an Iranian Airliner in 1988 killing all 290 people on board.

Accident versus deliberate action. Not the same thing.

Ahmadinejad was in no way involved in the embassy take over in 1979.That misinformation can be explained in the statement by Platapus;

"It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information.

Except that it's not the media who is saying this but the hostages themselves. Now call me crazy but I tend to believe them over you or the media and certainly over politically motivated CIA reports.

With this line of thinking why not start the Civil War again I think we southerners owe you northerners for burning down Atlanta.

Maybe you traitors should have thought about that before you tried to desert your country. :yep:

The Japanese could say that they owe us the deaths of a few hundred thousand US citizens for the Japanese one killed by fire bombing in 44 and 45.

Maybe the Japanese could say that if we were to ignore the fact that they brought it upon themselves by attacking us in the first place.

Such ideas are very poor reasons to go to war in a modern world in particular.How many thousand Iranian and American soldiers must die to satisfy what is owed?

Some kid beat me in a fight when I was 10 years old I must track him down and beat him in hand to hand combat I owe him.

Sorry but you loosing a childhood fight does not compare with an organized attack on sovereign American territory nor does it compare with the kidnapping and illegal detention of American diplomats. Many of the problems we have today stem from our weakness and inaction during that time.

[Catfish]

^
Defending "your" values all over the world, by force, will probably not win you the hearts of the world ?

So what do you say about the forced inthronization of the Shah, by "the west", or better US and UK ? So iranian people did not like this, especially when it turned out Shah Pahlewi was just a bad dictator.

I am sure argentinian people did not like it as well, when the CIA killed the democratically elected president Allende ?

You have helped and supported Bin Laden, as long as his terrorism was directed towards Russia.

You have helped and supported Saddam Hussein, before he did what he always did, only this time against Saudi-Arabia - which is also a befriended dictatorship itself.

And you call the temporary occupation of an embassy (without killing a diplomate) an attack against America, after what you did ?

I guess hipocrisy knows no limits :dead:

[Tribesman]

Maybe the Japanese could say that if we were to ignore the fact that they brought it upon themselves by attacking us in the first place.
So the Iranains can say it because you overthrew thier government and supported a dictator to try and secure Iranian resources.:yeah:
Well done august you just justified the mullahs:rotfl2:

sovereign American territory
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har: :har:
I suppose its a politcally motivated cover up when your government says its embassies are not soveriegn american territory.

[Stealhead]

Accident versus deliberate action. Not the same thing.



Except that it's not the media who is saying this but the hostages themselves. Now call me crazy but I tend to believe them over you or the media and certainly over politically motivated CIA reports.



Maybe you traitors should have thought about that before you tried to desert your country. :yep:



Maybe the Japanese could say that if we were to ignore the fact that they brought it upon themselves by attacking us in the first place.



Sorry but you loosing a childhood fight does not compare with an organized attack on sovereign American territory nor does it compare with the kidnapping and illegal detention of American diplomats. Many of the problems we have today stem from our weakness and inaction during that time.

You really need to learn when someone is being sarcastic.

Yep I am a traitor I have Southern heritage some distant relatives fought for the CSA come and arrest me.But some also fought for the US Army as well oh and my mother was born in Iran (left way before the 1979 revolution) shall I be drawn and quartered?

Exactly what former hostage says that Ahmadinejad was the ring leader? I have never seen or heard anywhere such a claim be made that was proven to be true they base this off of a picture of a man that looks like Ahmadinejad.And it is not my media I do not own nor do I trust it so you not lay claim of ownership at my feet.Even the CIA checked into this and said that he was not involved.

Perhaps many of the problems we have with Iran are problems that we created by placing the Shah of Iran in charge in the first place we backed a despot that killed many Iranians and resulted in the revolution in the first place(the CIA backed the Shahs entry into power by the way) it should not be overly shocking that they kind disliked the American government.I see the situation in Iran since 1979 as an excellent example of how to shoot yourself in the foot.

And lets not forget Iran Contra which involved the US government selling arms to Iran though the Israelis in exchange for the release of hostages being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Iranian government is most defiantly not to be trusted and they have done and supported some foul deeds but there is no reason to get into an all out war with Iran. Waste of time seeing as with every passing day the regime in Iran grows more unpopular by the minute.


@Catfish "You have helped and supported Bin Laden, as long as his terrorism was directed towards Russia." there is no evidence to support this claim what so ever.In an abstract manner perhaps by the supply of weapons and funds to the ISI who gave them out to the Afghans but it is very well known that Bin Laden used his own money and money from backers in Saudi Arabia in his support of Mujaheddin against the Soviets he did not need any money or aid from out side sources.(outside his click)

[August]

^
Defending "your" values all over the world, by force, will probably not win you the hearts of the world ?

Winning "the hearts of the world" is an impossible task and it's a waste of time trying. No matter what our country does we will still be hated, if for no other reason than jealousy for our success.

So what do you say about the forced inthronization of the Shah, by "the west", or better US and UK ? So iranian people did not like this, especially when it turned out Shah Pahlewi was just a bad dictator.

"Just a bad dictator" is a huge oversimplification. Was the Shah bad for extending suffrage to women? His economic and social reforms? How about his modernization efforts? Even if you discount that he still was a less oppressive leader than the mullahs which run the country now.

I am sure argentinian people did not like it as well, when the CIA killed the democratically elected president Allende?

You've been watching too much Michael Moore. A theory does not fact make. If you have some kind of proof that the CIA murdered Allende then post it or withdraw the accusation.

You have helped and supported Bin Laden, as long as his terrorism was directed towards Russia.

We didn't help bin Laden. We assisted the Mujahadeen to combat the Soviet invasion of their country. There is no evidence that he ever recieved aid or training from the US government. That's two unsupported claims you've made.

You have helped and supported Saddam Hussein, before he did what he always did, only this time against Saudi-Arabia - which is also a befriended dictatorship itself.

And you call the temporary occupation of an embassy (without killing a diplomate) an attack against America, after what you did ?

An embassy is a nations sovereign territory and attacks upon it are acts of war. End of story.

[August]

You really need to learn when someone is being sarcastic.

Is that what you call that?

Yep I am a traitor I have Southern heritage some distant relatives fought for the CSA come and arrest me.But some also fought for the US Army as well oh and my mother was born in Iran (left way before the 1979 revolution) shall I be drawn and quartered?

Let me guess you're being sarcastic again...

Exactly what former hostage says that Ahmadinejad was the ring leader? I have never seen or heard anywhere such a claim be made.And it is not my media I do not own nor do I trust it so you not lay claim of ownership at my feet.Even the CIA checked into this and said that he was not involved.

You mean the same CIA that claimed Saddam was buying Nigerian yellowcake uranium? You believe them over the hostages themselves? Do some research on your country's history. Here i'll get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_the_1979_hostage_crisis

Several former hostages allege that during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis Ahmadinejad was one of the key individuals holding Americans inside the embassy.
A former Iranian secret agent said that the allegations were untrue: “I’m opposed to Ahmadinejad’s policies and thinking but he was not involved in the hostage drama nor in the assassination of an Iranian opposition Kurdish leader in Vienna.”[11] A classified CIA report says the claim is not proven.[12]
With Ahmadinejad's recent publicity, five former U.S. hostages Dr. William Daugherty (who worked for the CIA in Iran), Kevin Hermening, David Roeder, US Army Col. Charles Scott (Ret.), and US Navy Capt. Donald Sharer (Ret.) have alleged that Ahmadinejad was one of the leaders of the Iran Hostage Crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, during their 444-day captivity starting on November 4, 1979. All of the above-mentioned hostages have claimed that Ahmadinejad is the man whom they remember from their captivity. Ahmadinejad denies his presence in the embassy, other hostages are unsure about the identification and the CIA has reportedly questioned this identification.
Col. Charles Scott, now seventy-three, recently told the Washington Times[13] that "He was one of the top two or three leaders; the new president of Iran is a terrorist." Col. Scott claimed to recall an incident when Ahmadinejad berated a friendly Iranian guard who had allowed the two Americans to visit another U.S. hostage in a neighboring cell. Col. Scott, who understands Persian, said Ahmadinejad told the guard: "You shouldn't let these pigs out of their cells". Donald Sharer, a retired Navy captain who was for a time a cellmate of Col. Scott at the Evin prison in northern Tehran, remembered Ahmadinejad as "a hard-liner, a cruel individual". "I know he was an interrogator", said Capt. Sharer, now 64. Former hostages William Daugherty and Kevin Hermening also claim he was involved.
Scott and Roeder have also expressed certainty that Ahmadinejad was present at their interrogations. Scott asserted his certainty forcefully, stating: "This is the guy. There's no question about it. You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him." Both men, along with Sharer and Hermening, have stated their recollections of Ahmadinejad as an "extremely cruel" ringleader. Of the above men, only Hermening has expressed that he was not immediately sure that Ahmadinejad was involved in the Hostage Crisis.
However, former hostages USAF Col. Thomas E. Schaefer (Ret.), Paul Lewis (a former Marine embassy guard), and Barry Rosen (former embassy press attache) have expressed uncertainty regarding whether Ahmadinejad was actually involved. Schaefer stated that he does not recall Ahmadinejad by face or name, and Lewis expressed noticing a vague familiarity upon seeing Ahmadinejad's picture, but said that he could not be sure if Ahmadinejad was actually the same person as his captor. "My memories were more of the gun barrel, not the people behind it," stated Lewis. Rosen, while not claiming to personally recognize Ahmadinejad, professes to believe those who do claim to recognize the new Iranian President-elect. "When you're in a situation like that… it doesn't go away" Rosen stated.


the CIA backed the Shahs entry into power by the way

Re-entry into power actually. Another way of putting it was righting the wrong done his father during WW2 when the Soviets and Brits violated Iran's neutrality and occupied the country.

And lets not forget Iran Contra which involved the US government selling arms to Iran though the Israelis in exchange for the release of hostages being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

And this makes Iranians mad at us how?

The Iranian government is most defiantly not to be trusted and they have done and supported some foul deeds but there is no reason to get into an all out war with Iran. Waste of time seeing as with every passing day the regime in Iran grows more unpopular by the minute.

I can agree with that but this thread is about reasons for a war against Iran not reasons why we shouldn't. I have posted the ones I can think of but I make no claims as to their advisability at this point.

[Stealhead]

We didn't help bin Laden. We assisted the Mujahadeen to combat the Soviet invasion of their country. There is no evidence that he ever recieved aid or training from the US government. That's two unsupported claims you've made.

You have helped and supported Saddam Hussein, before he did what he always did, only this time against Saudi-Arabia - which is also a befriended dictatorship itself.





I agree with you statement about Bin Laden but what is your meaning with Saddam Hussein you seem to lump that as also being a false claim when the US government did in fact support and provide military aid to Iraq and therefore we did support Saddam at one time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93United_States_relations

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000887

[Tribesman]

An embassy is a nations sovereign territory and attacks upon it are acts of war. End of story.
The US government says you are talking bollox:up:
US law says you are talking bollox:up:
International law says you are talking bollox:up:
The American courts say you are talking bollox:up:
Every government says you are talking bollox:up:
Vienna convention says you are talking bollox:up:
Even the mad mullahs say you are talking bollox:up:

Seems a pretty overwhelming verdict doesn't it:hmmm:

Face it august is undeniably talking absolute bollox...end of story:rotfl2:

No matter what our country does we will still be hated, if for no other reason than jealousy for our success.

Such a kindergarden view of the world:doh:

[August]

...but what is your meaning with Saddam Hussein
I didn't say that second part. That was probably something that Catfish said but I forgot to wrap quote tags around it.

[MH]

Now, what's that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmNOkdRKq-s
lol
With or without this programme and with or without Israel, disregarding the Dollar lead currency and trying to sell their oil in other currencies will most certainly mean war between the US and Iran. Could this be the real reason ?


:hmmm:

Nah...you misstablet?.:rotfl2:

[Oberon]

The thing is, the US is going to do what the US thinks is best for the US, if it benefits another country as well then that is good, but at the end of the day if Washington has to step on some toes in order to keep its interests in line, then it will do that. Just the same as just about every superpower has done in its history stretching all the way back to the Roman and Egyptian empires.
Does that make it right? Well, that depends on who you ask, just like everything in history does.
China does not have the power just yet to challenge the US openly, internally it's too weak, a house of cards. On the outside it looks strong but one well placed kick and the economy will crash. In about five to seven years when Beijing manages to balance out its trading, then there will be a contender, but for now the PRC is happy to just use soft power, which is where its strength lays.
Russia is...well...Russia, I don't think anyone can figure it out properly, but I think that its main interests lie within the former Warsaw Pact states, primarily the Baltics and Eastern Europe. It will be angry about an attack on Iran, but it won't intervene militarily because it has too much to lose from doing so, and so much more to gain from the US intervening.

I'm pretty confident the US is going to leave this one to Israel though and just provide intelligence support so that Israel can hit as much as it can on the first strike in order to maximise its effectiveness in the limited window of opportunity it will get.

[Catfish]

@August
"a country may be hated or not whatever it does" - well.
I am sometimes wondering about the astonishment, the self-proclaimed good guys of the world show when they are confronted with other views.

Whether it was right or wrong for a country to do what it did, i cannot judge (well sometimes one can). But you have to admit that certain actions like some of the things nations do to other nations, do not everytime exactly plant love in the hearts of the bullied, if that is the right word ?

Anyway, it seems the higher étages of some governments have turned from trying out diplomatic means and a rapier now and then, to using the blunderbuss instead, and all of the time.


@MH: i did not understand this "misstablet" you wrote ? Or is this a play of words with the iPad tablet PC in the video ? ;)

[August]

@August
"a country may be hated or not whatever it does" - well.
I am sometimes wondering about the astonishment, the self-proclaimed good guys of the world show when they are confronted with other views.

I guess it's an opinion brought about by being constantly criticized and second guessed by countries who want the benefit of having a world policeman but won't or can't do the job themselves. We're criticized for creating Saddam Hussein and we're criticized for removing him. Sometimes it seems that no matter what we do, including nothing, it's wrong. It gets old.

Whether it was right or wrong for a country to do what it did, i cannot judge (well sometimes one can). But you have to admit that certain actions like some of the things nations do to other nations, do not everytime exactly plant love in the hearts of the bullied, if that is the right word ?

Of course not because if you give it long enough everyone eventually finds reason to get upset over something. Being world cop is a loosing proposition regardless who does it. Personally I think we should resign from the position and let the worlds chips fall where they may.

Anyway, it seems the higher étages of some governments have turned from trying out diplomatic means and a rapier now and then, to using the blunderbuss instead, and all of the time.

100% agreement there although when it comes to how much force and diplomacy is enough hindsight is a lot better than foresight.

[eddie]

I hope we don't need to go to war with Iran, for whatever reason. Here in the States, it seems we are in a state of perpetual war, or perpetual elections, I'm getting tired of both.

[Stealhead]

I hope we don't need to go to war with Iran, for whatever reason. Here in the States, it seems we are in a state of perpetual war, or perpetual elections, I'm getting tired of both.


So is our budget.

[Jimbuna]

So is our budget.

Good/fair point.

[Catfish]

OT regarding Iran -


" ... We didn't help bin Laden. We assisted the Mujahadeen to combat the Soviet invasion of their country. There is no evidence that he ever recieved aid or training from the US government. That's two unsupported claims you've made. ..."


Even the BBC tells that "Al Qaeda" did not exist.
"Al Quaeda" was the name of a CIA datafile including the name of - among others - Bin Laden, being generally a list of the members fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.
"Al-Qaida,(sic) literally 'the database,' was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians," admits former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, whose Foreign Office portfolio included control of British Intelligence Agency MI-6 and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), in a column published by the UK Guardian newspaper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html

Also see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA&feature=player_embedded

Also (but not only) see here (BBC documentary):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

There are thousands of documents on the net, but the best was the BBC and the german "Spiegel" documentation. But this information is now seven years old !

Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher:
"The Taliban was a construct of the CIA and was armed by the CIA"

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Oct. 7th, 2009:
"It seemed like a great idea, back in the 80s to embolden; and train and equip; Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan.
And with our help, and with the Pakistani support; this group; including, at that time, Bin Laden, defeated the Soviet Union."

http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/us_supportforladictators8303.html
It is no deviation of business as usual, from Noriega to Saddam.

[Stealhead]

Al-Qaida means the base in Arabic base as in the foundation in other words a belief.

Al Quaeda is merely another way to spell Al-Qaida it can also be spelled al-Qa'ida(no reason to place [sic] after any as they are all correct spellings.) the fact that your source article claims that two different spellings of the exact same words in Arabic draws into question anything else that it sates.

The Taliban and Al Quaeda are not one in the same they may have similar views but the Taliban formed in Pakistan during the 1980s and was and is comprised mostly of men that went Madrases that strongly promote the Saudi Arabian from of Islam known as wahhabism.Most of the money that formed the Taliban came from Saudi Arabian donations which obviously implies that Saudi Arabia or at least Saudis have had a desire to spread their version of Islam around the world.

All of your links are someones spin not the proven truth.Everything you link to is of highly questionable nature.

The entire Al-Qaida means data base is obvious spin to support the view that the CIA created Al-Qaida when in fact Al-Qaida created itself on its own and the name does not mean data base at all.This is what happens when people believe anything that they read or see on the internet or anywhere for that matter people seek to spread lies about facts to promote their views.

[Catfish]

Al-Qaida means the base in Arabic base as in the foundation in other words a belief.
Ok :hmmm:
I wonder how this could make its way in so much documentaries if it is a wrong translation, someone should have pointed that out ?

All of your links are someones spin not the proven truth.Everything you link to is of highly questionable nature.

I admit that regarding the offspring of the name of Al-Quaeda, but i highly doubt there was no connection between the secret services and Bin-Laden, before he turned around.

Greetings and thanks for the correction,
Catfish

[Stealhead]

Ok :hmmm:
I wonder how this could make its way in so much documentaries if it is a wrong translation, someone should have pointed that out ?



I admit that regarding the offspring of the name of Al-Quaeda, but i highly doubt there was no connection between the secret services and Bin-Laden, before he turned around.

Greetings and thanks for the correction,
Catfish

Perhaps because the truth is the most difficult thing to find it does not always display itself on a billboard with shining lights but lies and spin very often will.

There is no evidence what so ever that Bin Laden had any contact with any western agency perhaps he might have been a known face and name and directly dealt with the Pakistani ISI and I find it doubtful if they did that they where concerned about more than what was occurring in Afghanistan.Also Bin Laden mostly only gave money and he also helped construct as a combatant he did nothing he was seen as what he was at the time some rich Saudi young man that kind of hung around and helped build some entrenchments and had some very fundamentalist views.

[TLAM Strike]

I wish the CIA was a good as some people think it is. Using one man to build an army to defeat the Soviets. Assassinating every world leader who gets in their way.

Now we got headlines in the NYT saying the CIA says Iran is not working on nuclear weapons.

Of course whenever someone hears CIA and WMDs in the same sentience they immediately say: "The CIA said there were WMDs in Iraq and there weren't any!!!"

Soooo either the CIA is purposefully lying... there were no WMDs in Iraq and Iran is working on a bomb.

Or

The CIA is telling the truth... Iraq had (yet undiscovered) WMDs and Iran is not working on a bomb.

:hmmm:

[Stealhead]

The CIA created TLAM Strike 4 weeks after they created Al-Qaida "the Database" everyone knows that.:03:


I agree people think that the CIA is some uber demigod that can do anything at its whim it is ridiculous when you think about it.
They make mistakes just as any other similar agency has but they where doing what was needed to be done at the given time period
nobody is perfect the best that can be done is to analyze the information that they have gathered effectively and in an unbiased manner
(obviously they know what we nor the news knows and they have made misjudgments here/ or those that they advised did) and react in the manner that best protects US interests.There job is very complex speaking only about the
analyst aspect it is a level of professionalism rarely seen.

[nikimcbee]

re-election?:hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

TLAM Strike 4

Is that some sort of evil twin of TLAM?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/files/2010/11/dr-evil.jpg

[Stealhead]

I don't how that 4 got in there but it does make it funnier.

[Oberon]

They're multiplying! We'll have a whole SSGN of them before long! :doh:

[gimpy117]

sometimes I wonder if Iran was the goal all the time: we've been beating the war drums since the beginnings of even the iraq campaign

[Stealhead]

I would say that making sure that we stay the power base in Middle East/Gulf region is the primary long term goal.The original intention of capturing Bin Laden or at least taking out his safe haven was a wise idea to have gotten involved in Iraq was very a bad idea and placed Afghanistan on the back burner.Now we have killed Bin Laden and it is very clear that Al-Qaeda has become very de-centralized there seems to be little point in staying in Afghanistan where our "allies" grow weary of our presence with each day.

Some may argue that there have been no terror attacks in the US since 9/11 but their goal with those attacks was to draw us into a protracted conflict.Al-Qaedas goal was to start a world wide Islamic Jihad with the hopes that the United Sates being the dominate world and economic power would wear itself down over the long term these people where thinking long term not in 5 year term nor ten or 20 year terms they are in it for long haul.

[TLAM Strike]

The CIA created TLAM Strike 4

Is that some sort of evil twin of TLAM?

I guess the secret is out: the TLAM Strikes are a series of clones used by the CIA. We are numbered in sequence as we are activated.

TLAM Strike 1 died when he was trampled to death by a lama in Santiago Chile in 1973
TLAM Strike 2 died in a freak paper shredder accident in Tehran in January of 1978
TLAM Strike 3 died in Beirut when he was run over by a taxi cab in 1985.
TLAM Strike 4 died aboard the Mir Space Station when it was destroyed in 1996.

That makes me TLAM Strike 5. :03:

[MH]

sometimes I wonder if Iran was the goal all the time: we've been beating the war drums since the beginnings of even the iraq campaign

Iranians had similar view.
That is way they got scared during Iraq invasion and froze all nuclear development at the time.
When things turned somewhat bad for USA in the region Iran realised that had nothing to fear....quite the opposite...USA has had it.
Obama's weak polices contributed as well.

[Oberon]

I guess the secret is out: the TLAM Strikes are a series of clones used by the CIA. We are numbered in sequence as we are activated.

TLAM Strike 1 died when he was trampled to death by a lama in Santiago Chile in 1973
TLAM Strike 2 died in a freak paper shredder accident in Tehran in January of 1978
TLAM Strike 3 died in Beirut when he was run over by a taxi cab in 1985.
TLAM Strike 4 died aboard the Mir Space Station when it was destroyed in 1996.

That makes me TLAM Strike 5. :03:

Watch out when you get to number six, I hear they can be defective... :O:

[gimpy117]

Iranians had similar view.
That is way they got scared during Iraq invasion and froze all nuclear development at the time.
When things turned somewhat bad for USA in the region Iran realised that had nothing to fear....quite the opposite...USA has had it.
Obama's weak polices contributed as well.

Of course they did! But I don't think it was because of what your alluding to The US had just come into a Iraq with Intel THEY MADE UP and and proceeded to occupy the whole place and kick heads in with what pretty much amounts to as total lies now. I mean heck we were using artist concepts as "solid proof" they had mobile WMD labs, and saying metal pipes that could have been for anything (and scientists who make A bombs said something to that effect) were the smoking gun.

now put yourself in Iran's shoes...did they want to be invaded? I'm betting not, so when the United States, a country that already hates your guts is wheeling around the general area on some WMD goose hunt...and you have a nuclear energy program or something that even looks remotely like a bomb program, you are probably going to put that on hold until they are gone or at least till you think it's not an issue

also...what policies have made us weak? The fact that we've realized that 2 wars is unsustainable for a decade and being the bigger person and apologizing for burning a holy book held sacred to many, many people around the world. If we had accidentally fed pork or something to a bunch of people in Israel the right wing would probably shuffling around on their knees begging for the anointed Israel's forgiveness. And you know it's true. They just hint at going to war, and our government largely championed by the right wing pretty much says "How high, and whats the size of the hoop we should bring?"

[MH]

also...what policies have made us weak? that's a joke. I love how people hate on Obama, and say "oh Obama is ruining X or Y and everything is going to hell" and then they just say something like "well he just is" then trying to back up this statement by stating that everything that is wrong with the USA isn't fixed yet yet. I think it's childish and just a political stunt aimed at calling Obama a failure to either spite him or win an election.

I don't hate Obama...(obviously)i.m not American and as far as internal politics i don't understand what is this big fuss and hatred toward him.

As far as foreign ME politics the guy was sort of naive type...maybe in the same way as when it comes to dealing with American internal politics.
All this sanctions and pressure on Iran should had come much sooner.
Gentleman talks don't work well around ME.

[gimpy117]

I don't hate Obama...(obviously)i.m not American and as far as internal politics i don't understand what is this big fuss and hatred toward him.

As far as foreign ME politics the guy was sort of naive type...maybe in the same way as when it comes to dealing with American internal politics.
All this sanctions and pressure on Iran should had come much sooner.
Gentleman talks don't work well around ME.

see, I dunno I can really do without all the saber rattling. I mean speak softly and carry a big stick. We don't have to be the jerks of the world. We can be that big guy at the bar who actually nice, but everybody knows can kick their butt. Iran HAS to be the little cocky guy who need to make a scene to set noticed.

I'm perfectly fine with "naive" politics. we've got more bombs and guns than anybody

also, side not I edited that out because Straw mans are a little bit of a fire hazzard

[Buddahaid]

Watch out when you get to number six, I hear they can be defective... :O:

He's a man not a number!

[Catfish]

One last time OT, @Stealhead (errr "steal"? :D )
regarding a made-up AL-Quaeda - or is it Al-Quaida ? They say the latter word is the addendum "i" for indeed making it the word "database" ?
But what do i know.

Anyway i would like you to watch this video i already posted, and tell me what you think of it ? This is not a nutjob video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA&feature=player_embedded#!

Because regardless what the word means, a terror organisation with Bin Laden at its top, seems not to have existed. So he received training and weapons, just like everyone else in those scattered groups fighting the russians in Afghanistan, but indeed not personally - he was not a leader.



Even more OT, which was the number of the TLAMstrike i used to know ?!
Only deception and spy games :oops:
:rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

TLAM Strike 1 died when he was trampled to death by a lama in Santiago Chile in 1973

That makes me TLAM Strike 5. :03:
Who died of shame when the Spelling Nazi pointed out that "Llama" has two "l"s. :O:

[Rockstar]

I don't hate Obama...(obviously)i.m not American and as far as internal politics i don't understand what is this big fuss and hatred toward him.

Hate is a strong emotion and IMO it's how some get others to vote a certain way, the same can be said of either party.

Read ' The Prince'.



.

[Stealhead]

One last time OT, @Stealhead (errr "steal"? :D )
regarding a made-up AL-Quaeda - or is it Al-Quaida ? They say the latter word is the addendum "i" for indeed making it the word "database" ?
But what do i know.







I still say that your video link is a documentary that wishes to express an opinion just because any documentary says something does not make it true.For example the NRA can make a documentary that tells you that less gun regulation and more gun ownership is a good thing and an anti-gun organisation can just as easily make a documentary that says the exact opposite.

What exactly is the source that anything they say is true.Last time I checked the BBC was not MI6 or the CIA.

So "they" say the added i means that it means database I highly suspect that they are rely on the fact that few westerns seeing or reading this information can peak Arabic and will
trust what they say rather than look up the information form an outside source.

Catfish I fear that you have taken the bait hook,line and sinker.

There is no official standard for writing Arabic words in English so unless you also speak Arabic or have a way to find a source to explain what a word is than anyone can make up what the meaning is to deceive.

Why do "they" not say that Hamas,Hezbollah,or al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are made up? Because it does not suit there interest.

[Catfish]

What you say about reports or documentaries is certainly right, however it always is good to think about who gains most out of a situation, or event that happened. And think about all sides without prejudice.


What exactly is the source that anything they say is true.Last time I checked the BBC was not MI6 or the CIA.
If we come to that i am indeed of the opinion, that free independent journalism (and the BBC is not the Sun) can indeed more be trusted, than the MI6, or CIA. I mean apart of what they tell themselves, vs. what is told to the public. And there is always some aloofness, even between befriended services. Our territory, your territory.

Why do "they" not say that Hamas,Hezbollah,or al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are made up? Because it does not suit there interest.

It is not made up, it is just used in another way, but then you obviously did not watch the video and links i posted further north.

[Stealhead]

Begging your pardon I did indeed view every one of your links the first time you posted them Catfish.Simply because I do not trust something that the BBC says or something that the Guardian says which I have already informed you is incorrect and you at first agreed with my point now you seem to recant and feel again that Al-Qaeda spelled a certain way means that it was created by the CIA and that Bin Laden used the name later.

You seem to be a believer in the conspiracy theories that surround 9/11 just as they do many other serious events such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy .And when you encounter one that does not agree with a given conspiracy theory you accuse them of not even looking at their sources. Conspiracy theories are just that theories very often based on very loose interpretation of known facts and where there is any chance for the given theory to fit in that is where it is placed.I can see them making that BBC doc right now "Lets see here ok Mitchel we know that some people think that the CIA created Bin Ladens group so lets just say that the CIA had a database on Bin Laden and it was called the database in Arabic"

Why do I have the feeling that you also believe what is said in "Loose Change"?

Let me give an example lets say that I have a conspiracy theory that purple lizard aliens form the planet Kilmzord are in control of our planet.I could easily say that the that Kilmzord lizard men created AQ in order to start a war between the humans in order to weaken them for easier complete take over at a later date.

[Catfish]

I do not really believe all those conspiracy theories either, but i found those links interesting. Bin Laden himself did use this name earlier, already before 2000, however it did not refer to an organization - and not to a database, at least not by him.

Newspapers, Fox News and official reports from people heavily involved (FBI whatever). I mean if you want a security check about let's say a reactor, would you give the order to examine and produce this report, to the operating company; would you think you get a realistic evaluation then ?
I would say those conspiracy theories are only possible, because people have been lied to and deceived before, so they will see the dark side at work everywhere. "Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not after you".

So because the name A-Q does not really mean what those "revisionists" say, the rest is all made up as well ? Possible.

Even if any documentary can be made up (those mentioned originating from Pierre-Henry Bunel or so i think), what are your sources denying researches of a (more or less, ok) credible journalist ?

Greetings,
Catfish

Edit, just reread your post, seems you edited it a bit - i do not know about "Loose change" but will look for what you mean.

[Stealhead]

Why the Kilmzord lizards of course.:03:

Not to be insulting but my source is common sense and understanding that most any source has it own point of view/agenda you have to understand the varying information coming at you and flowing around the world and analyse it from as neutral a prospective as possible.That is how I can best explain it.

[Catfish]

Why the Kilmzord lizards of course.:03:

I have googled, and i did not find them !
"Did you mean: Komodo lizards (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&complete=1&biw=1399&bih=727&sa=X&ei=D09qT8ixCo_3sgbPo7mHAg&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQBSgA&q=Komodo+lizards&spell=1) "



Instead i found this:
http://www.2flashgames.com/f/f-Dinosaurs-Google-Search-75344.htm

[Stealhead]

Ah I see that TLAMstrike 6 is at it again.I bet at this very moment he is time traveling back in time in order to save the previous TLAMStrikes and once they are all in one place at one time they become TLAMStrike Alpha Omega.

[nikimcbee]

Ah I see that TLAMstrike 6 is at it again.I bet at this very moment he is time traveling back in time in order to save the previous TLAMStrikes and once they are all in one place at one time they become TLAMStrike Alpha Omega.


I don't know where he has all this free time go off galavanting around on secret missions, I thought he had term papers to work on.

Must be a music major.:hmmm:

[August]

I don't know where he has all this free time go off galavanting around on secret missions

TLAMstrike uses body doubles. He has twice as many as Obama, 10 times as many as Churchill.

[Stealhead]

The body doubles are of course much less powerful than the real TLAMStrike but of course one should never underestimate them.One of TLAMs body doubles was in charge of CIA operations in the USSR during the 1970s.

[mapuc]

So this TLAM is the last line of defence and will be called upon when the USA is in really deep trouble.

Markus

[Oberon]

TLAMstrike uses body doubles. He has twice as many as Obama, 10 times as many as Churchill.

And here's me having to use cheap Saddam knock-offs...brought them off the back of a lorry at the Iraq border in 2003 in a closing down special.

Had to grow a moustache, but the price is worth it! :yep:

[gimpy117]

Why do I have the feeling that you also believe what is said in "Loose Change"?

honestly, I thought most of it was hogwash, but some of it was really thought provoking. especially the part about united 93. t is true, a 757 is a large aircraft...and it was vaporized without a fire AFAIK and no fuel residue found.

[Torplexed]

honestly, I thought most of it was hogwash, but some of it was really thought provoking. especially the part about united 93. t is true, a 757 is a large aircraft...and it was vaporized without a fire AFAIK and no fuel residue found.

The problem with truthers is that expect a plane crash in a field to look like this....

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/76_planeIntoCrater0.jpg

A plane is made of thousands of parts. When it impacts nose first with ground it tends to disintegrate into a lot of small unrecognizable parts.

Plus, they duck obvious follow-up questions like...if the plane didn't crash what happened to it?

After that what happened to all the passengers and crew that were aboard?

Why stage a fake crash in a field? Why not at another famous American landmark?

If you want people to think an aircraft was going to crash into the capital and the aircraft that is supposed to have done it is missing along with all the crew and passengers, why not crash it into the capital instead of some anonymous stretch of Pennsylvania? Why not work the this staged emergency up to the hilt with all four planes?

[gimpy117]

oh im studying to get my A&P I know how many parts there are in a 757, something like 3,000,000 or so if you count rivets. But it's a large plane to just disappear like that. not saying it didn't happen, but the weirdest thing i wonder about is the lack of fuel found

[Torplexed]

oh im studying to get my A&P I know how many parts there are in a 757, something like 3,000,000 or so if you count rivets. But it's a large plane to just disappear like that

It's my understanding that tons of debris were excavated from crater. I think a lot of the problem is that the aerial pictures of the crater didn't fit most people's idea of what a jet crash looks like with oily smoking wreckage and a vague wrecked aircraft shape. Kind of reminds me of Apollo disbelievers who think the moon landings were fake because the awkward looking lunar module didn't fit their mental picture of what a spaceship looks like.

[Stealhead]

I would trust the opinion of someone trained in the studying air accidents for the FAA over someone studying A&P I assume this is aviation?:hmmm: could you put in full words what you are studying please? I am pretty sure that is not specifically related to the study of air accidents.At least A friend of mine went to Emery Riddle and studied accident specifically and recvied a BA in it.

Have you seen the FAA investigation reports on this accident to allow you dispute with reputable evidence.Which to satisfy me would be a person with many years experience investigating air accidents.

Also do not forget that this plane struck the ground at a very high rate of speed much higher most likely than any previous crash involving an aircraft of this size.

If one takes into consideration the scattering effects of most air accidents at much lower speeds they tend to scatter wreckage fairly far so it seems logical to me for an aircraft striking the ground at a high rate of speed and diving for the ground (where as in most crashes the crew is trying to avoid this) it makes sense for most of the wreckage to go into the ground.

Of course it is always possible that one of TLAMs doubles might have managed to brain wash me maybe he did and I don't remember it because I am now a manchurian candidate.:hmmm: :D

[gimpy117]

It's my understanding that tons of debris were excavated from crater. I think a lot of the problem is that the aerial pictures of the crater didn't fit most people's idea of what a jet crash looks like with oily smoking wreckage and a vague wrecked aircraft shape. Kind of reminds me of Apollo disbelievers who think the moon landings were fake because the awkward looking lunar module didn't fit their mental picture of what a spaceship looks like.

well yeah tons of debirs would fit with such a massive A/C at such speed

[MH]

Anyway i would like you to watch this video i already posted, and tell me what you think of it ? This is not a nutjob video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA&feature=player_embedded#!


Catfish...that is very reasonable video.
It nor denies or confirms anything actually and again its simply about definitions who is who.
If some one used BL ideology or money and support for terrorist attack is he member or AQ blah ...blah ...or just independent with same objective.
Actually this video tell how effective terror organisation might work.

[Catfish]

Thanks MH, this was one of the points i meant.


On topic:
Civilian israelian campaign against bombing Iran. :o

On facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/israellovesiran

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/israel-hearts-iran-peace-campaign-takes-off-facebook-160645131.html

"Let's beat the politicians":
http://www.israelovesiran.com/


This private campaign currently going viral, is maybe an answer to the clandestine operation of seeking out enemies over Twitter.
Anywy interesting to see that Facebook also works backwards - not only exposing private data to companies and government services, but also to show how much people are against certain policies of governments.

Now if this becomes a habit, there's one more argument for governments and their censorship on the internet

[Platapus]

When I was in EOD, I responded to (too) many plane crashes. The only thing that was in common between all of them was that every crash is different.

I have seen crash sites where you could see the entire aircraft and then the next one there is nothing left bigger than a shard. It was not uncommon to have an incident where major components (like entire jet engines) were never recovered.

There are a lot of factors involved in an airplane crash. A change in any one of them could drastically change the site.

[Stealhead]

On topic:
Civilian israelian campaign against bombing Iran. :o







You seem surprised that some Israelis are opposed to a war with Iran.Why is that so shocking to you.Perhaps because few US media outlets every mention
such things.:hmmm:

[Catfish]

I am sorry if my post sounded as if i was astonished about some Israelis being against a war, this was not my intention.
No, i am not surprised that some Isrealis do not want to go to war with Iran. But it is the first time i hear of such an idea, make a public statement that is internationally visible !

However e.g. on this site (there are others) it is always taken as a given thing that Israel and the USA will attack Iran, or at least do a strike against the iranian nuclear positions, automatically implying or suggesting that all Israelis and Americans want it - obviously (and now made public), that is not so. "People do not start a war, governments do" is a quote from Reagan, but what will governments do if it became clear internationally, their main population were against them ?

Imagine such a site became viral, in Iran .. what would the government do ? Try to sue them of course, switch off Internet access, or make a deal with Google not to find any critical voices ?

Problem is, people CAN be sought out over Twitter (Facebook is self-evident) or for their IP address alone, so posting something critical in a dictatorship means a high risk. (The chinese are putting this to a test though).

The other problem is, does Iran build "the bomb", or not ..

Greetings,
Catfish

[Tribesman]

But it is the first time i hear of such an idea, make a public statement that is internationally visible !

Follow the regional news more

[Skybird]

I do not know if the majority of Americans are for a war against Iran, I doubt it strongly, but I think it is a pretty safe bet to assume that the majority of Israelis accept it, even when needing to take civilian casualties from an Iranian counterstrike of any kind. Certain military preparations in Israel indicate that they know of and accept the possibilties of missile strikes against Tel Aviv and other major cities.

For spoiled-by-peace Westerners who have not suffered tyranny and war since a whole man-life, this may be appearing strange and unbelievable. But for those remebering historic lessons and being reminded of death and suffering in their own ranks time and again, it is expression of a knowledge that sometimes things for the better, or necessities, do not happen all by themselves, but must be fought for.

Some fights find us, and we cannot afford to run away from them. But i have given up hope that Westerners will ever understand this - until the next big bang happening in Europe. Seeing that we already live in an era of post-democracy and post-democratic order, with autocratic regimes creeping into power everywhere and ursurpating power through the backdoors, I see the chances for such a big bang slowly growing. And in the wake of the new autocracy establishing itself, extremist movements are blossoming while the silent majority just sits on the fenceline, smiling and holding hands with the family, and lets the selling out of their precious heritage happen, with thinking switched off. The good fairy queen will make sure that it all comes to a good ending.

All by itself.

That Israel disturbs this peaceful atmosphere of naivety and self-glorification, is really unforgivable.

For German readers: Deutschland steht zu Israel - unter Vorbehalt... (http://freie.welt.de/2012/03/22/deutschland-steht-zu-israel-unter-vorbehalt/)

[Tribesman]

For spoiled-by-peace Westerners who have not suffered tyranny and war since a whole man-life, this may be appearing strange and unbelievable. But for those remebering historic lessons and being reminded of death and suffering in their own ranks time and again, it is expression of a knowledge that sometimes things for the better, or necessities, do not happen all by themselves, but must be fought for.

Wow what a pile of crap:doh:
For those remembering historic lessons most of the time the wars get fought for nonsense reasons, serve no real purpose and fail to achieve even a small measure of their stated desires.

[MothBalls]

Wow what a pile of crap:doh:
For those remembering historic lessons most of the time the wars get fought for nonsense reasons, serve no real purpose and fail to achieve even a small measure of their stated desires.Iran and Iraq come to mind, then Vietnam, then Korea.... I agree, many pointless wars. I wonder what these last four have in common?

[August]

Iran and Iraq come to mind, then Vietnam, then Korea.... I agree, many pointless wars. I wonder what these last four have in common?

Failed to achieve even a small measure of their objectives? You probably shouldn't believe the troll because that's just not true.

Korea - There are still no North Korean divisions dug in around Pusan, they've been kicked back to their border where they still reside. That's pretty much the entire war aim of the UN during that conflict.
Iraq - The war was to remove Saddam Hussain from power. That objective was accomplished.
Iran - Not sure how that can be called a defeat seeing as how we haven't even fought a war with them,... yet. :)

In fact the only one in your list that could really be called a failure is Vietnam and that was more through our lack of will to win rather than a lack of ability to win.

[TLAM Strike]

Iran - Not sure how that can be called a defeat seeing as how we haven't even fought a war with them,... yet. :) Operation Earnest Will and is sub-operations (Praying Mantis etc) were quite successful. :03:

[Platapus]

Operation Earnest Will and is sub-operations (Praying Mantis etc) were quite successful. :03:

Not to mention Operation Ajax. Although success is in the eye of the beholder.

[joegrundman]

Iraq - The war was to remove Saddam Hussain from power. That objective was accomplished.


seriously, your memory is that all of that was just to get rid of one medium-grade dictator?

[Tribesman]

Failed to achieve even a small measure of their objectives? You probably shouldn't believe the troll because that's just not true.

Korea - There are still no North Korean divisions dug in around Pusan, they've been kicked back to their border where they still reside. That's pretty much the entire war aim of the UN during that conflict.
Iraq - The war was to remove Saddam Hussain from power. That objective was accomplished.
Iran - Not sure how that can be called a defeat seeing as how we haven't even fought a war with them,... yet. :)

Yet again august the troll returns to talking pure bollox:yeah:
1. False. the objective was unification and the removal of all foreign forces.
2. False. there was a huge pile of aims and objectives, getting rid of a powerless petty dictator was a meaningless minute part....but then again since just about every reason given as justification for the war was bollox it is not surprising its cheerleaders are still desperately grasping at straws.
3. wow you claimed they was already at war, something to do with you not undertanding anything about it and not understandfing what soveriegn territory is.
4. False. all failed in many ways and that 4th example is a prime example of the French failing to achieve any of its aims then the US and its allies also failing to achieve any of theirs....which also ties back to a failed aim of #1

Two things are of note.....
August failed in spectacular fashion to deal with what was actually written and then provided great examples of how to be incorrect on even a very limited sample of modern conflicts.
Mothballs chose only 3 direct conflicts out of the thousands of examples possible and seemed possibly very US centric in the choice.

seriously, your memory is that all of that was just to get rid of one medium-grade dictator?
But but but ...if it wasn't then what was it ...I mean what were ....what did they die for.....it was about getting rid of a Saddam and that is all there was to it so SHUT UP end of story

[August]

seriously, your memory is that all of that was just to get rid of one medium-grade dictator?

No Joe, the assertion was that even a small part of the wars objectives accomplished obviously that is not the case. The jerk that made the statement has probably already tried to backtrack. If I could be arsed i'd check but it's too fine a day to sully it by unblocking the spewage of internet trolls.

[Tribesman]

No Joe, the assertion was that even a small part of the wars objectives accomplished obviously that is not the case.
Poor troll with the intellect of Bubbles, doesn't even comprehend the assertion he failed to deal with.

The jerk that made the statement has probably already tried to backtrack
No you troll try again :har::har::har::har::har:
You have ignorance and you really have ignorance and August is certainly walking the walk of the ignorant:rotfl2:

[Jimbuna]

Come on people....disagreeing and challenging one anothers opinion (in a respectful manner) is acceptable but when matters turn to name calling and trading insults I will have no option other than to draw a line.

[MH]

http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ahmadinejad-shocked2.jpg

[Tribesman]

Come on people....disagreeing and challenging one anothers opinion
He is still just pissed that he got infracted for trolling.

All his points have been challenged dealt with and shredded in detail for what they were, which was easy as they didn't even go anywhere near the mark.
Since he then came back with more total bollox like he often does he gets it straight back like he deserves.
But Ok maybe it was a little unfair to compare him to Bubbles.;)

Just out of interest, firstly do you understand how the failures in point 4 relates back to the failed objectives from point 1 at national, regional and global levels?
secondly can you do some simple maths and see how far wide of the mark poor august was regarding what he thought he was argueing against?

Ignorance was an entirely accurate summation as his comment on the initial statement can only be due to blind ignorance of history and politics and the second can only be due to plain ignorance

[Skybird]

Iraq - The war was to remove Saddam Hussain from power. That objective was accomplished.
Wrong. They sold it as a case of clear and present danger from WMDs which had to be terminated. "We know they have them and we know where they are." Containing Iran: fail. Stabilising Iraq: fail. Allowing economical advantages for US companies: I cannot assess it in full, but obviously the issue has become far more costly than Cheney and Rumsfield have imagined and planned. But the costs are payed by the tax payer - the profits still get sacked by certain companies. To me, Iraq was a 100% corporation war, a private war that abused the national armed services for private business interests. It was not in the interest or defence of the nation or the American people. Next time Carlylse and Co should send their own plant security police.

In fact the only one in your list that could really be called a failure is Vietnam and that was more through our lack of will to win rather than a lack of ability to win.
Does not matter. It was a deliberate defeat, no matter how it was casue (I blame poltiics). The defeat in Iraq however has caused a much more costly strategic fallout for the US. The straytegic balance between
"them" and "us" has shifted to "our" disadvantage.

I know that no major battle got lost in Vietnam and Iraq. But that is not what decides the war. You can win all battles - and still loose, obviously.

Afghanistan also rates as a defeat. And maybe will turn out to be the most costly, strategically, of the bigger conflicts since WWII. Compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, the defeat in Vietnam was almost meaningless, politically and strategically.

[August]

Wrong. They sold it as a case of clear and present danger from WMDs which had to be terminated. "We know they have them and we know where they are." Containing Iran: fail. Stabilising Iraq: fail. Allowing economical advantages for US companies: I cannot assess it in full, but obviously the issue has become far more costly than Cheney and Rumsfield have imagined and planned. But the costs are payed by the tax payer - the profits still get sacked by certain companies. To me, Iraq was a 100% corporation war, a private war that abused the national armed services for private business interests. It was not in the interest or defence of the nation or the American people.

Look Sky, I am not and never did deny that there were multiple war aims in Iraq but one of them was indeed removing Saddam from power. You can debate the relative importance of it all you want but the fact remains that any claims that we didn't accomplish anything in Iraq are just simply untrue. If nothing else we did that.

Apparently though there are some people like the troll and the mad moderator who have some sort of issue with anyone pointing that out but I figure that it's their problem and not mine. I'll let Neal address it.

As for the rest of your post i'm not going to quote it because I hate long posts but let me say that Afghanistan was not even on the list I was responding to, Iran, a war that hasn't even been fought was. Apparently we fought a war with that country and nobody even told us! :o

Now seriously if a few certain people would get that huge chip off their shoulder maybe they would recognize that, but either way I don't really care what they think. I used to not see why you liked the ignore feature so much but now I understand. I just wish I could block the mad mod like I block the troll. Works better than that Japanese Shut Up Horn. :DL

[Tribesman]

You can debate the relative importance of it all you want but the fact remains that any claims that we didn't accomplish anything in Iraq are just simply untrue. If nothing else we did that.

Off to see the wizard with a companion of dorothy:rotfl2:

Apparently though there are some people like the troll and the mad moderator who have some sort of issue with anyone pointing that out but I figure that it's their problem and not mine.
The issue with it is that it isn't the issue so it isn't pointing anything out.:know:
Since you are not figuring very well then that is clearly a problem you have.

Apparently we fought a war with that country and nobody even told us!
Errrrrr...this bloke that goes by the label August said recently they had been at war with them since 1979. Now I don't know if anyone wants to tell august what august said but it seems august forget to tell august when he was telling everyone else that nonsense.
Perhaps august has august on his ignore list.:yeah:

Now seriously if a few certain people would get that huge chip off their shoulder maybe they would recognize that,
You have such a chip on your shouder its surprising you don't topple over.

I used to not see why you liked the ignore feature so much but now I understand.
Yes its a good feature, it means people can rip the nonsense you actually wrote to pieces and you just blather on blindly in ignorance.

BTW whats this with the "mad moderator"?
Thats two mods you slagged off lately after going off on one with your chip on your shoulder, last time it was when on a very simple matter your clouded logic which would be best described as infantile in regards to the subject stared to backfire so you ended up shouting even more nonsense and getting in a strop.:doh:

[Oberon]

To take a quote from a film:

"The President can bomb anybody he likes."

(points for the film name)

The fact of the matter is that it's up to the Joint Chiefs and their Chairman to decide what nation they bomb, not the UN, not Russia or the PRC, not even Europe.

Will there come a day when a nation turns around and says 'No' and America gets a nasty shock...maybe...eventually every power meets its match in some form. For us it was World War One, for the Romans it was the Visigoths. For the moment though we're just along for the ride. So, getting all riled up and attacking each other and the moderators isn't going to do a thing except make yourselves look silly because at the end of the day we have as much control over the decision making process of the United States as a Snail has over the Sun. :03:

[August]

To take a quote from a film:

"The President can bomb anybody he likes."

(points for the film name)

The fact of the matter is that it's up to the Joint Chiefs and their Chairman to decide what nation they bomb, not the UN, not Russia or the PRC, not even Europe.

Will there come a day when a nation turns around and says 'No' and America gets a nasty shock...maybe...eventually every power meets its match in some form. For us it was World War One, for the Romans it was the Visigoths. For the moment though we're just along for the ride. So, getting all riled up and attacking each other and the moderators isn't going to do a thing except make yourselves look silly because at the end of the day we have as much control over the decision making process of the United States as a Snail has over the Sun. :03:



I'm not attacking the mods Oberon. One single mod here seems to have it out for me as well as other members of this forum and has taken recently to abusing his position in his impotent rqage.

It's no skin off my butt but it's a shame that he's crapping up threads in his zeal to get me. Meh! Maybe Neal will strip him of power then I can go to ignoring his existance like I ignore the irish troll.

:salute:

[Takeda Shingen]

"The President can bomb anybody he likes."

(points for the film name)

Nixon (Oliver Stone)

[Oberon]

I'm not attacking the mods Oberon. One single mod here seems to have it out for me as well as other members of this forum and has taken recently to abusing his position in his impotent rqage.

It's no skin off my butt but it's a shame that he's crapping up threads in his zeal to get me. Meh! Maybe Neal will strip him of power then I can go to ignoring his existance like I ignore the irish troll.

:salute:

The best way to handle things like this is a PM to Neal with evidence of what you think is wrong. Bringing it out into public like this doesn't do anyone any good and just gets peoples backs up. I don't think I've had a problem with any of the mods here...except when Xabba used me as a guinea pig for his infraction powers (he removed the infraction, but it still came as a bloody big shock when I got the PM :haha:), but I understand that not everyone is that way, it's a tough job and we are only human after all. Perhaps both of you need a little time to chill out before any problem escalates? Just agree to disagree, that kinda thing.
Sorry, I'm doing my Kissinger bit here, which brings me to Tak who is spot on! :yeah: And having watched some clips from the film...I really must watch the full thing, it looks good. :yep:

[August]

The best way to handle things like this is a PM to Neal with evidence of what you think is wrong. Bringing it out into public like this doesn't do anyone any good and just gets peoples backs up. I don't think I've had a problem with any of the mods here...except when Xabba used me as a guinea pig for his infraction powers (he removed the infraction, but it still came as a bloody big shock when I got the PM :haha:), but I understand that not everyone is that way, it's a tough job and we are only human after all. Perhaps both of you need a little time to chill out before any problem escalates? Just agree to disagree, that kinda thing.
Sorry, I'm doing my Kissinger bit here, which brings me to Tak who is spot on! :yeah: And having watched some clips from the film...I really must watch the full thing, it looks good. :yep:


Already done. Anf FYI there has been no infraction email. Mas i am drunk!

[Oberon]

Already done. Anf FYI there has been no infraction email. Mas i am drunk!

Well, enjoy the rest of your night, and put the coffee, eggs and bacon to one side for the morning :03:

Had a guest crash out on the sofa in reception the other night, he must have had a heavy night he had pen all over the side of his face, probably from a 'friend'...

The things ya see :haha:

[Tribesman]

then I can go to ignoring his existance like I ignore the irish troll.


So by "ignore" you must mean frequently just jumping into any old thread and regardless of what the topic is or what has been posted in that thread simply going into a rant of personal attacks:yeah:

Poor August, his own actions show him for what he is:know:

One single mod here seems to have it out for me as well as other members of this forum and has taken recently to abusing his position in his impotent rqage.
Ah so its just the "you don't know nuffin bout nuffin so STFU" highly intelligent posts a couple of people recently made when their logic function went into meltdown over very simple things.
Yes I can see why you are still a little sore over that, the two "military experts" using that lame excuse of an arguement did end up looking very very silly which must add to the already weighty chip on the shoulder:smug:

[Foxtrot]

The nation is screwed from inside out both financially and mentally..and yet we are worried about fixing other nation a zillion miles away.
Makes sense..:hmmm:

[Skybird]

The nation is screwed from inside out both financially and mentally..and yet we are worried about fixing other nation a zillion miles away.
Makes sense..:hmmm:
Fixing Iran? Hardly. The threat from proliferation and nuclear arms race in the ME is a threat to the whole globe. Everyboy is threatened by that. The threat does not end at nations' borders.

This is what some people simply do not want to see.

[Sammi79]

Fixing Iran? Hardly. The threat from proliferation and nuclear arms race in the ME is a threat to the whole globe. Everyboy is threatened by that. The threat does not end at nations' borders.

This is what some people simply do not want to see.

Oh, the irony.

So we're agreed then, Israel and USA should not be allowed nuclear weapons as it means their detractors will all want them too. :damn:

I stated my views on this once before. If governments want to take the righteous position regarding other governments nuclear capabilities, this needs to start at home. Otherwise, The arms race will continue, no matter what action is taken short of invasion and permanent occupation of the entire nation.

regards, Sam.

[MH]

So we're agreed then, Israel and USA should not be allowed nuclear weapons as it means their detractors will all want them too. :damn:

.

That's cheap objectivism that avoids the issue of political and ideological motivations.

[Platapus]

That's cheap objectivism that avoids the issue of political and ideological motivations.

That's true. After all, it is not like the United States would ever actually use Nuclear Weapons.........oh.

[Sammi79]

That's cheap objectivism that avoids the issue of political and ideological motivations.

At least it is objective.

Look, I don't particularly trust my own UK government with their nukes, I am similarly unsure about the USA government. On the other hand, the Israeli government seems IMO to be every bit as dangerous as the Iranian government, and just as ideologically motivated. Neither can I forget that USA is the only government with a demonstrated will to actually use such weapons.

The double standards that are being sold under the white sheet of 'world security' betray the malevolent intentions of the governments that propose it. My point is, if they are so serious that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, they cannot argue that they should not have theirs for all the same reasons. But y'know I have said all this before, and the arguments against it basically revolve around me being naive, well whatever. The irony with that is I am clearly being more cynical than anyone who believes their own government is correct in this matter. Of course the ironies here just keep coming don't they?

Regards, Sam.

P.S. By the way, I had never heard of objectivism as in philosophy before, thank you for giving me the impetus to read upon it. I myself am a little further to the left, but the basis in reality is quite err... realistic?
Cheers!

[MH]

That's true. After all, it is not like the United States would ever actually use Nuclear Weapons.........oh.

OH...what this has to do with anything.
Nukes are about immunity in the first place.
For Iran it is insurance policy to push its regional agenda-that is good case scenario if things don't get too much out of hand.

World had been a few times at verge of nuclear holocaust during cold war now... we don't need fundamentalists to dictate the terms.

[Foxtrot]

Fixing Iran? Hardly. The threat from proliferation and nuclear arms race in the ME is a threat to the whole globe. Everyboy is threatened by that. The threat does not end at nations' borders.

This is what some people simply do not want to see.

I yet have to see jobless folks and crippled economy fueled by political corruption being threated by nuclear arms race in the ME.

..or is this way not to address the real issues and keep everyone busy in something else.

[Tribesman]

That's cheap objectivism that avoids the issue of political and ideological motivations.
No, that is you trying to avoid the inherent conflict in your own political and ideological motivations.

OH...what this has to do with anything.

You join all the dots then reject the picture you just drew yourself.

[Onkel Neal]

Come on people....disagreeing and challenging one anothers opinion (in a respectful manner) is acceptable but when matters turn to name calling and trading insults I will have no option other than to draw a line.


Hear, hear. Let's not get too carried away with taking these discussions personally, and try to keep the tone civil.

Maybe it's got something to do with me watching 20 episodes of the Sopranos back to back this weekend, but I have some new management styles I've been thinking of trying out. :D

[u crank]

Maybe it's got something to do with me watching 20 episodes of the Sopranos back to back this weekend, but I have some new management styles I've been thinking of trying out. :D

But Onkel Neal, I don't wanna go for a ride. :cry:

[Oberon]

So, instead of bring Keelhauled we get an offer we can't refuse?

http://pdxretro.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oswald-being-shot-by-jack-ruby.jpg

:03:

[Krauter]

http://i.imgur.com/DNHMg.jpg

[Tribesman]

MH, what do you think of Meir Dagan saying in Jerusalem that bombing Irans nuclear program is the stupidest idea he ever heard?

[MH]

MH, what do you think of Meir Dagan saying in Jerusalem that bombing Irans nuclear program is the stupidest idea he ever heard?

What else is he saying?

[Tribesman]

What else is he saying?
Since the subject is "a war against Iran" isn't that the most valid piece for this topic?
Or would you like to go onto his views on Syria and Assads relationship with the Shia theocrats in Iran? or maybe Irans relationship with Hez and Hamas? Challenges in Jordan maybe, developments in Egypt, problems with the bedouin?

Do you just have a particular problem with him saying that the action being widely and loudly touted as the path to follow is simply bloody stupid?

[MH]

What else did he say on topic?

[Tribesman]

What else did he say on topic?
deal with what he said. Agfter all calling it the stupidest idea he has ever heard is a pretty strong statement.
Whatsamatter is your usual line of bunkervision bull run into a brick wall on this example.
Surely there must be one of your usual lines you can trot out to say he doesn't know what he is talking about. perhaps he is naive, maybe he is a liberal idealist who doesn't understand Israels position, perhaps he just hates jews.

[MH]

deal with what he said. Agfter all calling it the stupidest idea he has ever heard is a pretty strong statement.
Whatsamatter is your usual line of bunkervision bull run into a brick wall on this example.
Surely there must be one of your usual lines you can trot out to say he doesn't know what he is talking about. perhaps he is naive, maybe he is a liberal idealist who doesn't understand Israels position, perhaps he just hates jews.



:hmmm:
Did i ever say any thing remotely like that or is it something that you would like to hear.?
My God ... you are jerk.

But its always the same with you....push the button get the bacon.
Same old pattern....i simply talk to you in your own language my dear wife.
LOL

[Jimbuna]

deal with what he said. Agfter all calling it the stupidest idea he has ever heard is a pretty strong statement.
Whatsamatter is your usual line of bunkervision bull run into a brick wall on this example.
Surely there must be one of your usual lines you can trot out to say he doesn't know what he is talking about. perhaps he is naive, maybe he is a liberal idealist who doesn't understand Israels position, perhaps he just hates jews.

:hmmm:
Did i ever say any thing remotely like that or is it something that you would like to hear.?
My God ... you are jerk.

But its always the same with you....push the button get the bacon.
Same old pattern....i simply talk to you in your own language my dear wife.
LOL


Okay...I've asked in a manner expected of me but to no avail...the next instance of name calling and or insult will necessitate some form of remedial action.

The line has been drawn.

[Tribesman]

Did i ever say any thing remotely like that or is it something that you would like to hear.?

Every instance of them can come from your own posts regarding the middle east situation. Would you like to go back through them?

Do you suffer from memory loss and fail to remember your own comments
It is far too easy to shoot you down on that angle it is ridiculous that you should even try to defend yourself along those lines.
So......

You was asked a simple question about the comments from the ex-head of Mossad in relation to this topic.
If you are uncomfortable with the plain truth expressed by him which anyone can see then simply say so, after all it is you and your family that gets the first round of consequences.
After all it is a simple question to answer.....is the current regimes beating of the war drums bloody stupid considering they know how inneffective the results would be despite their recently enhanced capabilities and taking into account the exhorbitant price the people would pay for those actions.

The line has been drawn.
It was a very valid question regarding the topic, does calling out "bunkervision" cross the line?


For those that didn't get it , the person in question was the head of Mossad and his comments reflect exactly those of the bloke that was head of Shin Bet.
Bit of a sticker when it comes to the usual lines of defence MH regularly trots out regarding the mid-east

[MH]

Every instance of them can come from your own posts regarding the middle east situation. Would you like to go back through them?

Do you suffer from memory loss and fail to remember your own comments
It is far too easy to shoot you down on that angle it is ridiculous that you should even try to defend yourself along those lines.
So......

You was asked a simple question about the comments from the ex-head of Mossad in relation to this topic.
If you are uncomfortable with the plain truth expressed by him which anyone can see then simply say so, after all it is you and your family that gets the first round of consequences.
After all it is a simple question to answer.....is the current regimes beating of the war drums bloody stupid considering they know how inneffective the results would be despite their recently enhanced capabilities and taking into account the exhorbitant price the people would pay for those actions.


It was a very valid question regarding the topic, does calling out "bunkervision" cross the line?


For those that didn't get it , the person in question was the head of Mossad and his comments reflect exactly those of the bloke that was head of Shin Bet.
Bit of a sticker when it comes to the usual lines of defence MH regularly trots out regarding the mid-east


lol
What commets exactly?

Thanks for complainant .... not every day i get contradicted(?) by chef of shin bet and Mossad.:DL

[Tribesman]

What commets exactly
Halley or De Havilland?

he doesn't know what he is talking about. perhaps he is naive, maybe he is a liberal idealist who doesn't understand Israels position, perhaps he just hates jews.:yeah:
Hows about a dozen examples of you somehow describing Isrealis as not understanding Israel and what it means to be in Israel?
Extreme revisionist zionists somehow becoming"liberals" perhaps
Maybe a dozen silly accusations of anti semitism, especialy good when you call Jewish people as somehow anti semites.

It does raise a few questions though regarding what was written that you apparently responded to(as in "to" not really to but sort of roughly not in the line but somewhere nowhere near).
1 did you realise what the person in question had said.
2 did you know who he was
3 did you have the faintest idea what he was talking about

Which all leads back to the topic of....
if the reason is bollox and the expected outcome is bollox..... what was the reason again?:hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

... does calling out "bunkervision" cross the line?
No, but direct insults to other members does.

Whatsamatter is your usual line of bunkervision bull run into a brick wall on this example.

[MH]

Go have another beer lol...


he doesn't know what he is talking about. perhaps he is naive, maybe he is a liberal idealist who doesn't understand Israels position, perhaps he just hates jews.:yeah:
Hows about a dozen examples of you somehow describing Isrealis as not understanding Israel and what it means to be in Israel?
Extreme revisionist zionists somehow becoming"liberals" perhaps
Maybe a dozen silly accusations of anti semitism, especialy good when you call Jewish people as somehow anti semites.

????????WOW....uh did i say that or Meir Dagan?

You are totally messed up man - but fun.

[Jimbuna]

It was a very valid question regarding the topic, does calling out "bunkervision" cross the line?



There have been a number of examples of name calling and exchanging of personal insults by more than one person on this thread already.

I have to draw the line in view of bad post reports and would appreciate it if people could disagree in a manner that doesn't contravene the forum rules.

If you feel you are being attacked simply ignore the poster and don't respond...better to report a post than to escalate the issue.

I thank all contributors in advance for their cooperation.

[Tribesman]

????????WOW....uh did i say that or Meir Dagan?

As said, there are dozens of example of you doing it.

If you feel you are being attacked simply ignore the poster and don't respond
Hey all I wanted was a comment on MHs' view of what the Mossad fella said about Bibis war drum rants?
After all a local view can sometimes be enlightening but MH seems rather averse to commenting on the "stupidest idea I have ever heard" angle of the topic:03:

No, but direct insults to other members does.

But isn't what you quoted just calling out the bunkervision. After all it is realy no differnet from the everyday zombies over here still with their narrow fixed view even after 90 years.

[MH]

But isn't what you quoted just calling out the bunkervision. After all it is realy no differnet from the everyday zombies over here still with their narrow fixed view even after 90 years.

I sometimes wonder weather you are 9 or 90 years old...:haha:


stupidest idea I have ever heard
Well... he said much more than that.

As said, there are dozens of example of you doing it
Yeah sure....maybe its one of your imaginary friend on some other forum....or simply your skill i reading between the lines.:D
I really can't see a good reason why you bring this up in this thread...did i call anyone anti semite or nazi or something

[Tribesman]

Well... he said much more than that.

indeed he did, he also said it wouldn't work.:yeah:

I really can't see a good reason why you bring this up in this thread...
It is to illustrate a pattern in your responses, much like some here get a red white and blue mist obscuring their vision and rationality when it is their nations policies involved.
That is why I always like to use Israeli sources when I know you you are going to try and take issue with the subject instead of actually addressing it:smug:

[soopaman2]

What is the reason for a war against Iran?

Requires only one word...

Israel. :yep::Kaleun_Wink:

[Oberon]

Ok Gents, at the risk of backseat moderating, shall we wrap this one up if we can't agree to disagree? Preferably before someone has to lock it. :yep:

[MH]

indeed he did, he also said it wouldn't work.:yeah:

What would not work?:DL

indeed
It is to illustrate a pattern in your responses, much like some here get a red white and blue mist obscuring their vision and rationality when it is their nations policies involved.
That is why I always like to use Israeli sources when I know you you are going to try and take issue with the subject instead of actually addressing it:smug:

Lol...i still don't know what is the argument about...

All i have said in this thread are some reasons that i think Iran should not have nukes.
Some quote...
Dagan: An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.



Stahl: If they're that rational as you suggest and that logical, then why can't you, Israel, and the world live with a nuclear Iran?

Dagan: In the Israeli case, they have said they want to destroy Israel.

He says one sign of Iran's logical thinking is how they cunningly stall through diplomacy.

Dagan: I think that the Iranians are masters at negotiation. They invented of what I call the "bazaar culture" of how we are negotiating.

Stahl: So if there are negotiations, how concerned would you be that the Europeans, for example, would say, "Ah. We're talking. Let's weaken the sanctions"?

Dagan: I have to admit that's a concern. Yes.

Stahl: People are going to want to lessen the tension so that the oil prices will go back down.

Dagan: Do you think that Iran armed with a nuclear capability is going to create stability in the region? They have an interest, a basic interest to raise the prices of oil, cause this is the most important source of income for Iran. If Iran will be armed with a nuclear capability, their ability to create instability in the region, and by this indirectly to increase the price of oil, that'd be much worse than it is now.


What is the reason for a war against Iran?

Requires only one word...

Israel.

Wouldn't that be good reason?:yawn:



.....

[MH]

Ok Gents, at the risk of backseat moderating, shall we wrap this one up if we can't agree to disagree? Preferably before someone has to lock it. :yep:

Sorry but Tribesman's childishness and ignorance with conjunction with the default self importance sometimes make me chuckle.....don't take it too serious.
Sometimes cant resist to have a boxing match with him and see him trying to kick the balls.
Bunch of anti semites and Jumbuna is nazi ....lol

[Tribesman]

Wouldn't that be good reason?
No. If it was a good reason it would have a chance of a favourable outcome.

[NeonSamurai]

I don't have time to deal with this right now, but the name calling better have stopped, or I will be handing out infractions when I get back. Keep it civil please.