I hope this is Guardian hyperbole. We really can't afford a war against Iran right now. Plus it will end badly.
The Guardian wrote:Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.
The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.
In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.
They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.
The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.
They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election.
But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.
Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.
The Guardian has been told that the IAEA's bulletin could be "a game changer" which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.
One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.
He said Iran appeared to be "newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why", citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.
In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.
Up to half of Iran's centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing.
Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom.
The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding "material and capability" inside the base.
Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain's military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK's planning being taken to a new level.
"Beyond [12 months], we couldn't be sure our missiles could reach them," the source said. "So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won't.
"So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.
"President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."
Another source added there was "no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change". Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran.
The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but "a small number of special forces" may be needed on the ground, too.
The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.
An MoD spokesman said: "The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran's nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution – but all options should be kept on the table."
The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time.
One official said: "I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. "It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning."
Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.
Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran's nuclear programme. A source said the "Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out", and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.
It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons.
Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system.
British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran's new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month.
"There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington," said one.
Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device.
It also said it was "increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."
Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.
At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran.
According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.
Mainly in response to Iran trying to make nuclear missiles, the US is already planning to a system in eastern Europe and already has Aegis cruisers out there, possibly sending more just to watch things from Iran and also Russia.
Flashman wrote:...They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election...
This right here is why this country is dumb and messed up. The election of the president and US officials has factors in rather if our country declares war on another nation. Makes no sense to me...
Flashman wrote:...They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election...
This right here is why this country is dumb and messed up. The election of the president and US officials has factors in rather if our country declares war on another nation. Makes no sense to me...
It makes perfect sense. Voters don't like wars. Voters don't like voting for political leaders who start wars.
Unless Iran attacks somebody first. That may be a different story.
There was a time when I would have expected the US/UK to invade Iran before Iraq...so this doesn't come as a large suprise.
The conspiratorial empire building part of me says that Western friendly governments from Israel to Afgan would be a sound world strategy for the english speaking allies. But tha depends on Iraq and Afgan becoming "friendly" which I doubt once they are free of our intervention.
I don't think anyone will invade Iran, probably just do targeted strikes and try to enforce a no fly zone or some nonsense like they did with Iraq.
Maybe Guardian hyperbole.
biccat wrote:Presumably dynamic military actions for humanitarian reasons are acceptable.
It depends. Say you're going to intercede in Rwanda to stop genocide, yes, I think people will generally say "Go get um!" Humanitarian intervention though carries a very different meaning for a lot of people than invading a relatively stable nation like Iran, where there isn't even mass killing. People start crying about starting unnecessary wars. A lot of people I don't think even consider humanitarian missions 'war' as we commonly think of it. Sure they call it a war, but they approach it very differently than a more conventional country A attacks country B conflict.
Iran is responsible for most of our deaths in Iraq, and many in Afghanistan.
I want to have a war with them, I just dont want us to have to pay for it, in neither money nor blood.
If Bill Gates builds us a robot army, im happy with it. Other than that, well, we will just have to swallow the bitter pill that the Iranian regime has inflicted upon us, because we cant afford the cash or the men.
I doubt it would take THAT much though.. major riots last election.. an angry young generation with less time for theocracy, maybe we could force a regime change with mainly air power and covert assistance to the rebel elements?
Higher pay scales than me can figure that gak out if that's a good idea though.
The Saudis paid for a sizeable amount of the first Gulf, we need someone to do the same again. :p
War costs a fortune and at the moment I think the the British army needs a rest after effectively a decade on a war footing. Doesn't help we have a government that wants to cut funding to the forces while fighting wars.
They should choose fund and support the armed forces properly or give up this idea that we still have an empire through which to exercise power around the globe.
Howard A Treesong wrote:The Saudis paid for a sizeable amount of the first Gulf, we need someone to do the same again. :p
War costs a fortune and at the moment I think the the British army needs a rest after effectively a decade on a war footing. Doesn't help we have a government that wants to cut funding to the forces while fighting wars.
They should choose fund and support the armed forces properly or give up this idea that we still have an empire through which to exercise power around the globe.
We should just park a load of submarines off the Iranian coast and send Ahmadinejad a letter saying, "Put the missiles down and step away from the enriched uranium."
ShumaGorath wrote:North korea has nukes, threatens to use them constantly, and provocatively attacks its neighbors? Nothing.
Irans got some turbines spinning up fuel? Better prep those subs!
Man, whitey hates brown dude.
Not necessarily that but China is a huge stabilizing factor in the Asian area.
The doctrine of prevention is also pretty paramount here. We don't want them to get nukes because by then it will be 'too late'. It's amusing that due to how we treat countries with nukes they're actually incentivised to get them and act belligerent.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Let the Israelis lead the way. It's on their doorstep, financially back them under the table if needs be.
Wouldn't Israel have to go across Syria or Jordon and Iraq to get to Iran or is my geography drifting with age? Or did you just mean a generally geographical close ness as opposed to sailing around the world.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Let the Israelis lead the way. It's on their doorstep, financially back them under the table if needs be.
Wouldn't Israel have to go across Syria or Jordon and Iraq to get to Iran or is my geography drifting with age? Or did you just mean a generally geographical close ness as opposed to sailing around the world.
Israel is the ones suffering threats from Iran and having to put up with them supplying arms and equipment to Syria and Lebanon, they are the ones that were told they need to be wiped off the map, and yes they are geographically much closer than western powers. I don't think it would be right to take the lead over Israel in this matter.
Not necessarily that but China is a huge stabilizing factor in the Asian area.
To a certain worldview - which I can only assume Shuma is parodying because it's completely absurd - the United States and Western powers only attack people based on the color of their skin, not such complicated issues as international politics.
If they take it, Israels willingness to go to war is starting to become questionable. The Lebanon campaign was...poorly executed to put it lightly. Ben Gurion left the Israelis the charge to fight for "this land", they might be less inclined to spill blood for...that land. That being said it would be one hell of a scrap.
Empty threats from the warmongers. The truth about military force against Iran is according to the Unite State Army/Marine Corps counter insurgency manual it would take at least 1.5 million boots on the ground to occupy Iran after an invasion, and western nations don't have the national will to kill 75 million Iranians in a nuclear holocaust.
Light tan.....course they're not hygenic so they are a bit...dirty...smelly..Iran is a bit more modern in frastructure so they're clean light tan.....I see a lot of tomahawks and airstrikes.
Frazzled wrote:Here's an awesome concept. Leave us the feth alone or we'll nuke you. Once the oil runs out you're irrelevant.
Is that the Iranian perspective or America's?
America's, we burn our problems most of the time.
Jihadin wrote:
Man, whitey hates brown dude.
Light tan.....course they're not hygenic so they are a bit...dirty...smelly..Iran is a bit more modern in frastructure so they're clean light tan.....I see a lot of tomahawks and airstrikes.
Hey I would say that they're a bit more hygienic than you give them credit for because all of those sandstorms have to be excellent exfoliates.
LordofHats wrote:
It depends. Say you're going to intercede in Rwanda to stop genocide, yes, I think people will generally say "Go get um!" Humanitarian intervention though carries a very different meaning for a lot of people than invading a relatively stable nation like Iran, where there isn't even mass killing. People start crying about starting unnecessary wars. A lot of people I don't think even consider humanitarian missions 'war' as we commonly think of it. Sure they call it a war, but they approach it very differently than a more conventional country A attacks country B conflict.
Statistically, there tends to be greater support for humanitarian interventions (about 60% of the electorate) than for wars fought over US security (about 40% of the electorate), except when those wars are fought due to an attack on the US (about 70% of the electorate).
Interestingly, when more specific qualifiers were used, the numbers for support tended to increase, with about 80% of the electorate supporting war in response to terrorism or against Saddam Hussein. There's also significantly more support for aerial campaigns than for the deployment of ground troops, though I don't recall how much more.
This is all paraphrased, of course, but its from a paper written between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.
Not necessarily that but China is a huge stabilizing factor in the Asian area.
To a certain worldview - which I can only assume Shuma is parodying because it's completely absurd - the United States and Western powers only attack people based on the color of their skin, not such complicated issues as international politics.
Well, realistically war in a Muslim dominated country almost always polls higher then war in an Asian one. The justifications are easier made, the populace is more familiar with the 'enemy' (despite it being mostly imagined) and the stakes are more personal (despite the personal connection being most often utterly fictional). I was being flippant though, the U.S. has absolutely no interest in a war on Iran right now and we've been drawing and redrawing plans for an invasion for decades, as has likely our allies in europe. It's the militarys job to be prepared for such an event, despite how unlikely it is.
Religious, racial, and nationalist prejudice plays significantly into directing American foreign policy. Americans don't like Muslim countries. Any of them, really. They're the boogieman that has been ingrained into our consciousness as the irreversible other that is the enemy of our freedoms and apple pies. On the other hand most Americans have no fething idea where one country in Asia begins and the other ends (thats actually true of the mideast too, but the region itself is pretty disliked on the whole, so it doesn't matter). That's actually pretty racist at it's core, but it's not really intentional or malicious. It's just the result of the collapse of communism as the great enemy and the need for policy hawks to direct our out of control military industrial complex at something new every few years. A logical and color blind foreign policy would have intervened in Africa half a dozen times, and invaded almost every one of Iraqs neighbors before it did Iraq. It would also have troops in mexico, though to questionable results.
I think we are overdue a war, only real way to cut down on the 7 billion population. Over course, I'll be over here in my neutral country watching it all. GO USA!
AustonT wrote:Eh a real population reducing war would be an all out fight to the death between China and India.
In which case the nuclear fallout would actually make life on earth significantly harder for the survivors then the simple issue of population growth (especially considering we aren't overpopulated by very many metrics at the moment).
AustonT wrote:Eh a real population reducing war would be an all out fight to the death between China and India.
In which case the nuclear fallout would actually make life on earth significantly harder for the survivors then the simple issue of population growth (especially considering we aren't overpopulated by very many metrics at the moment).
A war with Iran would be unfortunate. In my experience with Persian folks is that if you disregard the Shiite Muslim theocracy of their government, at their base societal level, their culture is probably the closest to ours out of pretty much all of the middle eastern states, barring Turkey.
Meanwhile we support the Saudis whose radical wahhabist ideology has killed more Americans then all of the Iraq war coalition casualties. And we all know it.
If Iran provokes the war I'd be for it, but not before all avenues have been exhausted. And we should make the Saudi's pay for it, as its mainly their beef with Iran that is fueling this.
I'm absolutely sick of this warmongering western society.
Let Iran go and feth itself. If it wants to develop Nuclear weapons we merely should just launch a large blast template at Tehran.
I think we have enough problems to deal with, what with Greece acting like arseholes. Perhaps they need blast templated to.
Nuke the world! Let them know it's Nuclear Winter Time!
ShumaGorath wrote:North korea has nukes, threatens to use them constantly, and provocatively attacks its neighbors? Nothing.
Irans got some turbines spinning up fuel? Better prep those subs!
Man, whitey hates brown dude.
I think it's a different situation in Korea (bearing in mind that at one point N Korea was part of the 'Axis of Evil' and there were hawks within the Bush administration who actually wanted a military move against the North).
The cost involved? North Korea has one of the largest land armies in the world - poorly trained, poorly equipped yes, but any war there would result in the practical destruction of the Korean peninsula and I have no doubt it would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not more, even as the US would eventually be able to gain victory. The North also has the largest artillery contingent of any army in the world - again, no doubt they would eventually be destroyed, but I wonder if the 10 million or so people in Seoul (and on whom those guns are trained) would be comfortable with that?
Living in South Korea at the moment (and in the Industrial heartland no less, which would be the first place the Northern bombs would land) I hope to God that no Western diplomat would be so stupid as to escalate matters, no matter what direction the North takes with WMD building. Even during the height of the crisis last year, after the sinking of the Cheonan (S. Korean warship, allegedly sunk by the North with 51 S. Korean sailors killed), and all the outrage and anger that followed, there was never the serious contention that war might begin. Both sides, and even the North despite its delusions, know that a war with the military components currently in place would send both sides spiralling back to the 3rd world. Considering what the South has achieved in terms of growth, the spirit of the country even after 40 years of Japanese occupation, and then their nation being split in half by belligerent super-powers for whom it wasn't enough just to hand the country back to its rightful owners - that would be a tragedy of unimaginable proportions.
The cracks are starting to appear in the North. Teddy Bear is widely reported to be on his last legs, and there are wide reports of a younger generation, using the internet and cell phones brought in from China, gradually becoming aware of a world outside the propaganda posters and the government-run education systems. Let some ambitious general make a play for power to take it from Kim Jong Il's son, or someone else, let there be the inevitable squabble and 'night of the long knives', which in the end results in the door being open a crack and then perhaps finally the long and painful crawl to a semblance of democracy and perhaps even reunification. But for God's sake, let them do it on their own terms - without the persistent Western meddling and desire to propagate our own military industry.
One of the few encouraging aspects of this topic came from the leaked Chinese-Western memos from Wikileaks last year. China has assured Washington that, should some kind of coup or uprising occur in the North, they will not intervene. If they are telling the truth (and in all honest, they must realise that the North's political system cannot possibly endure) then at least their presence makes any Western military intervention unlikely. It is on their doorstep, hopefully the stand-off in terms of the current world super-power, and the new power in that region of the world, will allow the North Koreans to make their own destiny and perhaps less bloodshed as a result.
Karon wrote:If there was ever a war I supported, it would be against the morons who are blinded by Religion.
You're confusing a theocratic government with the people that live there.
Meanwhile, there's always a country we're terrified of, that's run by a crazy despot who's going to unleash his vast stocks of tanks/planes/nukes/whatever any time now, so it's best we get stuck in and sort them out first, because there's no way the situation is going to change without loads and loads of blood.
Except, few regimes ever matched the Soviets for sheer inhumanity, or for overt hostility to the West. And all of a sudden, over the course of just a couple of years, the whole thing collapsed and pretty much nobody saw it coming. So it becomes pretty necessary that the primary course of action with these regimes should be containment, until that nation is on a direct course of action to attack someone else.
We know there's unrest in Iran, with a well supported opposition that government was forced to come down on very hard, just to maintain power. The collapse of the theocracy in Iran is far more forseeable than the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union was. So really, the only practical course of action is containment.
The US are the warmongers of the world. If the rest of us civilised nations just nuked ye out of the water then all the jyhadists would leave us alone!
Personally I don't think the US would even bother getting involved in Iran, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan....would likely turn into political suicide for whoever's in power over here. I'm not sure that Israel would do a whole lot either, they have been seen in a bad light before, and an aggressive war against Iran would have consequences for them in the region and globally.
ShumaGorath wrote:Religious, racial, and nationalist prejudice plays significantly into directing American foreign policy. Americans don't like Muslim countries. Any of them, really.
We don't? Damn, I'm sure the Libyans are going to be sad to hear that.
I suppose I should admit when I am wrong. It seems my initial assumption was incorrect. My apologies.
Iran would get destroyed in a war against a US led coalition. The problem is western nations lack the will to occupy and "reeducate" the populace. (which is a good thing, we don't need a return to imperialism)
warpcrafter wrote:NSFW, but totally applicable. George cut right to the core of the matter 20 years ago. I elect him for sainthood.
That video always reminds me of just how alike the UK and our US cousins are.
We suck at everything, the Germans and the Japs make the best cars, we have no more industry, we suck at almost everything.. and yet, were good at invading people, and we do it as often as possible.
What I don't get is why are we so obsessed with having a strong military though!? I mean, we clearly are, we love to crow on about winning wars. And yet.. countries with gakky military forces like Norway and Finland and Denmark are waaaaay better places to live.
ShumaGorath wrote:Religious, racial, and nationalist prejudice plays significantly into directing American foreign policy. Americans don't like Muslim countries. Any of them, really.
We don't? Damn, I'm sure the Libyans are going to be sad to hear that.
I suppose I should admit when I am wrong. It seems my initial assumption was incorrect. My apologies.
Americans hated Libyans for two generations. I doubt that's going to change now. We're back to disliking Egyptians again and I don't hear anyone clamoring for airstrikes to save Syrians. Americans love a good underdog story, but that story is over now. Give it 3 years and we'll be back to wishing they would just be less muslim. The number of times I've heard people on this board advocate nuking the entirety of the Mideast can't be counted on my fingers and toes. Pretending that Americans act somehow logically towards that region is foolish.
warpcrafter wrote:NSFW, but totally applicable. George cut right to the core of the matter 20 years ago. I elect him for sainthood.
That video always reminds me of just how alike the UK and our US cousins are.
We suck at everything, the Germans and the Japs make the best cars, we have no more industry, we suck at almost everything.. and yet, were good at invading people, and we do it as often as possible.
What I don't get is why are we so obsessed with having a strong military though!? I mean, we clearly are, we love to crow on about winning wars. And yet.. countries with gakky military forces like Norway and Finland and Denmark are waaaaay better places to live.
Europeans (or white people) are good at war.
Look at Europe's history. You have these people that are almost identical in terms of appearance and yet they brutally murder each other and constantly develop new and improved ways to do so at a rate that far outstrips the rest of the world in the name of religion and state.
Flashman wrote:...They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election...
This right here is why this country is dumb and messed up. The election of the president and US officials has factors in rather if our country declares war on another nation. Makes no sense to me...
Yeah, popular election of our leaders is such a pain, isn't it? Civilian control of the military is another PITA. If we just had some strong leaders not beholden to the will of the people, we could go to war with all those totalitarian regimes and show them what it means to be free.
Frazzled wrote:Here's an awesome concept. Leave us the feth alone or we'll nuke you. Once the oil runs out you're irrelevant.
Is that the Iranian perspective or America's?
Yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Religious, racial, and nationalist prejudice plays significantly into directing American foreign policy. Americans don't like Muslim countries. Any of them, really.
We don't? Damn, I'm sure the Libyans are going to be sad to hear that.
I suppose I should admit when I am wrong. It seems my initial assumption was incorrect. My apologies.
Don't forget Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo and of course those evil navy missions to Indonesia to help them after the tsunami. Because we just don't like dem muslims.
Frazzled wrote:Here's an awesome concept. Leave us the feth alone or we'll nuke you. Once the oil runs out you're irrelevant.
Is that the Iranian perspective or America's?
Yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Religious, racial, and nationalist prejudice plays significantly into directing American foreign policy. Americans don't like Muslim countries. Any of them, really.
We don't? Damn, I'm sure the Libyans are going to be sad to hear that.
I suppose I should admit when I am wrong. It seems my initial assumption was incorrect. My apologies.
Don't forget Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo and of course those evil navy missions to Indonesia to help them after the tsunami. Because we just don't like dem muslims.
Yep, one shortly lived aid mission and three failed interventions that were rapidly backed away from. Hell, we're in the bottom half of countries for aid given to Indonesia as a percentage of GDP. We spent more blowing up segments of Pakistan that year before accelerating the campaign in the area. Hell, we gave more to Israel so that they could bulldoze peoples homes and bomb things for us.
Do you honestly believe that Americans don't dislike muslims? Have you watched television recently? You want me to dredge up some quotes about that NY mosque fraz? You all said some pretty choice stuff.
Frazzled wrote:Here's an awesome concept. Leave us the feth alone or we'll nuke you. Once the oil runs out you're irrelevant.
Is that the Iranian perspective or America's?
Yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Religious, racial, and nationalist prejudice plays significantly into directing American foreign policy. Americans don't like Muslim countries. Any of them, really.
We don't? Damn, I'm sure the Libyans are going to be sad to hear that.
I suppose I should admit when I am wrong. It seems my initial assumption was incorrect. My apologies.
Don't forget Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo and of course those evil navy missions to Indonesia to help them after the tsunami. Because we just don't like dem muslims.
How many of those countries are in the middle east?
YOU DIDN"T ASK THAT. YOU SAID MUSLIM COUNTRY. I guess that means you get double facepalm!
ShumaGorath wrote:How many of those countries are in the middle east?
How is that relevant. You stated that "Americans don't like Muslim countries."
Do you think that Muslim countries don't exist outside of the Middle East?
Yeah, the edit took longer then i intended. That was a bumper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
warspawned wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Here's an awesome concept. Leave us the feth alone or we'll nuke you. Once the oil runs out you're irrelevant.
Is that the Iranian perspective or America's?
Yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Religious, racial, and nationalist prejudice plays significantly into directing American foreign policy. Americans don't like Muslim countries. Any of them, really.
We don't? Damn, I'm sure the Libyans are going to be sad to hear that.
I suppose I should admit when I am wrong. It seems my initial assumption was incorrect. My apologies.
Don't forget Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo and of course those evil navy missions to Indonesia to help them after the tsunami. Because we just don't like dem muslims.
How many of those countries are in the middle east?
YOU DIDN"T ASK THAT. YOU SAID MUSLIM COUNTRY.
Do you all just sit here and refresh constantly? I also said Americans were stupid and didn't know the difference, but that's beside the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, now you aren't all DDOSing this page with refreshes. I see. Just gonna leave that guy up there I see.
Check the times. I reponded 4 minutes after your post. Frazzled responded more than 10 minutes later.
Like I said, longer then intended. I'm at work so I pause responses a lot. It's my bad, I shouldn't of rushed out something that was kind of idiotic then taken so long to fill in.
Well, apparently some don't.
A statistical minority that's prone to talking about geopolitics a lot. This site has what? Forty thousand accounts? We have maybe a half dozen in here talking about this? Geographical education in America is a dead horse, the statistics are out there and they aren't pretty.
Fourth result on google for 'american education geography'. Though honestly, any even vaguely similar search gives numerous results that are similar. As a caveat, I have not polled thousands of people myself.
Countries that are governed on a religious basis should be obliterated, was my point.
Religion was reasonable when everyone didn't know gak about the world and the universe, and we just said "God made us, god created us, dats the truth" hundreds of years ago.
Now? It makes zero sense, and these countries that still hold on to that bs to RUN THEIR COUNTRY, are beyond moronic.
Countries that are governed on a religious basis should be obliterated, was my point.
Religion was reasonable when everyone didn't know gak about the world and the universe, and we just said "God made us, god created us, dats the truth" hundreds of years ago.
Now? It makes zero sense, and these countries that still hold on to that bs to RUN THEIR COUNTRY, are beyond moronic.
Yeah, we should totally kill millions of civilians with no control over how their country's run. Every single one of those people is individually responsible for what their leaders do.
Muslim religion to me is just another religion. Muslim extremist is the ones you have to watch out for. Just unfortunaly a lot of them are uneducated and illetirate so when a "leader" reads from the Koran its select passages that favors the extremist view....got off track here........I say put a Walmart in the problem countries and let them fight it out over who's going to be the employee who greets people at the door
Karon wrote:
Yeah, we should totally kill millions of civilians with no control over how their country's run. Every single one of those people is individually responsible for what their leaders do.
Can we start with Mississippi?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phototoxin wrote:The US are the warmongers of the world. If the rest of us civilised nations just nuked ye out of the water then all the jyhadists would leave us alone!
Sort of amusing comment considering one of the biggest warhawks on this forum is a hate spewing Brit who brags about wanting to kill all the "brown people" from certain regions of the globe, etc.
Stupidity and hate are not restricted to the US when it comes to Western nations, and I think many of the Muslims living on your island would agree...
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Religion plays big part in Ameriacn politics and life, overtly or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DIDM wrote:the whole middle east will soon be occupied by American forces upholding a UN mandate.
all your oil are belong to us
I for one say grow hemp, the future will be all hemp
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Religion plays big part in Ameriacn politics and life, overtly or not.
"God Save The Queen" and all that...
lots of countries have antiquated traditions that reference god, doesn't mean that every person living in said places is a religious zealot.
Which is the point: not every person living in a Muslim country is either, and wishing blanket destruction on them based upon said false assumption is idiotic at best...
AustonT wrote:The Pledge of Allegiance isn't antiquated, it's from the 50's
And most kids loathe repeating it and/or could care less about it or even know what it means or refers to. In fact half the teachers in the school I work at would prefer to skip it.
It is far from expressing the current sentiment of the majority of the population, which again is the point being missed: not everyone who live sin a given places agrees with or supports those things that outsiders want to take issue with.
AustonT wrote:The Pledge of Allegiance isn't antiquated, it's from the 50's
Actually, its a lot older than that. The original version was written in the 19th century, and it was adopted by Presidential Proclamation in the same time period; though Congress didn't adopt it formally until 1942. What happened in the 50's was the addition of "under God".
Also, whether or not something is 20 years old or 200 years old has no bearing on whether or not its antiquated.
AustonT wrote:The Pledge of Allegiance isn't antiquated, it's from the 50's
And most kids loathe repeating it and/or could care less about it or even know what it means or refers to. In fact half the teachers in the school I work at would prefer to skip it.
It is far from expressing the current sentiment of the majority of the population, which again is the point being missed: not everyone who live sin a given places agrees with or supports those things that outsiders want to take issue with.
I guess in place of a pledge of allegiance to thier country and it's flag they could pay for thier own education.
AustonT wrote:The Pledge of Allegiance isn't antiquated, it's from the 50's
And most kids loathe repeating it and/or could care less about it or even know what it means or refers to. In fact half the teachers in the school I work at would prefer to skip it.
It is far from expressing the current sentiment of the majority of the population, which again is the point being missed: not everyone who live sin a given places agrees with or supports those things that outsiders want to take issue with.
I guess in place of a pledge of allegiance to thier country and it's flag they could pay for thier own education.
Which is why most people pretend and go along with what is very often a hollow tradition that few care about...
AustonT wrote:
I guess in place of a pledge of allegiance to thier country and it's flag they could pay for thier own education.
Public education predates even the actual date of origin for the pledge, and is far older than the current incarnation of it, which seems to indicate that they are not closely connected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
Which is why most people pretend and go along with what is very often a hollow tradition that few care about...
As far as I know, it isn't even a requirement of public schools anyway, at least not at the federal level.
How many people here are actually in school and know what theyre talking about?
The pledge is quite far from an obsolete tradition. In fact, i believe its mandatory to stand for the pledge whether you say it or not.
Also, i highly disagree with the implication that religion is a big part of american government, because youre not even close.
Jollydevil wrote:The pledge is quite far from an obsolete tradition. In fact, i believe its mandatory to stand for the pledge whether you say it or not.
By law no. Lawyers had it done away with awhile ago. You neither have to stand or say the pledge at least as a matter of law. No school I attended even did the pledge after the 6th grade. I imagine there are probably still some schools that do the pledge, but I haven't seen any. Of course, I'm not everywhere at once
Jollydevil wrote:
The pledge is quite far from an obsolete tradition. In fact, i believe its mandatory to stand for the pledge whether you say it or not.
Being made to do something is not the same as people caring about and liking what they are doing.
In many cases it is a hollow act for many people who do it because they don't want to be seen NOT doing it...
Kids do it because they are made ot do so before they even know what it means. It becomes an almost robotic response and action in the early years. Now some may becpome patriotic and desire ot do it, but for many it is public peer pressure that motivates them and little more...
As far as I know, it isn't even a requirement of public schools anyway, at least not at the federal level.
That is my understanding as well.
On the local level it is often parents and others who make a big stink if it isn't happening, and school admins who pressure teachers to make sure it is happenign so that they don't have to field calls from angry parents/grandparents...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:In fact half the teachers in the school I work at would prefer to skip it.
This says far more about the teachers in the school where you work than it does about the pledge.
It has everything to do with the pledge and the general perception of it's importance by the public (particularly younger generations).
Teachers in my current school are little different from any of the schools that i did internships, reasearch project or subbing in, nor much different from any other schools who Ihear about, read about or know people at.
And also, this is not limited to school teachers.
Take a look at any sporting event you attend or see televised during the anthem. If you can't see the level of disinterest and feigned patriotism (half are laughing, talking, texting, and another fourth are roboticly going through the motions) while the anthem is playing, then well, your fooling yourself...
LordofHats wrote:
By law no. Lawyers had it done away with awhile ago. You neither have to stand or say the pledge at least as a matter of law. No school I attended even did the pledge after the 6th grade. I imagine there are probably still some schools that do the pledge, but I haven't seen any. Of course, I'm not everywhere at once
Yeah, I think my district stopped saying the pledge every morning in 5th grade, and stopped requiring kids to stand and recite it after 2nd. Looking back, I imagine the requirement was more about maintaining control of the classroom than it was about the pledge itself; ie. do this because you have to do what we say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
This says far more about the teachers in the school where you work than it does about the pledge.
It indicates that a significant number of teachers at the school in question consider the pledge to be a waste of time, which is anecdotal evidence speaking to the idea that the pledge is obsolete.
I'm not sure it says all that much about either the teachers, or the pledge. Though, if the trend were found to extend across the entire electorate, then that would be different.
In general, though, I imagine that the pledge is of far less significance to most people than the national anthem, and certainly lacks the anthem's cultural prominence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jollydevil wrote:
Also, i highly disagree with the implication that religion is a big part of american government, because youre not even close.
Part of American government, no. Part of American politics, yes.
Are people comparing Iran and Saudi Arabia, whose governments are RUN by Religion, whose people take 5 breaks daily to pray, to the United States who just have "under god" in their pledge?
Yes, I realize Religion is a big thing over here in the United States of Christianity, but it doesn't run our government like it does over there.
LordofHats wrote:
By law no. Lawyers had it done away with awhile ago. You neither have to stand or say the pledge at least as a matter of law. No school I attended even did the pledge after the 6th grade. I imagine there are probably still some schools that do the pledge, but I haven't seen any. Of course, I'm not everywhere at once
Yeah, I think my district stopped saying the pledge every morning in 5th grade, and stopped requiring kids to stand and recite it after 2nd. Looking back, I imagine the requirement was more about maintaining control of the classroom than it was about the pledge itself; ie. do this because you have to do what we say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
This says far more about the teachers in the school where you work than it does about the pledge.
It indicates that a significant number of teachers at the school in question consider the pledge to be a waste of time, which is anecdotal evidence speaking to the idea that the pledge is obsolete.
I'm not sure it says all that much about either the teachers, or the pledge. Though, if the trend were found to extend across the entire electorate, then that would be different.
In general, though, I imagine that the pledge is of far less significance to most people than the national anthem, and certainly lacks the anthem's cultural prominence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jollydevil wrote:
Also, i highly disagree with the implication that religion is a big part of american government, because youre not even close.
Part of American government, no. Part of American politics, yes.
Organization and ritual help kids develop early behavioral skills. It introduces them to the act of obeying superiors and functioning within a group away from their birth family, whatever the activity is.
ShumaGorath wrote: and ritual help kids develop early behavioral skills. It introduces them to the act of obeying superiors and functioning within a group away from their birth family, whatever the activity is.
The current thinking is on teaching children to be invsted in building and respecting their own community and their part in it not in blind obedience per se. Kids will often come up with the same rules that adults would want/expect if asked for input, and are far more likely to follow said rules and routines if they feel invested in and to have ownership of them.
Behavior modification and the use of things like PBIS are far more effective (as seen by the data regularly collected in their use) then hollow routines like"pledging allegience to a nation under god" which has no relevance to school activity on a daily basis.
ShumaGorath wrote: and ritual help kids develop early behavioral skills. It introduces them to the act of obeying superiors and functioning within a group away from their birth family, whatever the activity is.
The current thinking is on teaching children to be invsted in building and respecting their own community and their part in it not in blind obedience per se. Kids will often come up with the same rules that adults would want/expect if asked for input, and are far more likely to follow said rules and routines if they feel invested in and to have ownership of them.
Behavior modification and the use of things like PBIS are far more effective (as seen by the data regularly collected in their use) then hollow routines like"pledging allegience to a nation under god" which has no relevance to school activity on a daily basis.
Huffy wrote:Personally I don't think the US would even bother getting involved in Iran, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan....would likely turn into political suicide for whoever's in power over here.
What might be seen is limited air strikes against specific facilities, to stop Iranian nuclear ambitions. Exactly how effective those strikes might be, and how Iran will respond and whether the whole thing will end up lurching into a giant clusterfeth is anyone's guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karon wrote:I wasn't speaking of the Bible Belt.
Countries that are governed on a religious basis should be obliterated, was my point.
People live in those countries. Seriously, like people with families and children and all that stuff.
Religion was reasonable when everyone didn't know gak about the world and the universe, and we just said "God made us, god created us, dats the truth" hundreds of years ago.
Uh huh. Lovely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:I guess in place of a pledge of allegiance to thier country and it's flag they could pay for thier own education.
Or they could look at the schizophrenic nature of a country that continuously praises it's own freedom before making children pledge alliegance to it.
At the end of the day, pledge or don't pledge. It's no biggie and the occasional kid making headlines by going to court because he doesn't want to say it is being ridiculous, quite frankly.
But y'all have got to admit, it is a weird thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karon wrote:Are people comparing Iran and Saudi Arabia, whose governments are RUN by Religion, whose people take 5 breaks daily to pray, to the United States who just have "under god" in their pledge?
That's my concern, Iran's leadership might be a little on the crazy side, but they're far from stupid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On June 29, 2008, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Ali Mohammed Jafari, said that if Iran were attacked by Israel or the United States, it would seal off the Strait of Hormuz, to wreak havoc in oil markets. This statement followed other more ambiguous threats from Iran's oil minister and other government officials that a Western attack on Iran would result in turmoil in oil supply.
In response, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet stationed in Bahrain across the Persian Gulf from Iran, warned that such an action by Iran would be considered an act of war, and that the U.S. would not allow Iran to effectively hold hostage nearly a third of the world's oil supply.[7]
On July 8, 2008, Ali Shirazi, a mid-level clerical aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted by the student news agency ISNA as saying to Revolutionary Guards, "The Zionist regime is pressuring White House officials to attack Iran. If they commit such a stupidity, Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran's first targets and they will be burned."[8]
An article in International Security contended that Iran could seal off or impede traffic in the Strait for a month, and an attempt by the U.S. to reopen it would likely escalate the conflict.[9] In a later issue, however, the journal published a response which questioned some key assumptions and suggested a much shorter timeline for re-opening.[10]"
Just another day in America "Who should we attack next" "who should we cruise missle next" "any ideas anyone?" "Ahhh I know ... Iran!... its in the middle east and their is profit to be gained!"
ParatrooperSimon wrote:Just another day in America "Who should we attack next" "who should we cruise missle next" "any ideas anyone?" "Ahhh I know ... Iran!... its in the middle east and their is profit to be gained!"
Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.
As long as you are not a Korean, a Vietnamese, an Iraqi, an Afghan, a Haitian, or a civilian of numerous South African and especially South American countries.
Although I realise however that 'sticking the oar in' is an old tradition, and my natural citizenship (in the UK) is from a country that re-wrote the book on practising barbarity on foreign nations, and is responsible for so many of the continuing pockets of strife around the globe even to this day.
All I know is Iranian 'republic' is all but a twisted Monarchy, just like North Korea. or Gaddhafi's Libya (he had his son a successor)
In Iran, The so called 'Cardinal' (i don't know the real title but it's more or less Richielieu ones) has its own dynasty. having the power and authority that even surpass the presidency!
What kinda republic has the law that the member of some particular clan has the legitimacy to claim leadership??
Pacific wrote:As long as you are not a Korean, a Vietnamese, an Iraqi, an Afghan, a Haitian, or a civilian of numerous South African and especially South American countries.
Yes because we never sent aid to Haiti or any other foreign country. Besides you do know that in the Korean and Vietnamese War the US was not the aggressor right? Seriously when the US evacuated we tried to take as many civilians with us as possible so the Northern forces wouldn't execute them.
But I guess that people can retain the right to think that way, we did fight for you guys to have that right anyways.
ParatrooperSimon wrote:Just another day in America "Who should we attack next" "who should we cruise missle next" "any ideas anyone?" "Ahhh I know ... Iran!... its in the middle east and their is profit to be gained!"
Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.
It helps to be a massively populous country with a large economy that always enters the war late. Or we just pick on a country a fifth our size and a six thousands our economic might.
Yes, the US does a lot of heavy lifting in foreign aid. Sure, it isn't as much as other developed countries as a proportion of GDP, but telling other people off for giving but not giving as much as you is a pretty gakky way to go about life. The issue here isn't that the US does or doesn't help other countries, it isn't even about what the US actually does. It's about every time we see a mention of a country that is presently deemed a bad guy, lots of people start talking about the need to blow it up. It'd just be nice if we could all stop that nonsense.
halonachos wrote:Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.
Heh, you're correct, but basically by accident.
Australia had almost no armour in WWII. There were three tank regiments, and between them all we had about 40 light tanks. These were US tanks, so you got that part right, but they were hardly relevant to our war effort.
Not that that matters, considering ParatrooperSimon is a kiwi (if his flag is anything to go by). They actually did have tanks, a fully formed armoured brigade, constructed entirely of medium tanks... US built Shermans
halonachos wrote:
Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.
Well, I think the United States first of all has to recognize the world for what it is.
sebster wrote:Not that that matters, considering ParatrooperSimon is a kiwi (if his flag is anything to go by). They actually did have tanks, a fully formed armoured brigade, constructed entirely of medium tanks... US built Shermans
They presumably also had sheep cavalry.
I had expected that their tanks were also constructed of sheep.
Yes, I assume that New Zealand is like Settlers of Cataan where every tile is grassland.
Deja vu. We had this thread a year ago when similar stories about attacking Iran were in the news. Must have been a slow news day to dig this one out again.
America simply can't afford a war with Iran. It isn't guaranteed we would win either. We are having some trouble with anything that isn't France or Germany. Either way, Some crazy feth in Iran would press some shiny red button and kill us all.
It's hard to predict what would happen if we truly seperated religion from state. Removing God and Jesus from pretty much everything. People probably wouldn't be cool with it. Thank Ignorance for that one. On the other hand, people might accept it completely.
ParatrooperSimon wrote:Just another day in America "Who should we attack next" "who should we cruise missle next" "any ideas anyone?" "Ahhh I know ... Iran!... its in the middle east and their is profit to be gained!"
Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.
I really have no idea why you made this point. I don't know if you remember where Australia and New Zealand are or how the pacific theatre was fought, but armor didn't exactly play a crucial role. A valid point may have been if the Aussies or Ziwis were unable to build their own naval units, them being islands and such.
I think we probaly deploy boots on ground on the southern border....course we can go isolationism(sp?) and stop pouring out aid to a lot of country...I'm for pulling out the UN. Every major operation seems to have the US in a lead role. So when Iran has a luanch nukable missile(s) someone else can lead that. If you bring up Libya not being US lead we got the ball rolling on that one before it was turned over to NATO...still supported/executed most of the missions.
Jihadin wrote:I think we probaly deploy boots on ground on the southern border....course we can go isolationism(sp?) and stop pouring out aid to a lot of country...I'm for pulling out the UN. Every major operation seems to have the US in a lead role. So when Iran has a luanch nukable missile(s) someone else can lead that. If you bring up Libya not being US lead we got the ball rolling on that one before it was turned over to NATO...still supported/executed most of the missions.
Jihadin wrote:I think we probaly deploy boots on ground on the southern border....course we can go isolationism(sp?) and stop pouring out aid to a lot of country...I'm for pulling out the UN. Every major operation seems to have the US in a lead role. So when Iran has a luanch nukable missile(s) someone else can lead that. If you bring up Libya not being US lead we got the ball rolling on that one before it was turned over to NATO...still supported/executed most of the missions.
Didn't France launch the first strikes..?
France was the first to say that the rebels were the legitimate government, now I don't know who threw the first missile but I know the US threw the most.
Jihadin wrote:I think we probaly deploy boots on ground on the southern border....course we can go isolationism(sp?) and stop pouring out aid to a lot of country...I'm for pulling out the UN. Every major operation seems to have the US in a lead role. So when Iran has a luanch nukable missile(s) someone else can lead that. If you bring up Libya not being US lead we got the ball rolling on that one before it was turned over to NATO...still supported/executed most of the missions.
Didn't France launch the first strikes..?
Yeah, closely followed by the UK and Canada. It's not like the USA military swooped in right at the last minute though, they were involved pretty much from the get-go. It was a difference of days, at most, iirc.
ParatrooperSimon wrote:Just another day in America "Who should we attack next" "who should we cruise missle next" "any ideas anyone?" "Ahhh I know ... Iran!... its in the middle east and their is profit to be gained!"
Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.
I really have no idea why you made this point. I don't know if you remember where Australia and New Zealand are or how the pacific theatre was fought, but armor didn't exactly play a crucial role. A valid point may have been if the Aussies or Ziwis were unable to build their own naval units, them being islands and such.
Yes I know how they were fought, mostly by the Brits and Americans.
Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Jihadin wrote:I think we probaly deploy boots on ground on the southern border....course we can go isolationism(sp?) and stop pouring out aid to a lot of country...I'm for pulling out the UN. Every major operation seems to have the US in a lead role. So when Iran has a luanch nukable missile(s) someone else can lead that. If you bring up Libya not being US lead we got the ball rolling on that one before it was turned over to NATO...still supported/executed most of the missions.
Didn't France launch the first strikes..?
Yeah, closely followed by the UK and Canada. It's not like the USA military swooped in right at the last minute though, they were involved pretty much from the get-go. It was a difference of days, at most, iirc.
We dropped the most bombs and missiles and apparently it was also a US drone strike that actually stalled the convoy.
Yes I know how they were fought, mostly by the Brits and Americans.
Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.
It was a more of a case of "we can't let the opposing ideology/power gain leverage in this part of the world, so let's fight". And the end result was an entire nation practically levelled to the ground, and more than a million people killed. For some reason civil wars always seem to be more bloody and hard-fought, the end result is almost beyond comprehension. I think the human mind is not built to imagine destruction and misery on such a scale.
Both the Soviets and US were to blame, it was the case of giving the natives guns, a pat on the back and a suitcase full of money, and sending them off to fight their countrymen.
It's no wonder so many Koreans (especially the older generation) have such an inherent dislike of foreigners, when they were essentially driven towards destruction by foreign powers for more than 60 years. It's a wonder that any kind nature remains amongst the people at all, and it's a testament to their character.
Yes I know how they were fought, mostly by the Brits and Americans.
Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.
and WTF does THAT have to do with bringing up Australian Tanks?
Wait I'll answer for you:
halonachos wrote: random quote about a random war, with no context to previous comments
Yes I know how they were fought, mostly by the Brits and Americans.
Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.
It was a more of a case of "we can't let the opposing ideology/power gain leverage in this part of the world, so let's fight". And the end result was an entire nation practically levelled to the ground, and more than a million people killed. For some reason civil wars always seem to be more bloody and hard-fought, the end result is almost beyond comprehension. I think the human mind is not built to imagine destruction and misery on such a scale.
Both the Soviets and US were to blame, it was the case of giving the natives guns, a pat on the back and a suitcase full of money, and sending them off to fight their countrymen.
It's no wonder so many Koreans (especially the older generation) have such an inherent dislike of foreigners, when they were essentially driven towards destruction by foreign powers for more than 60 years. It's a wonder that any kind nature remains amongst the people at all, and it's a testament to their character.
Wow bucko really? Perhaps you would like to tell my grandpa that the reason he has no more feeling in his left leg is because the US wanted South Korea to destroy North Korea and wanted the two nations to go at it on their own. I'll also tell my friend's dad that the Agent Orange he was exposed to was because the US wanted the two Vietnams to destroy each other. Seriously, the US builds up the infrastructure of the two countries so they can actually drive around and then evacuate loyal citizens so they don't get executed by the Northern aggressors and the citizens don't trust other nations. Man if the US had not been there you wouldn't have that computer you're using, you'd be part of "Best Korea".
halonachos wrote:
Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.
In the case of Korea, you might look up the Potsdam Conference.
Vietnam is far too complicated to be classified as either offensive or defensive, particularly given how close the United States had been to Diem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Wow bucko really? Perhaps you would like to tell my grandpa that the reason he has no more feeling in his left leg is because the US wanted South Korea to destroy North Korea and wanted the two nations to go at it on their own. I'll also tell my friend's dad that the Agent Orange he was exposed to was because the US wanted the two Vietnams to destroy each other. Seriously, the US builds up the infrastructure of the two countries so they can actually drive around and then evacuate loyal citizens so they don't get executed by the Northern aggressors and the citizens don't trust other nations.
I am, occasionally, still surprised at this poster's ability to completely and utterly misunderstand what others have written.
Yes I know how they were fought, mostly by the Brits and Americans.
Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.
It was a more of a case of "we can't let the opposing ideology/power gain leverage in this part of the world, so let's fight". And the end result was an entire nation practically levelled to the ground, and more than a million people killed. For some reason civil wars always seem to be more bloody and hard-fought, the end result is almost beyond comprehension. I think the human mind is not built to imagine destruction and misery on such a scale.
Both the Soviets and US were to blame, it was the case of giving the natives guns, a pat on the back and a suitcase full of money, and sending them off to fight their countrymen.
It's no wonder so many Koreans (especially the older generation) have such an inherent dislike of foreigners, when they were essentially driven towards destruction by foreign powers for more than 60 years. It's a wonder that any kind nature remains amongst the people at all, and it's a testament to their character.
I dont understand how you can say that. I can understand a disliking to Russians, or even the Chinese, but the Americans? We spent countless lives to ensure that youre living under the safety of your own government, and not the oppressive and destructive powers of North Korea. Without US intervention, you wouldnt even be posting on this website right now.
I think that if Iran wants a nuclear weapon, it's inevitable that they will have one. We can only slow them down, but at the end of the day, it's just a 60 year old physics problem and even airstrikes won't stop that. They'll just delay them, and not even for that long.
I don't know what the solution is, mind you. I just don't think military action will work. I'm not opposed to military force in general, but I don't wish to engage in a futile engagement we don't have the political will to win. We (literally) cannot afford a conventional war - we'd need easily twice what Iraq took; and we will not annihilate them with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure where that leaves us. Maybe try to destabilize the government some more? It seems shaky. On the other hand, it could just get worse. On the other, other hand, it's already a pretty undesirable regime as far as US concerns go.
This is why I hate today's Western Society. The idealogy of "We shall intervene when ever possible" makes me questions whether there is a New World Order, which is made to enslave humanity or not. If so, it is probably some kind of Liberal Censorship which has nothing to do with Communism but everything to do with Slavery of the common people.
we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.
Damn that Northern Aggression....eerrr wrong time period
SInce we sold some Improved Bunker Buster to Isreal a month back I think the Isrealies more then likely give it a go since Iran stated that it will give it a go nuking Isreal
halonachos wrote:
Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.
US Attitude of Vietnam summed up in First Person(1945-1955)
Sure, we will train the Viet Minh to rebell against Japan and France because Japan is evil and we must win the war. Sure, we will back the French defeating the Viet Minh, we hate those Communist yet we love liberty and freedom yet Capitalism opposes that... Oh wait! We lost, let's split the country. They are invading South Vietnam to unite the country yet we tried to destroy their Nationalism, how dare they want a unified Vietname but we are allowed a Unified America.
Do you see the stupidity in that? American was acting out of fear of communism and not out of defense.
Does no one else think it's hypocritical that the US is the only country to drop nukes on another country and yet they're against other countries developing them? What business is it of the US if Iran makes nukes. It might keep the US from invading!
Does no one else think it's hypocritical that the US is the only country to drop nukes on another country and yet they're against other countries developing them? What business is it of the US if Iran makes nukes. It might keep the US from invading!
Reason we dropped the atomic bomb on both japanese cities was to force them to surrender to avoid invading main land Japan. Causualty estimate were in the million. Imperial Japan was quite willing to fight to the last. As for Iran having nukes well they stated they're quite willing to nuke Isreal. Whats to stop them from expanding their target list?
Does no one else think it's hypocritical that the US is the only country to drop nukes on another country and yet they're against other countries developing them? What business is it of the US if Iran makes nukes. It might keep the US from invading!
Reason we dropped the atomic bomb on both japanese cities was to force them to surrender to avoid invading main land Japan. Causualty estimate were in the million. Imperial Japan was quite willing to fight to the last. As for Iran having nukes well they stated they're quite willing to nuke Isreal. Whats to stop them from expanding their target list?
Consider what Israel is currently doing to Palestine.
Phototoxin wrote:Does no one else think it's hypocritical that the US is the only country to drop nukes on another country and yet they're against other countries developing them? What business is it of the US if Iran makes nukes. It might keep the US from invading!
On the other hand, we know first hand what it means to nuke someone. Not that I'd ever suggest we're in the whole 'stop nuclear development' game for humanitarian reasons. I don't particularly care why we oppose it. Finger pointing and name calling are the basis of weak arguments. Regardless of our motives, nuclear proliferation is a bad thing and I don't have a problem with trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
Consider what Israel is currently doing to Palestine.
Palestinians are not making a nuclear bomb. The Palestinian gov't already stated that there will be no jews living in their "state/nation" once/if it goes formal. Yet there's palestinian living in jewish areas....
Consider what Israel is currently doing to Palestine.
Palestinians are not making a nuclear bomb. The Palestinian gov't already stated that there will be no jews living in their "state/nation" once/if it goes formal. Yet there's palestinian living in jewish areas....
Phototoxin wrote:Does no one else think it's hypocritical that the US is the only country to drop nukes on another country and yet they're against other countries developing them? What business is it of the US if Iran makes nukes. It might keep the US from invading!
First, it isn't just the US as there are other countries that have the same attitude. Second, it could also be argued that this puts the US in a unique position to argue against anyone else going through the same thing as it knows that sweet, musky odor that goes along with nuke ownership. Learning from the past, last time I checked anyway, was not the same thing as being a hypocrite. We aren't currently using nuclear weapons on anyone and have worked on non-proliferation with other countries.
Phototoxin wrote:Does no one else think it's hypocritical that the US is the only country to drop nukes on another country and yet they're against other countries developing them? What business is it of the US if Iran makes nukes. It might keep the US from invading!
One vision of the safest possible world (for you) is the one in which only you have swords/guns/bombs.
Of course, that isn't necessarily correct, but it is largely why the US takes a strong position against nuclear proliferation (at least when the country in question isn't friendly).
Phototoxin wrote:Does no one else think it's hypocritical that the US is the only country to drop nukes on another country and yet they're against other countries developing them? What business is it of the US if Iran makes nukes. It might keep the US from invading!
First, it isn't just the US as there are other countries that have the same attitude. Second, it could also be argued that this puts the US in a unique position to argue against anyone else going through the same thing as it knows that sweet, musky odor that goes along with nuke ownership. Learning from the past, last time I checked anyway, was not the same thing as being a hypocrite. We aren't currently using nuclear weapons on anyone and have worked on non-proliferation with other countries.
Does anyone else ever get the impression that Phototoxin is just doing a really bad "Mr. Furious" impersonation every time she get all frothing at the mouth talking about the U.S.?
Consider what Israel is currently doing to Palestine.
Palestinians are not making a nuclear bomb. The Palestinian gov't already stated that there will be no jews living in their "state/nation" once/if it goes formal. Yet there's palestinian living in jewish areas....
I'm sure the things Palestinians say are scary. That's probably why Israel bombs them and takes their homes constantly while denying them oranges. It's easy to see how having oranges can lead directly to a new anti-jewish purge.
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm sure the things Palestinians say are scary. That's probably why Israel bombs them and takes their homes constantly while denying them oranges. It's easy to see how having oranges can lead directly to a new anti-jewish purge.
It is hard to do much work on nuclear bombs when you have scurvy.
rockerbikie wrote:This is why I hate today's Western Society. The idealogy of "We shall intervene when ever possible" makes me questions whether there is a New World Order, which is made to enslave humanity or not. If so, it is probably some kind of Liberal Censorship which has nothing to do with Communism but everything to do with Slavery of the common people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm sure the things Palestinians say are scary. That's probably why Israel bombs them and takes their homes constantly while denying them oranges. It's easy to see how having oranges can lead directly to a new anti-jewish purge.
It is hard to do much work on nuclear bombs when you have scurvy.
It's why pirates so often lacked the tools needed to repair their reactors.
rockerbikie wrote:This is why I hate today's Western Society. The idealogy of "We shall intervene when ever possible" makes me questions whether there is a New World Order, which is made to enslave humanity or not. If so, it is probably some kind of Liberal Censorship which has nothing to do with Communism but everything to do with Slavery of the common people.
Whoa whoa whoa. Now we finally came to something important here. Was there a Mass Effect cartoon?
Light tan.....course they're not hygenic so they are a bit...dirty...smelly..Iran is a bit more modern in frastructure so they're clean light tan.....I see a lot of tomahawks and airstrikes.
I can't believe this thread went pages without anyone seeing this remark as pretty disgusting. Unless I'm having a wonky reading comprehension day, are you implying that all Iranians are dirty, filthy people? Or that all brown people are somehow dirty? So I guess black people just the filthiest of them all, and white people are just oh so pure and clean right? It's a shame there are people who still equate the melanin in your skin with one's hygene and worth.
Then again hating on muslims, middle-eastern folks, and brown people seems par for the course on the OT
Light tan.....course they're not hygenic so they are a bit...dirty...smelly..Iran is a bit more modern in frastructure so they're clean light tan.....I see a lot of tomahawks and airstrikes.
I can't believe this thread went pages without anyone seeing this remark as pretty disgusting. Unless I'm having a wonky reading comprehension day, are you implying that all Iranians are dirty, filthy people? Or that all brown people are somehow dirty? So I guess black people just the filthiest of them all, and white people are just oh so pure and clean right? It's a shame there are people who still equate the melanin in your skin with one's hygene and worth.
Then again hating on muslims, middle-eastern folks, and brown people seems par for the course on the OT
"whitey hates brown dude" indeed
Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time around Iraqis, both rural and urban, is aware of a certain..."odor" that they exude. It's not racism, it's hygiene. They also insist on standing uncomfortably close while speaking to you, so you get to be doubly aware of their personal contribution to atmospheric conditions. What Jihadin said was that Iranians were "a clean light tan" so no he didn't say that Iranians were filthy people.
Light tan.....course they're not hygenic so they are a bit...dirty...smelly..Iran is a bit more modern in frastructure so they're clean light tan.....I see a lot of tomahawks and airstrikes.
I can't believe this thread went pages without anyone seeing this remark as pretty disgusting. Unless I'm having a wonky reading comprehension day, are you implying that all Iranians are dirty, filthy people? Or that all brown people are somehow dirty? So I guess black people just the filthiest of them all, and white people are just oh so pure and clean right? It's a shame there are people who still equate the melanin in your skin with one's hygene and worth.
Then again hating on muslims, middle-eastern folks, and brown people seems par for the course on the OT
"whitey hates brown dude" indeed
Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time around Iraqis, both rural and urban, is aware of a certain..."odor" that they exude. It's not racism, it's hygiene. They also insist on standing uncomfortably close while speaking to you, so you get to be doubly aware of their personal contribution to atmospheric conditions. What Jihadin said was that Iranians were "a clean light tan" so no he didn't say that Iranians were filthy people.
Intro soc texts are neat because you get to learn the etiquette of the personal space bubble in different regions. The mideast is a close face to face region with a lot of handshaking. Germans to contrast are the exact opposite. Hygine is a by product of wealth more then it is societal values, and Iraqis aren't particularly wealthy. Americans smelled terrible in the 1700s, they were known for it.
The mideast is a close face to face region with a lot of handshaking
Shake with the right hand only cause they wipe their arse with their left. I will say though their quite religous on washing their face, hands, and feet before prayer 3 times a day.
@asimo77 Visiting a 3rd world middle eastern country is quite eye opening. Ever hear the comment "Man Love Thursday"? and what it might actually be referring to?
Also my bad I forgot. We had a detachment of Coasties there to since Southern Afghanistan has a huge freaking lake there. Was interesting to see them there
Well you are making quite a few assumptions on where I may be from or who well versed in certain cultures I am.
"Shake with the right hand only cause they wipe their arse with their left"
Being from the region, knowing people who have been there, and having family from around there, I can tell you that people don't actually do that. Like Shuma said bad hygene is a product of poverty and poor education rather than other races and ethnicities being simply unclean.
"Ever hear the comment "Man Love Thursday"? and what it might actually be referring to?"
I know what that statement refers to and I don't see how that's relevant.
"Visiting a 3rd world...country "
Visitng any 3rd world country is going to expose you to uncleanliness becuase it's a 3rd world country. Not because some races are just full of filthy people.
biccat wrote:Yes, I assume that New Zealand is like Settlers of Cataan where every tile is grassland.
And mountains. Lord of the Rings should have taught us all that much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leonus Cohol wrote:America simply can't afford a war with Iran. It isn't guaranteed we would win either. We are having some trouble with anything that isn't France or Germany.
It's guaranteed you'd win decisively over their military forces. There's just no question of that. What is up in the air is how any subsequent occupation would go, which is a measure of the will and ability of the Iranians to continue resistance efforts, and will of the US to remain in Iran.
Also, do you realise you've never fought France?
It's hard to predict what would happen if we truly seperated religion from state. Removing God and Jesus from pretty much everything. People probably wouldn't be cool with it. Thank Ignorance for that one. On the other hand, people might accept it completely.
You'd have government in the modern world. You have that very kind of government in your own country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Yeah, closely followed by the UK and Canada. It's not like the USA military swooped in right at the last minute though, they were involved pretty much from the get-go. It was a difference of days, at most, iirc.
I also believe there was no commitment to a sustained operation until the US had committed stealth bombers to take out Libyan radar sites.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.
Sure, but in both cases the Southern government were completely dodgy governments that you put there in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jollydevil wrote:I dont understand how you can say that. I can understand a disliking to Russians, or even the Chinese, but the Americans? We spent countless lives to ensure that youre living under the safety of your own government, and not the oppressive and destructive powers of North Korea. Without US intervention, you wouldnt even be posting on this website right now.
Funnily enough, the Koreans are noted for hating the Japanese most of all, which says something about how terrible the Japanese were in the few short years they occupied Korea.
And I think Pacific has gotten a bit confused in why older Koreans have disliked foreigners. It isn't because of the Korean war, Koreans had a cultural dislike of Koreans before then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:As for Iran having nukes well they stated they're quite willing to nuke Isreal. Whats to stop them from expanding their target list?
No, Ahmedinejad has said he would, but he doesn't have access to any bomb they could build. He's exactly as dangerous as any poster on this site saying the US should glass the middle east. There has been no such rhetoric from among Iranian leaders.
Meanwhile, you should look up some of the crazy stuff said by Soviets, by Indians and Pakistanis, and even sometimes by Americans, let alone the South Africans. Yet none ever used the bomb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Regardless of our motives, nuclear proliferation is a bad thing and I don't have a problem with trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
Sure thing, but the question is how far you're willing to go to stop the spread of nukes. I mean, at what point do we consider airstrikes and the like more destabilising than nuclear proliferation?
sebster wrote:Meanwhile, you should look up some of the crazy stuff said by Soviets, by Indians and Pakistanis, and even sometimes by Americans, let alone the South Africans. Yet none ever used the bomb.
So Iran comes up with a nuke and not use it on Iran? Guess you think Isreal is being paranoid about possible airstriking the facilities thats part of the nuclear program in Iran? Term "cleanse by fire" some how fits in with knucklehead rhetoric.
Visitng any 3rd world country is going to expose you to uncleanliness becuase it's a 3rd world country. Not because some races are just full of filthy people.
I said 3rd world middle eastern country. One's you probaly know are modernized. Not bashing you but I do believe I have more experience in dealing with modern and 3rd world muslims unless your military and deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Man Love Thursday. Well your thinking adult males. Its not just adult. Ever hear of a Afghani Boy Dancer? Do you know its allowed in Afghanistan? Want to imagine the suprise of a platoon american's and germans that walk by the building that "pimps/brothel" them out to male parties?
Jihadin wrote:So Iran comes up with a nuke and not use it on Iran? Guess you think Isreal is being paranoid about possible airstriking the facilities thats part of the nuclear program in Iran? Term "cleanse by fire" some how fits in with knucklehead rhetoric.
Visitng any 3rd world country is going to expose you to uncleanliness becuase it's a 3rd world country. Not because some races are just full of filthy people.
I said 3rd world middle eastern country. One's you probaly know are modernized. Not bashing you but I do believe I have more experience in dealing with modern and 3rd world muslims unless your military and deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Man Love Thursday. Well your thinking adult males. Its not just adult. Ever hear of a Afghani Boy Dancer? Do you know its allowed in Afghanistan? Want to imagine the suprise of a platoon american's and germans that walk by the building that "pimps/brothel" them out to male parties?
AustonT wrote:
Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time around Iraqis, both rural and urban, is aware of a certain..."odor" that they exude. It's not racism, it's hygiene. They also insist on standing uncomfortably close while speaking to you, so you get to be doubly aware of their personal contribution to atmospheric conditions. What Jihadin said was that Iranians were "a clean light tan" so no he didn't say that Iranians were filthy people.
Intro soc texts are neat because you get to learn the etiquette of the personal space bubble in different regions. The mideast is a close face to face region with a lot of handshaking. Germans to contrast are the exact opposite. Hygine is a by product of wealth more then it is societal values, and Iraqis aren't particularly wealthy. Americans smelled terrible in the 1700s, they were known for it.
Diet also is a factor in body odour. Apparently Anglo-Saxons smell faintly milky, due to the amount of dairy produce we consume on average. Eat a lot of heavily spiced food and that will effect your body odour too. I agree with everything else that you said vis a vis poverty.
ShumaGorath wrote:Did you just say Afghanistan was modernized..?
I think he's compare contrasting Afghanistan with Iraq, but saying Iraq is modernized doesn't make much sense either...
Well the cities were fairly modernized, though by the time they come on a decade brown outs, random explosions, and utterly innefectual infrastructure rebuilding efforts they won't be. Irans urban locales are fairly modernized, but I don't think he's ever been there to say what they smelled like.
Iraq is more modernized then Afghanistan. 2 Deployemnts to Afghanistan and one deployment to Iraq. Majority of Iraq has electricity while Afghanistan power grid is only in certain location (cities and built up suburbs). The villages/hamlets/rural are pretty much without electricity. There is like one major highway that Coalition forces built for Afghanistan that runs a circle around the country to help inprove the infrastructure. RC East is has a few paved roads besides the MH1 (military highway) that runs through it. Major industrial center is Kabul with JBad and Abad. RC South is Kandahar along with Helmand (since we pushed the insurgents out of the Helmand district industrial output went down hill since the insurgent are trying to reestablish a influence again) Before I do round robin on the RC's Afghanistan major production is farming. Course with the farming there's the poppy and marjihuana fields. We burn countless tons of both. Handling the bricks of herion to put in a pile will jack up a uniform. Handling bricks of the marjihuana to the burn pile....who cares which way the wind burns.
Countries that are governed on a religious basis should be obliterated, was my point.
Religion was reasonable when everyone didn't know gak about the world and the universe, and we just said "God made us, god created us, dats the truth" hundreds of years ago.
Now? It makes zero sense, and these countries that still hold on to that bs to RUN THEIR COUNTRY, are beyond moronic.
Yes I know how they were fought, mostly by the Brits and Americans.
Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.
It was a more of a case of "we can't let the opposing ideology/power gain leverage in this part of the world, so let's fight". And the end result was an entire nation practically levelled to the ground, and more than a million people killed. For some reason civil wars always seem to be more bloody and hard-fought, the end result is almost beyond comprehension. I think the human mind is not built to imagine destruction and misery on such a scale.
Both the Soviets and US were to blame, it was the case of giving the natives guns, a pat on the back and a suitcase full of money, and sending them off to fight their countrymen.
It's no wonder so many Koreans (especially the older generation) have such an inherent dislike of foreigners, when they were essentially driven towards destruction by foreign powers for more than 60 years. It's a wonder that any kind nature remains amongst the people at all, and it's a testament to their character.
Wow bucko really? Perhaps you would like to tell my grandpa that the reason he has no more feeling in his left leg is because the US wanted South Korea to destroy North Korea and wanted the two nations to go at it on their own. I'll also tell my friend's dad that the Agent Orange he was exposed to was because the US wanted the two Vietnams to destroy each other. Seriously, the US builds up the infrastructure of the two countries so they can actually drive around and then evacuate loyal citizens so they don't get executed by the Northern aggressors and the citizens don't trust other nations. Man if the US had not been there you wouldn't have that computer you're using, you'd be part of "Best Korea".
Indeed thats about the most pure example of what I would call SOMEHOW I SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN AN ACCEPTABLE WORD LIKE "WRONGHEADED" OR "MISGUIDED" thinking I've heard in at least three minutes. Please tell my uncle who went certifiable crazy from the combat that it was the bad old USA that drove North Korea to invade South Korea. Read a book and not Bill Ayers.
rodgers37 wrote:Who thinks we should invade Russia?
Yes, because that's always worked out well every other time someone has tried it
The advent of air and sea avenues that make marching across the wastes pointless have really made Russia less daunting to invade. We could have an army of one hundred thousand in and out of there in under a week and dudes with tracksuits and cellphones aren't going to put up the biggest fight.
rockerbikie wrote:This is why I hate today's Western Society. The idealogy of "We shall intervene when ever possible" makes me questions whether there is a New World Order, which is made to enslave humanity or not. If so, it is probably some kind of Liberal Censorship which has nothing to do with Communism but everything to do with Slavery of the common people.
There's nothing keeping you from flying out and going to live in some hut in Afghasnistan if that western world thing is such a bummer for you. I hear North Korea is beautiful this time of year. You should go.
There's nothing keeping you from flying out and going to live in some hut in Afghasnistan if that western world thing is such a bummer for you
he do a quick turn around when he relieze there's no tiolet paper or cable television...and they sleep on top the huts during the summer...no AC....and they use mostly dry dung for cooking fires in quite a few areas.
So you want to nuke the Vatican?
Will if we nuke the Vatican Bella be quite releaved to have that part of the....family dust...
rockerbikie wrote:This is why I hate today's Western Society. The idealogy of "We shall intervene when ever possible" makes me questions whether there is a New World Order, which is made to enslave humanity or not. If so, it is probably some kind of Liberal Censorship which has nothing to do with Communism but everything to do with Slavery of the common people.
There's nothing keeping you from flying out and going to live in some hut in Afghasnistan if that western world thing is such a bummer for you. I hear North Korea is beautiful this time of year. You should go.
There are no outbound US flights to North Korea or Iran.
rockerbikie wrote:This is why I hate today's Western Society. The idealogy of "We shall intervene when ever possible" makes me questions whether there is a New World Order, which is made to enslave humanity or not. If so, it is probably some kind of Liberal Censorship which has nothing to do with Communism but everything to do with Slavery of the common people.
There's nothing keeping you from flying out and going to live in some hut in Afghasnistan if that western world thing is such a bummer for you. I hear North Korea is beautiful this time of year. You should go.
There are no outbound US flights to North Korea or Iran.
rockerbikie wrote:This is why I hate today's Western Society. The idealogy of "We shall intervene when ever possible" makes me questions whether there is a New World Order, which is made to enslave humanity or not. If so, it is probably some kind of Liberal Censorship which has nothing to do with Communism but everything to do with Slavery of the common people.
There's nothing keeping you from flying out and going to live in some hut in Afghasnistan if that western world thing is such a bummer for you. I hear North Korea is beautiful this time of year. You should go.
There are no outbound US flights to North Korea or Iran.
rockerbikie wrote:This is why I hate today's Western Society. The idealogy of "We shall intervene when ever possible" makes me questions whether there is a New World Order, which is made to enslave humanity or not. If so, it is probably some kind of Liberal Censorship which has nothing to do with Communism but everything to do with Slavery of the common people.
There's nothing keeping you from flying out and going to live in some hut in Afghasnistan if that western world thing is such a bummer for you. I hear North Korea is beautiful this time of year. You should go.
There are no outbound US flights to North Korea or Iran.
ShumaGorath wrote:I said outbound US flights. Those are Chinese and french flights. You're not good at this joke thing.
Just admit that you CAN indeed fly from the US to those countries, Shuma, and that that's what you meant. The backpedaling is pretty cringe-worthy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Karon wrote:I wasn't speaking of the Bible Belt.
Countries that are governed on a religious basis should be obliterated, was my point.
Religion was reasonable when everyone didn't know gak about the world and the universe, and we just said "God made us, god created us, dats the truth" hundreds of years ago.
Now? It makes zero sense, and these countries that still hold on to that bs to RUN THEIR COUNTRY, are beyond moronic.
Frazzled:
There's nothing keeping you from flying out and going to live in some hut in Afghasnistan if that western world thing is such a bummer for you. I hear North Korea is beautiful this time of year. You should go.
Shuma: There are no outbound US flights to North Korea or Iran.
Frazzled: Go to China. Pay off NK embassy official. Cross over. Its time honored practice.
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/vice_guide_to_north_korea_episode_1_of_3
DECISION POINT: If you were joking you could have
A. Said nothing
B. Shuma: I was joking man NBD.
You chose C:
Shuma: I'm continuing to make a point 5 minutes on google would have kept me from attempting to make.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not a joke. Or like making a racist comment in Harlem and truing to stay alive by saying: I was just joking...
AustonT wrote:Frazzled: There's nothing keeping you from flying out and going to live in some hut in Afghasnistan if that western world thing is such a bummer for you. I hear North Korea is beautiful this time of year. You should go. Shuma: There are no outbound US flights to North Korea or Iran. Frazzled: Go to China. Pay off NK embassy official. Cross over. Its time honored practice. http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/vice_guide_to_north_korea_episode_1_of_3
DECISION POINT: If you were joking you could have A. Said nothing B. Shuma: I was joking man NBD.
You chose C: Shuma: I'm continuing to make a point 5 minutes on google would have kept me from attempting to make.
I have a very observable trend in my posts. It's either long winded gak, short snippy one sentence jokes, or I just make fun of people. One sentence is pretty short. I don't think I was making fun of frazzled either. So which could it be? I mean, it wouldn't be bizarre if I responded to frazzled joking suggestion that the man fly to north korea with another joke. Even a deadpan one. It's pretty common that I apologize for mispeaking on this forum. I do it about once a week. I can eat the pie off my face and smile, Its a learning experience. This however is not one such situation.
AustonT wrote:DAMN YOU FACTS!
Book your flight (and in 2/3 cases probably give up your citizenship) today!
Side point: Assuming this response was aimed at Shuma, who has an American flag icon, we established in the Anwar al-Awlaki threads a ways back that giving up your US citizenship is surprisingly specific in it's requirements. Just travelling to Iran or Best Korea would not be sufficient to do so, even permanently moving to one of those places would not do it.
I did not know that. I guess I assumed that to travel to certain countries (I was specifically thinking N.Korea) you'd have to renounce your citizenship.
AustonT wrote:I did not know that. I guess I assumed that to travel to certain countries (I was specifically thinking N.Korea) you'd have to renounce your citizenship.
Rights activists would be losing their Visas all the time were that the case and people seem to love hiking in the mountains of afghanistan and Iran. Thats not saying you can't get in trouble for what you do while there though as Anwar found out.
AustonT wrote:I did not know that. I guess I assumed that to travel to certain countries (I was specifically thinking N.Korea) you'd have to renounce your citizenship.
Not at all. You can actually go to North Korea as a tourist. It costs a fortune in bribes, and you'd have to be seriously morbid to do it, but plenty of folk are and I've seen videos of their travels - they make for fascinating viewing.
Yeah, that would make sense, but it's actually like stupid hard to actually renounce your citizenship, and there is no way it's automatically lost. To renounce it yourself, you need to fill out a form and have it signed before witnesses at a US embassy. Some things that can trigger a review can be found here. Kind of fascinating, actually.
Pretty sure that traveling to Iran or Best Korea probably give you a lifetime of problems if you return to the US, though. I'd expect a lot of "randomly selected" tax audits and shenanigans like that, forever.
BTW, I was once given a dirty look by one of "those people" so I'm allowed to hate them all...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
AustonT wrote:Frazzled:
There's nothing keeping you from flying out and going to live in some hut in Afghasnistan if that western world thing is such a bummer for you. I hear North Korea is beautiful this time of year. You should go.
Shuma: There are no outbound US flights to North Korea or Iran.
Frazzled: Go to China. Pay off NK embassy official. Cross over. Its time honored practice.
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/vice_guide_to_north_korea_episode_1_of_3
DECISION POINT: If you were joking you could have
A. Said nothing
B. Shuma: I was joking man NBD.
You chose C:
Shuma: I'm continuing to make a point 5 minutes on google would have kept me from attempting to make.
I have a very observable trend in my posts. It's either long winded gak, short snippy one sentence jokes, or I just make fun of people. One sentence is pretty short. I don't think I was making fun of frazzled either. So which could it be? I mean, it wouldn't be bizarre if I responded to frazzled joking suggestion that the man fly to north korea with another joke. Even a deadpan one. It's pretty common that I apologize for mispeaking on this forum. I do it about once a week. I can eat the pie off my face and smile, Its a learning experience. This however is not one such situation.
Its not a joke. I had an employee who's family was from Manchuria and North Korea. There is lots of movement across the Chinese border.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Religion plays big part in Ameriacn politics and life, overtly or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DIDM wrote:the whole middle east will soon be occupied by American forces upholding a UN mandate.
all your oil are belong to us
I for one say grow hemp, the future will be all hemp
fixed.
um, YOUR guys are there too
there will always be US soldiers there, but the UN will be the major force, be they US members or other
I laugh at the people who say that the US went to Iraq for oil. Especially when it comes down to the fact that the majority of oil shares in Iraq have been awarded to European or Asian firms. Exxon appears to be the only US firm with some shares to an Iraqi oil field. Shell owns a lot, but they operate out of the Netherlands, BP owns a lot and again that's British Petroleum, then there's China's state run oil company that owns a lot. The US has gotten squat diddly oil wise, but the Chinese, British, and other Europeans sure have.
There is one large oil field that Iraq is keeping for itself in plans of using all income from that to rebuild its infrastructure.
Majnoon Oil Field: 12,600 million barrels estimated; Royal Dutch Shell has 45% share, Petronas(Malaysian) has 30% share, and Iraqis have the remaining 25%.
Halfaya Oil Field: 4,100 million barrels estimated; CNPC(China National Petroleum Corporation) has 50% share, Total S.A(France) has a 25% share, and Petronas has the remaining 25%.
West Qurna Oil Field: 43,000 million barrels estimated; Exxon Mobil has the rights to 9 billion barrel West Qurna Phase I, Lukoil(Russia) and Statoil(Norway) have rights to the 12.88 billion barrel West Qurna Phase II field.
Rumaila Oil Field: 17,000 million barrels estimated; BP(British) owns 38% of the shares, CNPC has 37% of the shares, and SOMO(Iraqi) owns 25% of the shares.
East Baghdad Oil Field: 8,000 million barrels estimated; Iraqi Ministry of Oil owns 100%, denied negotiations with a Japanese oil company.
The U.N. atomic agency said for the first time Tuesday that Iran is suspected of conducting secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear arms, an assessment that draws on 1,000 pages of intelligence and nearly a decade of research.
The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency is its most unequivocal yet suggesting that Iran is using the cover of a peaceful nuclear program to produce atomic weaponry. Based on years of trying to probe Tehran's secretive activities, its release will stoke debate on whether it's time to jettison failed diplomatic efforts to end Iran's nuclear defiance and replace them with force.
The 13-page annex to the IAEA's regularly scheduled report on Iran included evidence that suggests the Islamic republic is working on the clandestine procurement of equipment and designs to make nuclear arms.
"While some of the activities identified in the annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons," the report said.
Among these were indications that Iran has conducted high explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead. The report also cited preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test, and development of a nuclear payload for Iran's Shahab 3 intermediate range missile — a weapon that can reach Israel.
In Washington, officials said the report confirms U.S. suspicions about the military nature of Iran's program, and the Obama administration was readying a range of sanctions and other measures against Iran should the Islamic republic fail to answer questions raised about its nuclear ambitions.
Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said there was a government directive not to comment until Israel has studied the findings in depth.
But before the report's release, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned of a possible Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program.
"We continue to recommend to our friends in the world and to ourselves, not to take any option off the table," he told Israel radio.
That phrase is often used by Israeli politicians to mean a military assault. Israeli leaders have engaged in increased saber rattling recently, suggesting that an attack was likely a more effective way to stop Iran's nuclear program than continued diplomacy.
Iran is under U.N. sanctions for refusing to stop uranium enrichment — which can produce both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material — and other suspected activities that the international community fears could be used to make atomic arms. But Iran dismisses such allegations and says its activities are meant to be used only for energy or research.
Iran's official IRNA news agency dismissed the U.N. findings, accusing IAEA chief Yukiya Amano of including "worthless comments and pictures provided by the intelligence services." In Vienna, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's chief IAEA delegate, called the report "unbalanced, unprofessional and prepared with political motivation and political pressure by the United States."
In Moscow, Russia's Foreign Ministry said it would not comment until it had time to study the report carefully.
Some of the information was new — including evidence of a large metal chamber at a military site for nuclear-related explosives testing. Iran contemptuously dismissed that, saying they were merely metal toilet stalls.
The bulk of the information, however, was a compilation of alleged findings that have already been partially revealed by the agency. It was meant to connect the dots between procurement, draftboard planning and testing, all supervised by the military under the guise of civilian organizations.
But a senior diplomat familiar with the report said its significance lay in the comprehensive way it laid out evidence indicating that Iran has engaged in all aspects of testing needed to develop a nuclear weapon. Also significant was the agency's decision to share most of what it knows or suspects about Iran's secret work with the 35-nation IAEA board and the U.N. Security Council after being stonewalled by Tehran in its attempts to probe such allegations.
It also underlined concerns that Iran had apparently continued work on developing a nuclear warhead and ways to trigger it past 2003 — the year that a U.S. intelligence assessment in 2007 said such activities stopped. Instead, the agency said, some of this work continued at least until 2010, although in a less concentrated way.
Unusually strong language reflected such worries, with the report noting that "some of the activities undertaken after 2003 would be highly relevant to a nuclear weapons program."
"I think (the IAEA) want to lay out their case and say, 'Look, we've gone as far as we can, here's our best argument,'" said David Albright whose Institute for Science and International Security in Washington tracks suspected nuclear proliferators.
The next step, he said, was up to the IAEA's decision-making board, which referred Iran to the U.N. Security Council in 2006 — and can do so again, strengthening the chances of new U.N. sanctions.
The report was not being viewed as a game-changer in Washington. It doesn't reveal intelligence unknown to the United States — which contributed to much of the IAEA's knowledge about Iran's nuclear work — and U.S. officials said it is unlikely to persuade reluctant powers such as China and Russia to support tougher sanctions on the Iranian government.
But the officials, who asked for anonymity because their information is privileged, said the report offered significant support for some long-held U.S. suspicions and lends international credence to claims that Tehran isn't solely interested in developing atomic energy for peaceful purposes.
A senior administration official said the finding that Iran undertook computer modeling of the core of a nuclear bomb was "of particular concern."
"There is no application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear bomb," the official said.
The official also pointed to the report's assessment that Iran is developing fast-acting detonators that can be used in a nuclear weapon, and its efforts to procure key nuclear weapons ingredients, such as high-speed electronic switches, spark gaps, high-speed cameras, neutron sources and radiation detection and measuring equipment.
The Obama administration will use the report as leverage in making its case to other countries that sanctions against Iran should be expanded and tightened, and that the enforcement of current sanctions be toughened, the officials said.
However, it's not going to sway the U.S. administration from its plan to rely on sanctions and diplomatic pressure, instead of military threats, to deter Iranian ambitions, they said.
The U.N. Security Council has passed four sets of damaging sanctions on Iran, but veto-wielding members China and Russia oppose further measures and are unlikely to change their minds despite the report's findings.
I for one, am shocked. Iran lying about its nuclear program? I never saw this coming -_-
halonachos wrote:I laugh at the people who say that the US went to Iraq for oil. Especially when it comes down to the fact that the majority of oil shares in Iraq have been awarded to European or Asian firms. Exxon appears to be the only US firm with some shares to an Iraqi oil field. Shell owns a lot, but they operate out of the Netherlands, BP owns a lot and again that's British Petroleum, then there's China's state run oil company that owns a lot. The US has gotten squat diddly oil wise, but the Chinese, British, and other Europeans sure have. uote]
First up nations don't really own oil companies any more. They're called multi-national for a reason. They might be listed on one stock exchange, but ownership is very diverse, with people of all manner of nationalities holding a share in the company.
Second up, the primary motivation in nations involving themselves in wars over oil isn't to secure future profits for oil companies, but to control the oil price itself. That is, while most of the US oil is domestic, or comes from Venezuala and Canada, the production of oil in the Middle East is a primary driver in the price of oil in the US, which in turn is an important element in the level of economic growth.
All that said, I agree that Iraq wasn't about oil. It was certainly a factor, but the real driver was the idea that the US could reform the whole region by toppling Saddam in a quick war and install a new and prosperous democracy, and so lead to the same in other countries in the region.
sebster wrote:
Second up, the primary motivation in nations involving themselves in wars over oil isn't to secure future profits for oil companies, but to control the oil price itself. That is, while most of the US oil is domestic, or comes from Venezuala and Canada, the production of oil in the Middle East is a primary driver in the price of oil in the US, which in turn is an important element in the level of economic growth.
Exactly.
sebster wrote:
All that said, I agree that Iraq wasn't about oil. It was certainly a factor, but the real driver was the idea that the US could reform the whole region by toppling Saddam in a quick war and install a new and prosperous democracy, and so lead to the same in other countries in the region.
That's true, but one of the reasons democratic peace has been discussed with regard to the ME is stabilization of the price of oil.
