[quote]bluey wrote:
It is an old ploy, when you have domestic problems create a foreign enemy for distraction. Terrorism is a domestic problem created by immigration and multiculturalism. No amount of impotent militarism is going to fix it.
[/quote]
God damned immigrants!!!
Obviously, you have your own agenda here, but trying to change the focus of this discussion from Iran’s nuclear program to immigration is a bit too much. Futher, the connection you make between terrorism and the number of iranian-americans in LA tells, despite the marked lack of terrorist attacks in the US, tells me you aren’t basing your position on facts, but rather stereotypes. So what is it you have a problem with? Is it the religion, or the shade of skin? Or is it just “foreigners” in general?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
I just think it?s funny that you think that Iran should stick to international rules or else, the Iraq war was a clear violation of intenational law and you seem to be able to live with that fact quite well.
That’s total bullshit and you know it. You have stated no facts only on==unspported BS that you think I should belkieve becuse you said so.
I swear, what is the deal with all of these idiots spewing outright lies and trying to pass them as fact?
[/quote]
The USA is a member of the UN. The UN charta (signed by the USA) clearly states that a war is only justified if a) in self-defense or b) if sanctioned by the UN.
The 2nd Iraq war to the best of my knowledge was not sanctioned by the UN and the US was certainly not attacked by the souvereign nation of Iraq.
I am referring to the article 41 and 42 of the UN charta especially the part of article 42 that states that only the whole security counsel can decide that a war is necessary.
… and rainjack what is it with those conservatives that every time someone hints that there might be some inconsistencies in their world view, they go all ape-shit and call them a bullshitting idiot and liar?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Well when it is used by the Muslems as a defingition of their war with us - I think your little Webster’s definition goes out the window.
You can use whatever term you feel is politically correct, but it is obvious to those woth a functioning brainstem that they want us destroyed, right along with Israel.
But regardless - I don’t think this problem will be solved by calling the Iranians “Inrani”, or by using the proper Arabic word for “they want to kill us and our way of life”.
[/quote]
“The Muslems” aren’t at war with you, a very, very small number of individuals are. We disagree on a lot of things, but if we disagree here, there’s a serious problem. Do you feel that the US is at war with Islam?
And I think the term “jihad” is used much more by the media than by the terrorists, but I could be wrong; I haven’t exactly seen a lot of terrorist communications or even heard the messages that have been aired.
Using the term “Irani” or “Iranian” is obviously immaterial, whereas using the term “jihad” inappropriately implicates an entire religion, and it does this unfairly since the Qu’ran doesn’t teach people to do this sort of thing (retarded clerics do that).
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
“The Muslems” aren’t at war with you, a very, very small number of individuals are. We disagree on a lot of things, but if we disagree here, there’s a serious problem. Do you feel that the US is at war with Islam?[/quote]
I think the U.S. and the rest of the West - whether they want to see it or not - is at war with extremists that happen to be Radical Islamic Jihadists. If we disagree on that then yes - we have a serious problem.
Like I said - you give me the proper term for “They want to kill us and our way of life” and I’ll use it. This is semantics, and I really don’t care if my shoes match my hat right now - we are in a war.
I think the U.S. and the rest of the West - whether they want to see it or not - is at war with extremists that happen to be Radical Islamic Jihadists. If we disagree on that then yes - we have a serious problem.
Like I said - you give me the proper term for “They want to kill us and our way of life” and I’ll use it. This is semantics, and I really don’t care if my shoes match my hat right now - we are in a war.
[quote]orion wrote:
The USA is a member of the UN. The UN charta (signed by the USA) clearly states that a war is only justified if a) in self-defense or b) if sanctioned by the UN. [/quote]
Maybe the US should have waited until saddam was able to fund a couple of dirty bombs to be set off by some Saudi terrorist on US soil? Of course Saddam would have tottalay denied any connection and we would have been set upon by libs crying about how US foreign policy caused this. Who does the united nothing authorize the US to retaliate against after an incident like that?
Do you think Saddam was buying food with that money? Don’t be ridiculas. Iraq was a sponser of terror, plain and simple.
[quote]
The 2nd Iraq war to the best of my knowledge was not sanctioned by the UN and the US was certainly not attacked by the souvereign nation of Iraq.[/quote]
Because they are such a peacefull nation.
The US tried to go through the UN, however they once again proved to be an impetant orginazation. And which countries were involved in the oil for food scandel? I’m trying to remember.
Wasn’t it the same countries that were so against the US led invasion of Iraq? Could they have something to lose from the fall of Saddam’s regime? Use your head and put the pieces together.
france, russia, and germany would never have allowed that, they were profiting too much.
God bless GW for having the balls to not be hamstrung by the assholes at the UN.
I never claimed that there were no reasons to attack Iraq, even without the UN?s approval.
That does not change however that it was in clear violation of the UN charta. I posted that rainjack had no problems with that and yet insisted that the Iranians are to be attacked for breaking the rules.
What I’m saying is that the UN is a useless, impotent orginazation that the US derives no benefit from belonging to.
By following the Un charter the US would be a weaker nation. But that’s what the UN wants.
I would love to see the United States leave the UN and kick their asses out off of US soil.
What I’m saying is that the UN is a useless, impotent orginazation that the US derives no benefit from belonging to.
By following the Un charter the US would be a weaker nation. But that’s what the UN wants.
I would love to see the United States leave the UN and kick their asses out off of US soil.
The UN is a joke.
[/quote]
Well,
that seems to be a point of view that is shared by your administration.
But you do agree that it smells of hypocritical bullshit when the current US administration doesn?t give a shit about international law or agreements if it doesn?t want to, but is now completely flummoxed because the Iranians allegedly don?t give a shit either?
Though one of the main lessons to be learned from the Bush administration is this:
If you are mentioned as part of the axis-of-evil you better have nuclear weapons or get ready to get some. If you look at the US approach to North Korea and to Iraq that makes all the difference in the world.
I swear, what is the deal with all of these idiots spewing outright lies and trying to pass them as fact?
[/quote]
When the truth won’t work they simply substitute it for what sounds good, such as: “The only reason we went to war is for oil.” No question that’s the dumbest comment ever made about the Iraq conflict.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
When the truth won’t work they simply substitute it for what sounds good, such as: “The only reason we went to war is for oil.” No question that’s the dumbest comment ever made about the Iraq conflict.
[/quote]
I understand that and I agree 100%. But don’t you think they should at least try out some new lies? The one’s they are using now have been debunked for 2 and a half years.
Hedo raises an important point, but it isn’t exactly the one he stated.
If Iran gets it’s hands on nukes, it can afford to sit around until there is a moment in time when the US finds itself preoccupied elsewhere, unable to strike for some reason, either due to domestic policy or international affairs.
The problem with Iran is that it is indeed a fanatic state. Sure, they may be dissidents, but they are not in power. An islamofascist state may be able to wait, but it certainly will have no compunction against striking out, however unwise that may be.
I would argue however, that though islamofascists hate us, that this doesn’t mean that everyone hates us, or that more hatred cannot be created. Hatred is not a simple “on/off” situation that is currently “on”. Simplistic viewpoints of this nature are extremely stupid and extremely deadly.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
ZEB wrote:
When the truth won’t work they simply substitute it for what sounds good, such as: “The only reason we went to war is for oil.” No question that’s the dumbest comment ever made about the Iraq conflict.
I understand that and I agree 100%. But don’t you think they should at least try out some new lies? The one’s they are using now have been debunked for 2 and a half years.
[/quote]
Both of you honestly don?t think that it helped in the decision making process that the Iraq has high quality oil that is easily found and can be drilled with little cost?
I guess the fact that the US needs a strategic partner in the region and that Saudi Arabia is becoming inreasingly unreliable also was never part of the equation?
Or maybe they want to keep Saudi-Arabia as a partner, but want to use a democratic Iraq as leverage?
It may not have entered Bush?s mind but neocons never-ever thought of that? Are you telling me that you think conservatives in the administration are frightenigly shortsighted and stupid?
I voted for Bush and still believe he’s doing the best job he can. That being said, I also believe the US is headed for trouble. I think a good portion of our troops are tired and ready to see the Iraq conflict end. They have been away much longer than anticipated and are in more of a fight than they bargined for.
Now you’re going to tell them to gear up for another go round, this time in Iran? We don’t have the military might to go into ALL nations who disregard UN rules or are developing nukes. I think sooner or later we are going to spread ourselves too thin. To use a football analogy, should we concentrate on defense for now and not offense? Do we have the resources for both? We once did but now I’m not so sure.
[quote]bluey wrote:
Using nuclear weapons (tactical?) to destroy other nuclear weapons?
How is Iran a threat to America? Even if Iran has nuclear weapons how are they going to deliver them to continental America? They don?t have the missiles capable of reaching continental America. They don?t have the Shiite terrorist network to deliver them to continental America.
It is an old ploy, when you have domestic problems create a foreign enemy for distraction. Terrorism is a domestic problem created by immigration and multiculturalism. No amount of impotent militarism is going to fix it.
I wonder what Tehrangeles will be like once their kin are nuked? Blowback?
?It is commonly used when referring to the large number (est. 600,000) of Iranian-Americans residing in Los Angeles.?
[/quote]
bluey,
Even if you are correct, which I don’t know, it seems the proper point of stepping in to stop them, if we are going to do so, is before they get a nuclear warhead, not before they get a delivery system capable of reaching North America.
As an uneducated guess, rocket technology seems easier to develop and/or obtain than nuclear technology, and we will have a hard time using any conventional force at all if they obtain a nuclear weapon, even with only short-range delivery capability.
Both of you honestly don?t think that it helped in the decision making process that the Iraq has high quality oil that is easily found and can be drilled with little cost?
I guess the fact that the US needs a strategic partner in the region and that Saudi Arabia is becoming inreasingly unreliable also was never part of the equation?
Or maybe they want to keep Saudi-Arabia as a partner, but want to use a democratic Iraq as leverage?
It may not have entered Bush?s mind but neocons never-ever thought of that? Are you telling me that you think conservatives in the administration are frightenigly shortsighted and stupid? [/quote]
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m certainly not going to tell you that strategic considerations for the Persian Gulf played no part in the Administration’s decisions. If they based this action on any single factor, I would think they were indeed frighteningly shortsighted and stupid – and it would contradict what they said going in (I believe they advanced 4 main factors, though the debate always centered on WMD).
“The Muslems” aren’t at war with you, a very, very small number of individuals are. We disagree on a lot of things, but if we disagree here, there’s a serious problem. Do you feel that the US is at war with Islam?[/quote]
This is true – and they’re killing a lot more Muslims than they are Westerners
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
And I think the term “jihad” is used much more by the media than by the terrorists, but I could be wrong; I haven’t exactly seen a lot of terrorist communications or even heard the messages that have been aired.
Using the term “Irani” or “Iranian” is obviously immaterial, whereas using the term “jihad” inappropriately implicates an entire religion, and it does this unfairly since the Qu’ran doesn’t teach people to do this sort of thing (retarded clerics do that).[/quote]
The media says a lot more than the terrorists, period.
I think the fact that the terrorists use the word, and that certain Muslim clerics call for such “jihads” justifies the use of the word.
This is especially true with Isalm, that has no real central authority figure like a Pope to speak out against the terrorist-rallying clerics and overrule them on the point of what can be a “jihad.”
