| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The King Of Karaoke |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 21:25:10
As predicted several months ago June has marked the month that the US invades Iran
"Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States."
Full article here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9199.htm |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| kelladwella |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 03:20:36
Man, this is a scary topic name.
I alway have to remind me, that this thread got started half a year ago and is not one of these newsflash threads. |
| Newo |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 02:20:41
quote:
you can't honestly criticize past and current us foriegn policy at the same time while failing to put forth a cogent solution
Require skeptics to solve the situation before accepting their criticism, this is a phoney argument - though Iīm not accusing you of knowingly manipulating (plus, for a person calls theyself Angry Elvis youīre ohso polite). I donīt need to know how to fix my lawnmower before I can say it doesnīt cut the grass.
p.s. leaders on this landmass are just as criminally insane and opposed to evolution (not to mention prone to sharing bankinghouses too) as are ones in yours so Iīm the last person youīll have rallying about the Big Bad America.
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| waxinnmilkin |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 01:41:54
quote:
Originally posted by Angry Elvis
quote:
we could NEVER criticize anyone outside our own areas of expertise, right?
umm,,,,no
i was refering to comments made earlier in this thread
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love***
I think you can see the solutions if you want to. |
| Angry Elvis |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 17:12:50
quote:
we could NEVER criticize anyone outside our own areas of expertise, right?
umm,,,,no
i was refering to comments made earlier in this thread
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love*** |
| VoVat |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 13:31:24
quote:
you can't honestly criticize past and current us foriegn policy at the same time while failing to put forth a cogent solution
People keep saying this, and I've never really been able to understand it. Sure, it would be NICE if people could come up with better solutions, but isn't that what our elected officials are supposed to do? Isn't that why we vote for them, and why they get our tax money in their paychecks? Just because I couldn't do someone's job any better doesn't mean they can do it well. If that were the case, we could NEVER criticize anyone outside our own areas of expertise, right?
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| waxinnmilkin |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 11:38:33
quote:
Originally posted by Angry Elvis
seems to me that a lot of folks are grateful they have something to criticize without the burden of suggesting an alternative
imo the problem of what to do with chaos in the third world is the one thing to which the pop doctrines of uninformed multiculturalism and transnationalism have no answer
the problems in the third world won't go away, and in this age of globalization and mass immigration, they are no longer separable from events in the first world - it's just a short planeride or clandestine border crossing away
you can't honestly criticize past and current us foriegn policy at the same time while failing to put forth a cogent solution,it's intellectually dishonest and you're just kicking the can down the road once more, history repeats - it's 1936 all over again
islam has bloody borders, if you fail to take these actors at their word it is to your own peril
i don't see why a murderous extremist right wing theocracy should be allowed to make their own decisions in regards to the posession and use of nuclear weaponry while being aware of the way they treat their own youth or countrymen and the methods or strategy they desire to use against their geographical neighbors since at least 1979
contrary to pop opinion the us is not the devil in this detail
welcome to the modern age of "global enlightenment"
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love***
"the problems of today cannot be resolved at the same
level of thinking that created them"
Albert Einstein |
| Angry Elvis |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 10:11:46
seems to me that a lot of folks are grateful they have something to criticize without the burden of suggesting an alternative
imo the problem of what to do with chaos in the third world is the one thing to which the pop doctrines of uninformed multiculturalism and transnationalism have no answer
the problems in the third world won't go away, and in this age of globalization and mass immigration, they are no longer separable from events in the first world - it's just a short planeride or clandestine border crossing away
you can't honestly criticize past and current us foriegn policy at the same time while failing to put forth a cogent solution,it's intellectually dishonest and you're just kicking the can down the road once more, history repeats - it's 1936 all over again
islam has bloody borders, if you fail to take these actors at their word it is to your own peril
i don't see why a murderous extremist right wing theocracy should be allowed to make their own decisions in regards to the posession and use of nuclear weaponry while being aware of the way they treat their own youth or countrymen and the methods or strategy they desire to use against their geographical neighbors since at least 1979
contrary to pop opinion the us is not the devil in this detail
welcome to the modern age of "global enlightenment"
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love*** |
| Newo |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 02:20:05
quote:
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
Second verse same as the first. Keep public happy by pretending to be diplomatic about it while all punting the aircraft and weapons over as fast as you can for a shitkicking.
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| waxinnmilkin |
Posted - 01/21/2006 : 14:47:56
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodJablome
This thread reminds of one of my favorite Dubya quotes.
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
Well I got a foggy notion, do it again
|
| HeywoodJablome |
Posted - 01/21/2006 : 13:41:50
This thread reminds of one of my favorite Dubya quotes.
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." |
| waxinnmilkin |
Posted - 01/21/2006 : 11:15:06
quote:
Originally posted by Angry Elvis
http://www.abfiran.org/english/memorial-browse-1.php
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love***
these are the ones reported. ma friends say the body-count is about one million. |
| Angry Elvis |
Posted - 01/21/2006 : 11:02:03
http://www.abfiran.org/english/memorial-browse-1.php
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love*** |
| darwin |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 09:27:13
It's very cool to have another perspective on the forum. And thanks for putting with my limited knowledge on the subject. |
| waxinnmilkin |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 20:47:41
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by waxinnmilkin
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
What's wrong with a independent Kurdish state? They seem to be the only group in Iraq that have their shit together (including the US and Britain).
I answered your question already. There are 15 million Kurds in Turkey, we've been living in harmony for 1000 years. Go to the biggest cities in Turkey and you will see what i mean. They are the frame stones for the Turkish Republic once youll try to take them out you will destroy a building of 70 million people.
I'm no expert on this subject, but if the Kurds in Turkey have been living in harmony for 1000 years, then Turkey doesn't need to worry about them joining with the Kurds in Iraq to form a Kurdistan. I think Turkey is worried and this suggests that the Kurds of Turkey aren't so happy.
To ivandivel: I understand Europe's desire and need for a stable Turkey, but isn't it this policy of anything for stability that has created many of the problems in the Middle East. Britain and the US have been creating false nations (like Iraq) and proping them up despite all of their faults (like human rights violations and the support of terrorism/suicide bombers) as long as the nations are strong and stable (i.e. keeping the oil running). My knowledge of the history of the region is weak, but it seems like nations would be more stable perhaps more peaceful if they had common ethnic backgrounds (i.e. don't stick three ethnic groups together and by fiat call it a nation).
Good arguments. Turks in Turkey aren't so happy as well. But it all has to do with how the country is run by its governments.
The history of nationalism is not too old. It only goes back to French Revolution in 1789. And history says, nationalism is not the best solution to give people the freedom they need. (Kosovo, Cyprus, Balkans in general esp. during World War I).
I agree you on giving Kurds or any other nation the right of self-determination. And i am sure given the self determination they'll still choose to live in Turkish Republic becos they have benefited from it in the past (education, liberal economy, infrastructure) in Turkey.
And until then we must find a way to make them happier of course.
Then again i am sure, the Big Brother wont ever like such a solution. |
| darwin |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 20:08:10
quote:
Originally posted by waxinnmilkin
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
What's wrong with a independent Kurdish state? They seem to be the only group in Iraq that have their shit together (including the US and Britain).
I answered your question already. There are 15 million Kurds in Turkey, we've been living in harmony for 1000 years. Go to the biggest cities in Turkey and you will see what i mean. They are the frame stones for the Turkish Republic once youll try to take them out you will destroy a building of 70 million people.
I'm no expert on this subject, but if the Kurds in Turkey have been living in harmony for 1000 years, then Turkey doesn't need to worry about them joining with the Kurds in Iraq to form a Kurdistan. I think Turkey is worried and this suggests that the Kurds of Turkey aren't so happy.
To ivandivel: I understand Europe's desire and need for a stable Turkey, but isn't it this policy of anything for stability that has created many of the problems in the Middle East. Britain and the US have been creating false nations (like Iraq) and proping them up despite all of their faults (like human rights violations and the support of terrorism/suicide bombers) as long as the nations are strong and stable (i.e. keeping the oil running). My knowledge of the history of the region is weak, but it seems like nations would be more stable perhaps more peaceful if they had common ethnic backgrounds (i.e. don't stick three ethnic groups together and by fiat call it a nation). |
| waxinnmilkin |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 19:40:43
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
My question has nothing to do with America, Bush, or American foreign policy, just what the right thing to do is. Some extremist wants to build a nuclear industry in his country. On the one hand, it's their country and not our business, on the other, how far are we willing to go in letting people like this (I make my judgements solely on his rahter skewed perspective of Israel) have and use resources capable of bringing about the end of civilization as we know it?
If we must talk Bush, I'm not sure which of the two men would be stupider. It strikes me as pretty darned ridiculous to go shooting your mouth off about wiping a country/race off the face of the Earth and then immediately declaring your intention to develop nuclear power... oh, but not for weapons. Why not? Anyone who is unstable enough to suggest wiping a country from the planet surely has no moral objections. Unless of course, it's all baiting and taking advantage of the attitude many of us have developed after the Iraq debacle so that any action against Iran would seem unthinkable to anyone.
Just my thoughts on it...
 "If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."
Moral?
Mullah Rejime slaughtered 1000.000 people of its own. Where were the minds of Reagan and senior Bush at the time?
These people were always tyrants and today they still have blood in their hands. I think it is a bit late to think on moral side of the war here.
When a state tortures and kills its own people, it's ok. When they threaten Israel it is not. US is the one supported the green line around Soviet Union (the policy of supportin Islamic rejimes in countries neighbouring Russia). First Bush should apologize for those suffered from his policies in the last three decades. |
| waxinnmilkin |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 19:25:31
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
Mine was hardly an easy judgement. My points were and remain that no nation wants to be "liberated" by another and that Turkey should not be allowed in the EU while its troops occupy 40% of another nation.
I got some heaven in my head
You are right. And i believe even the Turkish Cypriots are not very comfortable with the situation too. But at least Turkish troops are only on the nerves of Turkish Cypriots not whole Cyprus. And second, Turkey has the advantage of using its rights, agreed by Greece and Britain with Zurich Treaty and aiming to protect the peace in the Island. I am sure Greek Cypriots will return to their homes after they agree with the Turks on a favorable resolution for both sides.
And yes, Turkish troops should leave. We, Turkish people are in favor of an Independent, united Cyprus.
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 19:04:15
Mine was hardly an easy judgement. My points were and remain that no nation wants to be "liberated" by another and that Turkey should not be allowed in the EU while its troops occupy 40% of another nation.
I got some heaven in my head
|
| waxinnmilkin |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 18:48:48
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
quote:
Originally posted by waxinnmilkin
I don't know what that has to the with our discussion. But i guess you may need to know more about history, Kathryn:
Discussions in these threads tend to go on tangents.
What you linked to is my point exactly:
"The Turks invaded and forcibly portioned the island, driving an estimated 200,000 Greek Cypriots from the north to the south of the island. ... The Turks declared the north to be an independent Turkish state but this declaration is recognised only by Turkey...
The future of Cyprus cannot now be separated from the European Union. ... Turkey aspires to membership of the EU and a settlement in Cyprus is vital to that ambition.
I got some heaven in my head
Maybe you cant read the whole article. I'll take some quotes for ya.
"In 1947 the island of Rhodes became part of Greece and this heightened the Greek Cypriot fervour for enosis. The British offered a constitution but this was rejected. In 1950 the Bishop of Kitium, Makarios, became Archbishop and Ethnarch. Under his popular leadership, Makarios mobilised the Greek Cypriots and also developed a large following in Greece. The Greek government took up the cause of enosis, but with Colonel Nasser in control of Egypt, Britain was determined to hold on to Cyprus as a base of operations to protect the Suez Canal. In 1955 the British Government invited Greece and Turkey to discussions on the future of Cyprus. Greece accepted, thus tacitly recognising the right of Turkey to be consulted on the Cyprus question. The conference failed and in February 1957 negotiations were transferred to the United Nations. The result of this was Resolution 1013 which announced the principle of the establishment of an independent Cypriot state.
However, an independent Cypriot state was not what the Greek Cypriots wanted and it is believed that Archbishop Makarios encouraged the emergence of the guerrilla force EOKA. (An acyronym in Greek meaning the Freedom Organisation of Cypriot Fighters.) EOKA, as has been mentioned, replicated the tactics of the I.R.A. in Ireland during the period 1919 1921; attacking the British security forces, the British administration, and in particular Greek and Turkish Cypriots working for that administration. During the period of the emergency 1956 1959 , EOKA, led by a Cypriot who had served with the Greek Army, Colonel Grivas, was responsible for more than 500 deaths. It is estimated that 140 of them were British, 84, Turkish Cypriots, and more than 200 Greek Cypriots. The British forces under Field Marshal Sir John Harding were responsible for more than 160 deaths".
We can discuss it in another thread as this is about a possible war in the Middle East. I just want to say, listen to both sides of a conflict before you make easy judgements. |
| waxinnmilkin |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 18:46:35
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
What's wrong with a independent Kurdish state? They seem to be the only group in Iraq that have their shit together (including the US and Britain).
I answered your question already. There are 15 million Kurds in Turkey, we've been living in harmony for 1000 years. Go to the biggest cities in Turkey and you will see what i mean. They are the frame stones for the Turkish Republic once youll try to take them out you will destroy a building of 70 million people.
(They seem to be the only group in Iraq that have their shit together (including the US and Britain).)
No they don't. They can only keep their shit together as long as coalition forces are staying. You know why? There's so much oil and there's too less water.
And for water and oil we will be seeing the Kurdish, Arab and Shiat tribes fighting each other. Just wait until the dust settles down.
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 18:43:15
quote:
Originally posted by waxinnmilkin
I don't know what that has to the with our discussion. But i guess you may need to know more about history, Kathryn:
Discussions in these threads tend to go on tangents.
What you linked to is my point exactly:
"The Turks invaded and forcibly portioned the island, driving an estimated 200,000 Greek Cypriots from the north to the south of the island. ... The Turks declared the north to be an independent Turkish state but this declaration is recognised only by Turkey...
The future of Cyprus cannot now be separated from the European Union. ... Turkey aspires to membership of the EU and a settlement in Cyprus is vital to that ambition.
I got some heaven in my head
|
| waxinnmilkin |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 18:26:34
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
quote:
Originally posted by waxinnmilkin
A united Iran that doesnt want to be liberated by US.
Thank you for posting. You made good points. Nobody wants to be "liberated" by another nation - and Cypriots in 74 didn't want to be "liberated" by Turkey.
I got some heaven in my head
I don't know what that has to do with our discussion. But i guess you may need to know more about history, Kathryn:
http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/threemon_article4.php?id=33
Have a good read.
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 15:01:21
quote:
Originally posted by ivandivel
Anyway you look at it - Turkey and itīs political situation needs to be taken into consideration.
True, as evidenced by its struggles to gain EU entry. But nothing should be done to help Turkey, economically or otherwise, until it removes its troops from Cyprus which it invaded entirely unprovoked.
I got some heaven in my head
|
| ivandivel |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 13:56:52
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
What's wrong with a independent Kurdish state? They seem to be the only group in Iraq that have their shit together (including the US and Britain).
I am not sure that Americans appreciate how close the war in Irak is to Europe - and the strategical importance of Turkey to Europe. Iīd be very worried if I was a Turk.
A Kurdistan without the blessing of Turkey is a big, big problem for a struggling Europe that need a friendly and stable Turkey - and still is uncertain about wether they want to admit a muslim nation into the E.U. I admit, this might ultimately be a european problem given the more aggresive and outspoken anti-muslim statements given by prominent politicians the last years. Anyway you look at it - Turkey and itīs political situation needs to be taken into consideration. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 12:03:03
quote:
Originally posted by waxinnmilkin
A united Iran that doesnt want to be liberated by US.
Thank you for posting. You made good points. Nobody wants to be "liberated" by another nation - and Cypriots in 74 didn't want to be "liberated" by Turkey.
I got some heaven in my head
|
| darwin |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 11:27:32
What's wrong with a independent Kurdish state? They seem to be the only group in Iraq that have their shit together (including the US and Britain). |
| waxinnmilkin |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 10:40:40
Hello friends,
This will be my first post. The topic and discussions are very interesting, i couldn't help myself posting in.
I am a Turkish student, doing master in Germany. I have some Iranian friends. Maybe i can give you another view on the issue, how Middle East people are generally feeling.
When such topics as wars, natural disasters and terrorist attacks are being discussed, i see theres generally a mention of 'the other'. I think we're all connected. If a Texan Cowbboy farts in US, therell be earthquake in the Middle East. And the opposite is as well true.
Iranian people are generally hoping for democracy in the near future, and they are fighting hard for it against the military and mullahs. The hand of the liberals is strong first time in last three decades. But it's all going to be focked up by US and Israel, Newo is right: The people of Middle East dont want war but aggressive tone of Mr. Bush can turn a saint into a suicide-bomber. I am afraid we will see the determination of mullahs and liberals(democrats of Iran) in patriotism.
Furthermore i am afraid that's what Mr. Bush wanted. A united Iran that doesnt want to be liberated by US.
Turkey's east is surrounded by unstable countries (Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria). Iraq is now a weak country with loosely tied states, so will be Iran then Syria. People fear that Turkey is also in Bush's democracy-building agenda. Borders with Iraq are loose. U. States is building a Kurdish State in North of Iraq, training its Army which is a bad thing because we have at least 15 million Turkish-Kurds in Turkey. About 3 million has Iran and Syria, invasion of these countries will lead to an independent Kurdish State. A civil war and Middle East will set afire.
Thousands of people have died since the beginning of US's preemptive war. Millions more will die and i don't think US will ever profit from this bloody business.
Last of all US is moving its air bases in Milan, Italy to Izmir, Turkey, the city where i was born. It really pisses me off.
Thanks for reading. |
| ivandivel |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 07:45:01
I donīt think it is possible to isolate this down to a question about what to do with Iran and the bomb.
Second, I believe that one american senator or guvernor allready has spoken in favor of bombing Iran. The USA is supposed to be civilized. What is the principal difference? So, what should be done with the USA? Maybe such a question needs an answer too.
Ok - Iran - my humble opinion is that the west needs to consider actions and ways of behaving that at the moment is considered too painfull to even think about - maybe even humiliating. My main worry is not Iran, but a whole bunch of muslims that feel they have been humiliated - to an extreme. So "taking out" Iran is not an option (unless you really wish for more suicide-bombers), and further humiliation (as defined by muslims)is asking for trouble.
That means admitting mistakes - and even more important - learning from mistakes. That means reconsidering certain issues regarding Israel (US-policy that is). The dumbest thing the US has done this far is making democracy a "western" invention and characteristic - which has made it real easy for muslim extremists to make ordinary muslims disregard democratic values as western imperialism. If I am not totally wrong, Iran was moving towards more openess and democracy until this whole american "letīs spread our word" and help this dumb folks out with Saddam thing started.
China and Russia are far more delicate about this than the west has ever been.
And maybe, just maybe, the west should start concentrating on their own little countries and their interior lives instead of worrying so much about the lunatics we donīt understand. There are so many troublesome, "anti-democratic" things happening here right now, and stuff that needs to be sorted out before we can be much of an example to anyone else. Government-corporations mixing, public health care, human-rights (surveilance and inprisonment without going to court)schools, guns, drugs, drug-companies, fake research, religious extremism, minimum wage etc. What country in the world would sanely accept these values?
So,
|
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 03:12:32
I agree cult of frank that is the correct question..
but
it's hard to actually find out what the "right thing to do is"..... Sadam was a lunatic and killed lots of innocent people, sure... but just removing him seems to have caused as much harm as if he was there is the first place..... And the Iraqi people and soldiers who have died since are of a Direct result of the Invasion and Bush's decision, how are they better off....
If you know your actions are going to cause deaths (as in war) then how do u justify it.. counting numbers?? surely this is not what we come down to?? |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 19:27:49
Heh heh, yes it is. That's what's interesting about it, though. Not so cut and dried as Iraq. :)
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| ivandivel |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 18:47:27
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
My question has nothing to do with America, Bush, or American foreign policy, just what the right thing to do is. Some extremist wants to build a nuclear industry in his country. On the one hand, it's their country and not our business, on the other, how far are we willing to go in letting people like this (I make my judgements solely on his rahter skewed perspective of Israel) have and use resources capable of bringing about the end of civilization as we know it?
If we must talk Bush, I'm not sure which of the two men would be stupider. It strikes me as pretty darned ridiculous to go shooting your mouth off about wiping a country/race off the face of the Earth and then immediately declaring your intention to develop nuclear power... oh, but not for weapons. Why not? Anyone who is unstable enough to suggest wiping a country from the planet surely has no moral objections. Unless of course, it's all baiting and taking advantage of the attitude many of us have developed after the Iraq debacle so that any action against Iran would seem unthinkable to anyone.
Just my thoughts on it...
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."
I decided not to think too much about this. It`s a difficult issue. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 12:26:03
My question has nothing to do with America, Bush, or American foreign policy, just what the right thing to do is. Some extremist wants to build a nuclear industry in his country. On the one hand, it's their country and not our business, on the other, how far are we willing to go in letting people like this (I make my judgements solely on his rahter skewed perspective of Israel) have and use resources capable of bringing about the end of civilization as we know it?
If we must talk Bush, I'm not sure which of the two men would be stupider. It strikes me as pretty darned ridiculous to go shooting your mouth off about wiping a country/race off the face of the Earth and then immediately declaring your intention to develop nuclear power... oh, but not for weapons. Why not? Anyone who is unstable enough to suggest wiping a country from the planet surely has no moral objections. Unless of course, it's all baiting and taking advantage of the attitude many of us have developed after the Iraq debacle so that any action against Iran would seem unthinkable to anyone.
Just my thoughts on it...
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| ivandivel |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 11:54:13
1) Being stuck abroad for the last 4 months, I've discovered the new york times sunday edition. In the lastest edition, thereīs a worrying article about the new foreign-policies hammered out by some democratic think-thank group. It seems the democrats, maybe worried about not being macho enough, will advertise a more aggressive policy regarding US-military involvement abroad - and broaden the definition of when itīs ok to use the army as well. What the **** is going on in America?
2) My personal, amateurish opinion is that Iran will never be attacked by the US alone, without support from Russia and China - at which point Iran would back off anyway. There's too much oil involved, too much money at stake, and too many humiliated muslims to worry about. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is obviously a derranged populist, but maybe not as dumb as Bush. Itīs hard to tell since Bush never seems to say anything unscripted. Anyway, Bush senior was made a fool of by Hussein, Bush junior will suffer the same fate - but by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Oh well, at least Bushīs friends gets to medicate teenage americans. |
| Angry Elvis |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 08:01:00
some people seem to be enamored with conspiracy theories
how do you like this one?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hojjatieh
maybe the story of the 12th imam can pique your curiosity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi
why are these people being persecuted for their religious beliefs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai
seems to me they are the best hope for a reformation of islam
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love*** |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 06:46:08
He has some good points. It is true that the western world does treat IRAN like a child. You can't have this, you can't have that, etc. It like telling your neighbour he can't have knife when you own 20 rocket launchers.
Sanctions are'nt going to work either. All they do is hurt the civilans, making them more angry at the western world for punishing the common people of IRAN. You can't drive a country into the ground, try and impose regime change and then expect everything to go hunky dory.
|
|
|
