It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US will invade Iran in '06

page: 28
0
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Once again sminkeypinkey, you are professing to be the sole voice of Europe. How can one, I'm assuming non-government official, speak for all of Europe? That's a monumental task, and I'm sure it's quite a burden you have on your shoulders.


The thing is nobody is pushing for war at this point. I'm American, so I guess I also have the right to speak for my entire continent when I say that we wish to avoid war as well.




posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
If you want to ignore the thrust of what I'm saying with silly diversionary jibes about 'speaking for Europe' that is your concern.

But for all that you must surely be aware of European feeling on the matter.

Did you miss the huge anti-war demos in umteen European countries (including the UK)?
Or how about how the Iraq war came within a whisker of bringing down what had been until then the most popular UK government in decades?

Do you really need reminding of the opinion polls here?

Face the truth, Europe is not keen on supporting America's current appetite for 'adventures' in the ME.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
One question on that poll- were the Iranians on which this poll based living in Iran or outside it? Most Iranians in Europe and other places fled from the Shah, so they will obviously HATE the Ayatollahs (Like all Florida Cubans hate Castro because they lost big time with him, or fled and got rich in America later). I know several people who fled from the Shah, one is a hot chick by the way


[edit on 27-1-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   


The thing is nobody is pushing for war at this point.


Do you read these boards?
Lots of people on here are pushing for war.

Dont mistake Europe's push for diplomatic action as any evidence that they will join us in any military action either. If we go in, we'll be doing it alone. They don't want Iran to get nukes, no. They want to go to war with Iran even less.

The US government is not openly pushing for war (yet), they're playing along with the diplomatic route for now, trying to get as much political cover ("we tried diplomacy and it didn't work!") as they can for the use of force. Just like they did with Iraq.

Not that the Iranian hardline policy is helping, it appears (I suspect for purely domestic political reasons) that they are looking for a fight as well.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
If you want to ignore the thrust of what I'm saying with silly diversionary jibes about 'speaking for Europe' that is your concern.


I didn't ignore any thrusts, I understand that Europe doesn't want anymore wars. I feel the same, war is the most horrible thing men engage in. However, I fear some will be so anti-war, that they will scoff any percieved threat until "it swims up, and bites you on the @ss" (quote from the movie Jaws). Do you doubt in the least that if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it will lead to an immediate nuclear standoff with Israel?



Do you really need reminding of the opinion polls here?


No, I don't. However I think your governments are gonna do what they're gonna do, regardless....



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Do you doubt in the least that if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it will lead to an immediate nuclear standoff with Israel?


- That depends what you mean.

Frankly I could well imagine a healthy dose of 'MAD' going a long way to helping settle things down there.

But let's not kid ourselves, that is totally a matter of speculation, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon - nevermind a stockpile of them - and is several years away from having a nuclear weapon - and even that only applies is if she is trying to manufacture them right now (for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever).

Mind you; naturally the last thing the current US admin wants is a country like Iran to have a real and effective deterrent, how could they then push them around or attack them whenever they felt like it?

Certainly current US policy couldn't incentivise people harder to go and get a credible and effective deterrent if they tried.
That's what is making the world a much more dangerous place IMO.


No, I don't.


- Well then let's cut out the silly comments about me 'speaking for all the peoples of Europe' then huh?
What I said is a fair reflection of popular opinion here.


However I think your governments are gonna do what they're gonna do, regardless....


- No I don't think so.
We just had that.
That was the one and only opportunity for that kind of approach and it almost destroyed the present British government.

In some respects you guys did us a favour.
We now get a free vote in Parliament to decide on going to war - something unheard of until the recent Iraq war forced the government to take this step to further democracy here, I suppose I should say thank you.

However that was then this is now.
There is no way on earth the current British government could get even their own party to agree such a step, they will not be taking that same action over Iran because they know they could never get it through the House of Commons.

You will also not find one British opposition party supporting such a move either because they know the British public would be so utterly hostile to any such action (even post the 70/7/05 & 21/07/05 bomb attacks).

......and if you imagine there is the slightest bit of popular support in continental Europe for such a move, dream on.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Lets stop the speculation if or what if Iran have nuclear weapons after all is many other less desirable countries with them and US has done a darn thing to stop them.

Regardless of the whole idea of US invading Iran, the true is that even if US with the UN are working in diplomacy Iran will not stop their nuclear projects.

US does not have to invade them yet Israel will start the attacks; they already vow to do just that.

Israel wanted the downfall of Iraq and Saddam and he got it.

Now Israel wants the downfall of Iran and this time they will start the entire process themselves with or without UN or US help.

Why is that?

Very simple, even if US will never directly Encourage Israel on attacking a sovereign country it will not stop them either.

For over a year Israel has been helping the US identified the areas that Iran has for possible targets.

Israel knows that if they target Iran first, Iran will retaliate like any other country to protect their borders.

When the time is right US will let Israel lose and back him up as needed with the help of the UN.

But the world with the help of US propaganda will never perceive it as an act of war from part of Israel but the retaliation by Iran on Israel will.

Then US can force the UN into getting involved and it will be not excused as why not too.

Then the invasion of Iran can be justified, but first things will be stir up with targeting areas in Iran to see if ethnic tensions bring a regime change before invasion.

Kind of what they hope for it in Iraq but it turned sour.

Right now it will be suicidal for the US to invade Iran with not help from the UN, financially we can not afford another expensive war.

But an intervention to aid another country will be enough.

This whole thing has been in the planning for a year, and is going to happen.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- That depends what you mean.

Frankly I could well imagine a healthy dose of 'MAD' going a long way to helping settle things down there.


Yeah, that's just what they need. That's just what the world needs, more people with the ability to end it. Very peaceloving way of thinking, the more nukes the better!




But let's not kid ourselves, that is totally a matter of speculation, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon - nevermind a stockpile of them - and is several years away from having a nuclear weapon - and even that only applies is if she is trying to manufacture them right now (for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever).


Absolutely no evidence whatsoever, huh? Whatever you say....



Mind you; naturally the last thing the current US admin wants is a country like Iran to have a real and effective deterrent, how could they then push them around or attack them whenever they felt like it?


Sure, typical. Let's put the entire world in more danger for generations to come, just so you can be comforted that Iran has an effective deterrent against the current US admin, that will be departing in 2008. Genius. It's a shame Bush has such a profound impact on you, that you potentially invite your own demise just to see him "deterred".



Certainly current US policy couldn't incentivise people harder to go and get a credible and effective deterrent if they tried.
That's what is making the world a much more dangerous place IMO.


Incentivise? Is that even a word? It probably is, but it sounds like something Bush would say, lol. But yes you're right, the best way to make the world safer, is by adding more nuclear weapons.




- Well then let's cut out the silly comments about me 'speaking for all the peoples of Europe' then huh?
What I said is a fair reflection of popular opinion here.


Let's not. Popular opinion is hardly 100% of Europe, and popular opinion can change. You do not speak for Europe, and in fact, if things end up getting ugly, let's be sure to recap this exchange and see who ends up being involved in what, how bout it?



......and if you imagine there is the slightest bit of popular support in continental Europe for such a move, dream on.


Again, we'll just have to wait and see how things play out, won't we? We'll have to see how your Euopean 'Borg collective', in which everybody shares the same brain, and the same "popular opinion" reacts.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Yeah, that's just what they need. That's just what the world needs, more people with the ability to end it. Very peaceloving way of thinking, the more nukes the better!


- It seems a stragne one doesn't it but if the net effect is that it puts an end to the crazy 'pre-emptive' war doctrine and stops new ME wars then, yes, it might well make for a better, more restrained, thinking and sober world.


Absolutely no evidence whatsoever, huh? Whatever you say....


- Yes, absolutely, there is not one shred of evidence that Iran currently has a nuclear bomb or is currently manufacturing them.


Sure, typical. Let's put the entire world in more danger for generations to come, just so you can be comforted that Iran has an effective deterrent against the current US admin, that will be departing in 2008. Genius.


- Much as I wish there was no such thing there is.

I believe deterrence works, 'we' all spent billions upon billions in that belief post WW2, I see absolutely no reason to imagine it has suddenly lost it's ability to restrain people champing at the bit to attack others.


It's a shame Bush has such a profound impact on you, that you potentially invite your own demise just to see him "deterred".


- This current regime in the US is merely the latest to be following this doctrine.

This is not just about Bush.

Actually there are plenty of US policy documents that go back to post WW2 (and in fact even pre WW2) talking about 'Imperial America' and the 'need' to dominate and eradicate and replace any administration not prepared to be subject to that dominance (the excuse used to do that - this time it's scary imagined Iranian nuclear weapons and scary Islamic 'end of days' tales - varies over time but the principle is the same regardless).


Incentivise? Is that even a word? It probably is, but it sounds like something Bush would say, lol. But yes you're right, the best way to make the world safer, is by adding more nuclear weapons.


- Sadly - as long as this insane policy of global US dominance is pursued - it appears so.
Crazy, eh?

But why on earth would anyone be surprised? The logic is irrefutable.

If it was good enough for us.......?


Let's not.


- OK, carry on with the silly comments then.

You still cannot deny that mu comments are a fair reflection of how majority opinion in western Europe is now.


Popular opinion is hardly 100% of Europe, and popular opinion can change.


- Now you are just playing with semantics.

Did I ever claim opinion in Europe was absolutely uniform?


You do not speak for Europe


- I have never claimed to; I am merely reflecting the truth of where European majority opinion is.


and in fact, if things end up getting ugly, let's be sure to recap this exchange and see who ends up being involved in what, how bout it?


- By all means.

But you'll have to excuse my curiosity, are you another American here who seems to imagine Europe has no experience of terrorism?
Do you really imagine that 'we' have no clue about what 'ugly' means?

I advise a check of the history books, we are well aware of what 'ugly' means and have a much greater and far longer experience of terrorism that the US does.


Again, we'll just have to wait and see how things play out, won't we? We'll have to see how your European 'Borg collective', in which everybody shares the same brain, and the same "popular opinion" reacts.


- I'm afraid I just find this absurd.

You might not like it being pointed out but you are fooling yourself if you honestly think majority European opinion is not firstly heavily against the present Iraq war and secondly heavily against having another ME war in Iran or Syria.

(.......and I'd bet the house that pre-emptive action in Nth Korea would attract majority condemnation in Europe too)

But OK, fine. I will be 'happy' to look back on this if we are cursed with the horrors begining again and another disasterous mess is entered into in the ME.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Im from Europe too, and I did not much liek to be spoken for, yet I also as being spoken, disagree with ANY war - and especially not from the one with Iran. It is like US army bombing us for yours atomic reactors...!


Second to that, it is just and only about oil sales - US must prevent oil being sold for euros at any cost - as long as it is sold for $, they could taxe the whole world and get stuff and oil just for the price of printing $ - witch is a pretty cool trick.
And Iranians are about to open the petroleum exchange stock market in March or August, so the date of the action is already know beforehand.

Other than that, the whole WMD (or atomic WMD) is not bogus after all - hell, after all the threats I would consider developing noclear weapon, nope? I think they should have it so they could say to america vicious threats just four words - "Go fick yourself, America!", because that is exactly what US of A deserve.

Yet US of A planed ahead. They already given Iranian goverment the blueprints to build a atomic bomb (!):
www.guardian.co.uk...
...no no wonder they can now accuse them of planing to build one - they delivered blueprints and also supplied all the threats - so - what choice Iran have?


Thanks to US of A - none.
Yet their 167 centrufuges can't enrich uran enought to create enought fission material in decades (!). And I also do believe that they give them the blueprints of more complicated, implosion design of nuke, witch require Plutonium Pu239 instead of Uranium 235. The difference? Plutonium you can only breed (and it took a hell of the time) into atomic reactor and the Iranians have NONE at present.
So, before they run their reactor for months, they are nowhere close of obtaining atomic weapon. Unless they bought some from Russians already - witch should explain the hard-statements towards US of A.

This or another way, they has the right to develop anything they see fit. And they have every reason to doing so.

As long, as Izrael did not admit their nukes and their Domina aren't inspected and their arsenal of nukes demilitarized, no-one on earth has the right to tell Iranians that they has no right to develop reactors and - possibly - nukes.

After all, US of A give them blueprints to build one. So, waht they expect?






posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
But you'll have to excuse my curiosity, are you another American here who seems to imagine Europe has no experience of terrorism?
Do you really imagine that 'we' have no clue about what 'ugly' means?

I advise a check of the history books, we are well aware of what 'ugly' means and have a much greater and far longer experience of terrorism that the US does.


No, I never said Europe has no experience with terrorism. My argument has nothing to do with terrorism really. But I'm well aware of your past troubles with the IRA, etc. My fear is of a nation not fueled by greed, like pretty much every other nuclear power, but a nation more fueled by religious doctrine obtaining nuclear weapons. MAD works for greedy nations, because there is no wealth or power to be had in a nuclear wasteland. However a nuclear power being fueled by religious doctrine, where it may be believed that god wants something to occur, and those who make it happen feel they will be greeted in heaven as heroes, may not be as deterred by MAD. Argue all you want that they're not that crazy, and that they really don't believe in their religion, but the truth is we don't know, and won't unless they get nukes. If you're wrong, we could very well all be dead. That would suck.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
My fear is of a nation not fueled by greed, like pretty much every other nuclear power, but a nation more fueled by religious doctrine obtaining nuclear weapons. MAD works for greedy nations, because there is no wealth or power to be had in a nuclear wasteland. However a nuclear power being fueled by religious doctrine, where it may be believed that god wants something to occur, and those who make it happen feel they will be greeted in heaven as heroes, may not be as deterred by MAD.


- You do know that 'those crazy guys' who don't 'have the same values as we do' is a standard propaganda point made about almost every adversary there has ever been?

It's just a small step up from such idiocy as 'sub human' etc etc.

......and let's not forget, there was a time with Russia where there used to be claims made that they didn't have a word for 'love' or some such nonsense and that they were willing to torch the world, in large part thanks to their utterly different 'values' and the fact they just didn't see it the same as 'us'.


Argue all you want that they're not that crazy, and that they really don't believe in their religion, but the truth is we don't know, and won't unless they get nukes. If you're wrong, we could very well all be dead. That would suck.


- They have their religious fundamentalist crazies willing to destroy people just as 'we' have people on our side willing to destroy innocent people given what they believe a sufficient reason.

But I think claims that 'they' are all insane (which is really what the 'suicide for God' theory is saying) are in themselves insane.

Paranoia is no grounds for anything, you may as well just hand yourself over to it totally and kill everyone.

Fundamentally the point is that the more 'we' crank up the tensions and threats the more likely it is that 'they' will respond aggressively.

Frankly I find Europe's response heartening; perhaps with a little thought, restraint and an active desire to lower the tensions we might see this resolved in a manner that does not require several tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands or millions) of deaths.

I can see no credible circumstances in which Iran could force a situation where 'we' all be dead.
That flies in the face of any realistic position or 'strength' they could possibly have........and pretending otherwise to try to justify a new ME war is IMO crazy.

Again, whilst I am not claiming to 'speak for all of Europe' I think you'll find this is one of the reasons why Europe simply does not believe the US assessment of the situation with Iran.
Iran has had WMDs for decades and long range missiles to deliver them ('threatening' Europe and Russia), they have not used them (not even against Israel.....which some seem determined to imagine they would do).
Why?
Because they know (if the desire ever entered their heads) that they would get a response in kind.

Deterrence. It works.

......and in this case even with Muslim people like those 'crazy' Iranians, right?


[edit on 27-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I never sad the Iranian people themselves were crazy, however those in power are religious fundamentalists, and I don't think they'll take a vote from the public as to whether or not they will do what they have been saying they will for so long. If Pat Robertson were president here, I'd have the same worries, do don't pull the "making the other side seem less human" card on me. And yes, a nuclear conflict in the ME could concievably escalate to a worldwide conflict, in which we could all be dead.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I never sad the Iranian people themselves were crazy, however those in power are religious fundamentalists, and I don't think they'll take a vote from the public as to whether or not they will do what they have been saying they will for so long.


- Yet it never seems to enter the equation that if they were as crazy as you claim they would have launched their missiles with the WMDs they already have, long ago.

They have not.

Like I said, the concept of a genuinely suicidal national leadership (which for all these years has shown no inkling of its alleged nature despite already being armed with WMDs and the means to deliver them for many years) requires so many people to be of a like mind and willing to take that insane step that serious consideration of it as a likely possibility is IMO itself insane.


If Pat Robertson were president here, I'd have the same worries


- I agree.
I also find it incredible and deeply worrying that Bush consults with evangelical fundamentalist 'pastors' on policy.


do don't pull the "making the other side seem less human" card on me.


- Why not raise it?
Are you really saying that 'those crazy fundamentalist Islamics' has not been a part of all this at all, anywhere?

It seems to me that 'the west' prefers never to think about why 'they' ended up with fundamentalists in charge in the first place.
Invariably they have their roots in the previous regimes' crass brutality, gross corruption and weakness as a result of western manipulation.
If you want to get Biblical, there's a large element of reap what you sow.

If 'we' keep pushing them around 'they' inevitably come to resent it and push back.
We create our own problems.


And yes, a nuclear conflict in the ME could concievably escalate to a worldwide conflict, in which we could all be dead.


- But that is an entirely different concept than the present one of the 'no nuclear weapons Iran' starting that kind of nuclear exchange.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
OK, smiley this just isn't fair. Christendom does not mandate a war of conquest for it's adherents, militant Islam does. That's why the "religious" fundamentalism " card is played here all the time. Understand that, please. Imagine if Timothy McVeigh had a nuke (and he was a Branch Davidian- a conservative denomination which mandates non-violent resistance to evil- imagine what Iran's president who takes Quranic/Hadith theology on this Mahdi militaristic dictator at face value could do. He could actually start a war believing he is initiating the grand Islamic Caliphate. It **could** happen, no wait- it ALREADY is happening in Palestine with Hamas).

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Nakash:

Christendom does not mandate a war of conquest...


Excuse me, maybe I missing sometháing there, yet what is the war in Iraq all about? It is not about conquering a country?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
OK, smiley this just isn't fair.


- What's not fair?
It's a discussion with various points of view, no?


Christendom does not mandate a war of conquest for it's adherents, militant Islam does. That's why the "religious" fundamentalism " card is played here all the time. Understand that, please.


- I understand that.
I also understand that 'Christendom' has moved away from theology to justify it's actions and now operates through commerce and 'interests'.

Describe it as you will but the net result is that it leaves millions in the ME utterly powerless or outright destitute, often at the mercy of western backed despots and living horrible lives, hence the rise of the fundamentalists.


Imagine if Timothy McVeigh had a nuke (and he was a Branch Davidian- a conservative denomination which mandates non-violent resistance to evil- imagine what Iran's president who takes Quranic/Hadith theology on this Mahdi militaristic dictator at face value could do.


- You are another attributing US style powers to the Iranian President.
This is simply inaccurate and an inflation of his position and powers in Iran.


He could actually start a war believing he is initiating the grand Islamic Caliphate. It **could** happen


- Then why hasn't it already, hmmm?
Iran has chemical and biological weapons (and has had them for many years) along with the missiles to deliver them.

Thankfully the truth is that however religious that guy might be he doesn't have the final say and there are a lot of other people who would have to give their consent to any such lunatic course of action.



no wait- it ALREADY is happening in Palestine with Hamas).


- Hamas is pure reaction. Violence begets violence.
The Israeli hardline has proved to be some 'solution', hmmmm?

'Course the irony that so many here seem to want a 'final solution' for all those pesky Muslims seems one lost on so many.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Smiley, first of all, your linking religion to secular politics and inclinations. Normally you would draw a fine line between the two, but for the sake of attempting a refutation against me you just threw that away. Second, HOW do I know Iran's president isn't a McVeigh? How do I know I'm just "inflating him"? He wishes the destruction of an entire country based on prejudice, he denies that 1 million people were ruthlessly killed by the Germans again due to prejudice, he just threatened a blockade (an act of war) if sanctions are placed against Iran, and so forth. Sounds dangerous to me. Especially when I consider the Mullahs doomsday plans (which include rioting over Europe to impose Islamic law and destroy the Vatican, destroy Israel and the "Big Satan" America, and so forth). I don't even like the Vatican, I'm definitely not some "Christian Zionist", and I really dislike GW and his Neocon buddies, but I'm worried.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
2. What's this "spit spit spit" stuff? Not once did I ever react negatively to his article.


That's how you come off.

So, don't even try and condescend to me. That will get you newhere.


The reason you should answer my questions, as to that article, is because you yourself are very interested in this whole conversation. Are you not? If you weren't you would not labor so on MY thread.


So if you really want to talk about this issue, with a clear and open mind, I'm willing. If not, go start your own thread.

I don't blow smoke up ATS arses. Who's got time for that?



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Smiley, first of all, your linking religion to secular politics and inclinations. Normally you would draw a fine line between the two, but for the sake of attempting a refutation against me you just threw that away.


- Hmmm, I don't really think so.
I think the point I was trying to make was that 'they' may well couch their political views in religious terms (as is the case......often as a reaction to a previously corrupt administration they may have had - and in the case of Iran a pro-western one at that).

'We' on the other hand have moved away from that to a large degree (although the use of religion in US politics is quite worrying) and so get to see them as 'backward' because of this.

'We' talk instead about global (which usually = 'our') commercial needs and international 'interests' (again, usually shorthand for 'our').

Mind you Bushs' 'crusade' faux pas at the start of all this was rather illuminating.
So, there we have it; the most powerful western leader talking in religious terms and actually launching a(nother) hugely murderous war......but it's the other 'religious nut' I'm supposed to be worried about!?
That would be funny if people weren't dying and being maimed.


Second, HOW do I know Iran's president isn't a McVeigh?


- You don't; just as I don't know Bush, despite the indications, isn't a mentally challenged individual holding those lunatic 'end of days' evangelical fundamentalist views or one of those new Haggard style crazy 'reconstructionists' that seem to think Christianity must dominate the globe for the 2nd coming, nuts.

But the thing is, whether he is or not - and granted dangerous as that situation might be - it does not all rest in his hands either.

The severe reaction to an actual attack would be expected, normal and one thing but an unprovoked nuclear first strike is another and IMO if that were their chosen path it would be the guarantee of the arrest and hospitalisation of either for the good of all concerned and before their personal little armageddon fantasy got started.


How do I know I'm just "inflating him"?


The US president does not act alone and the Iranian President (with far less personal power) certainly does not.


He wishes the destruction of an entire country based on prejudice


- It seems so, although I would question your claim that this is mere prejudice, and I think the term 'destruction' is debatable.

He, like many many people in and around the ME sees Israel as an artificial state brought into existence by the illegal dispossession of the people already there and that it exists without any good reason (other than to serve US interests in the region), with a history of causing nothing but trouble in the region, like many in the ME he wishes it didn't exist.

Do you think the leadership of Saudi Arabia 'support' the existence of Israel?

However 'crazy' or unreasonable you find his mere views I do not see a justification for yet more ME war in that, sorry but I don't.

All sorts of people hold all sorts of views I don't like, that is hardly grounds for a new disastrous ME conflict.


he denies that 1 million people were ruthlessly killed by the Germans again due to prejudice


- Again you will not find this view so untypical throughout the ME.

Although in fairness I think the more accurate term would be 'questions' not "denies" by the way.

.....and once again, if it is a case of Holocaust denial, objectionable as that might be it is not grounds for war and an attack on Iran.
Sorry but it just isn't.


he just threatened a blockade (an act of war) if sanctions are placed against Iran, and so forth.


- Did he really? Says who?

The only news media I could find that story in was the Israeli Haaretz outlet (although by now it may have been repeated in certain US outlets).

Excuse my scepticism but when I see it going out on the BBC, Reuters or AP I might start to believe it but Israeli sources are hardly the most reliable when it comes to Iran or the Arab world.


Especially when I consider the Mullahs doomsday plans (which include rioting over Europe to impose Islamic law and destroy the Vatican, destroy Israel and the "Big Satan" America, and so forth).


- What "plans"?

If you think some riots by a small minority, no larger in their entirety than 10% (and that number is in one single EU country only......and you neither will nor could ever see all 10% out rioting) are about to bring about an Islamic Europe you are gravely and laughably mistaken.
That is pure nonsense.

Would these be anything like as scary as 'our' doomsday plans?

Or how about the ideas and the desires of Christian leaders to see a completely Christian world?

I think you are taking too much notice of silly exaggerated tales my friend.
Watch out, any minute now we'll be seeing the Muslim version of the 'Protocols of Zion'!


......and once again, whilst the subject for a little to and fro it is hardly serious and reasonable grounds to go and attack Iran now.


I don't even like the Vatican, I'm definitely not some "Christian Zionist", and I really dislike GW and his Neocon buddies, but I'm worried.


- Well lets put it like this; of course there are things to worry about, especially when it comes to the ME.

But IMO we should concentrate on the facts and what is reasonable.

This entire thing has developed out of a fantasy that wants to claim Iran is on the verge of having and using a nuclear weapon stockpile.
They aren't.

It also wants us to imagine the Iranian leadership will suicide their nation just to lash out at Israel.
They won't.
If they really were that crazy and wanted to do that they could have tried to drench Israel with chemical and biological WMDs using their missiles years ago.

When one applies reason to this one can see these claims bear no serious examination and in fact the truth is far more likely to be that Iran is merely a continuation of the strategy used in Iraq.

ie Topple the leadership of a weakened country and attempt to impose control on it's natural resources.
This is done either directly for ones' own benefit or to deny others those resources or to control and manipulate the markets for those resources (or currencies attached to them = $ ).

As I said right at the start, anyone who seriously imagines the peoples of Europe are supportive of this obvious and very transparent US policy are kidding themselves.


[edit on 28-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join