Iran proposes missile shield against U.S., Israel

Originally posted by pexx421
Ah, and then theres the traditional "if you dont like it you can leave" person chiming in with their "must be sad to hate your country so much".... God love em.

I know, huh? "God" must love them as much as the highly irrational chicken littles chiming in with their "______ is going to result in civilazation as we know it being brought to it's knees", yeah we know...any day now. Just keep wishing on a star that some country is gearing up as we speak to liberate the world from the tyranical, bloodthirsty USA.

Guess "god" doesn't love me, cuz I'm neither.

I guess it is sad....only if you consider your "government" to be your country

Cool, then it's actually happy, cuz I don't consider the "government" to be my country at all. Our current government couldn't suck any more, IMO. However, that doesn't take away from the awesome power that is our military. And after the worst president in history leaves office, it will still be awesome. Sorry if that upsets the chicken littles. Not really.

I like your need to resort to name calling, it shows the obvious lack of substance in your arguements. At any rate, im not scared or "chicken little" of our possible economic collapse, actually Im all for it! But it does bother me just abit that every one seems to have their head in the sand. Americans have no sense of history, most have no idea of a depression or social collapse as anything more than just words, and live constantly in the "it could never happen to me/us" mentality. This is shown in their eating habits, lifestyle choices, and indebtedness/financial irresponsibility. We also have no sense of history in the fact that most americans have NO idea what their country has been doing around the world in the last 200 years. ah well, a sad state, but per the average american "what do you gain by looking back??" Other than true understanding of where we are now, that is.
As to your the governmental issue...well it seems to me that you were earlier criticizing others for their disagreement with our past government policies, or their criticism of american policy, and now here you are stating you dont like our government either...does that mean you "hate our country"...after all, all of our foreign policy, or legislation, our current situation, all are solely in the hands of our government, with our people rarely being able to contribute anything. Since You dont like government policy, are You going to "go somewhere else"?? Just wondering

Mr. Lloyed

Most of the poor guys getting their faces blown off by IEDs in Iraq are mostly National Guardsman and regular Army. I have no idea where the Marines, Air Force, and Navy are. They're probabably scattered all over the World engaged in other illegal actions, and of little use to anyone in the Middle East.

When it comes to Americas national security, and interests, there is nothing illegal to "it."

What is quite ironic is, people with your mindset only have your blinders pointing directly toward the US. Do you honestly think everyone "else" plays by a set of "rules?" You are more gullible than I thought.

The Iraqis have $50 Ak's,

Which has been a rather useless weapon for the enemy, as it has not been Kalashnikov's taking soldiers lives, but IED's.

no RPGS,

Please.. Show me a link that says "Rocket Propelled Grenades are NOT being used in Iraq."

no tanks, or planes to speak of.

Yes, right, because those were all destroyed in the first week of battle. Again, we have already established the fact that the US military destroyed Iraq's conventional forces with relative ease. That is a pretty good indication why there are no tanks, and planes.

(This type of debate is not your forte. Stick with conspiracy issues.)

But for some reason, we're still getting our butts kicked with all our high tech gear by what amounts to caveman with sticks and rocks..

Uncorroborated filth, we've already established that your a fish out of water on this subject... If anything, 4,000 deaths in 5 years of fighting the most difficult type of warfare is a rather spectacular number, which is a true testament to the US militarys overall might. I'm surprised and amazed its not more.

We got our supply lines cut off in Iraq during the initial invasion,

This is news to me, and your source for your uncorroborated claim?

I also read an article stating that most of our own airplanes are old and decrepit too, and need to be replaced,

Your problem is, you are reading anti-American fifth columnist filth that you yourself have no background knowledge in, this becomes problematic when you spout what you read as fact, without being able to grasp the full concept of what it is you are reading.

In other words, you are spouting that same filth you read, thus dumbing down the general populace who reads your uncorroborated claims.

This in turn wastes my time, and everyone who cares to read it much less respond to it.

I'd define it as the ability to quickly and decisively end a battle due to superior weapons and troops.

You just subconsciously, unknowingly, (moronically) defined what the US military has been doing in both Iraq, and Afghanistan. The battles are being won, decisively with far superior weaponry. Perhaps you could show me an instance in battle the US has lost in Iraq, and Afghanistan?

No, I'd prefer we withdrew our troops, and put the money being wasted over there to better uses like helping Americans in need of food, shelter, and medical care.

I agree, that money could be better spent at home, however, I believe that it is better to not create a welfare state (as you apparently are for), but better to focus on building up surrounding infrastructure that is disarray.

We're a has-been. We're a civilization in decline just like Rome.

After reading your posts (lacking the usual source confirmation, and not fully exploring your "ideas"), you fall predictably under the 8-10% of the US population which comprises of active or semi-active fifth-columnists rhetoric.

I call it smoke and mirrors myself..

You do so knowing full well facts be damned. You are living in a self inflicted land of delirium.

You call Iraq and Afghanistan successes? I guess you also believed Bush's "Mission Accomplished" rhetoric too.. We still haven't gained full contro; of either country, and probably won't for a very long time.

I consider knocking out of control, two of some of the worlds most vile governments, a success.

Bush was partly right, in that the war was over, as saddams army was destroyed. However he was wrong in regards to the full length of the conflict being over.

Yeah, it's what you do when you s_ck at ground fighting.

Perhaps you would like to list examples, rather than spout some other fifth columnists opinion that you "read"?

Originally posted by pexx421
As to your the governmental issue...well it seems to me that you were earlier criticizing others for their disagreement with our past government policies, or their criticism of american policy, and now here you are stating you dont like our government either...does that mean you "hate our country"...after all, all of our foreign policy, or legislation, our current situation, all are solely in the hands of our government, with our people rarely being able to contribute anything. Since You dont like government policy, are You going to "go somewhere else"?? Just wondering

I don't think things are seeming correctly to you. I don't seem to recall criticizing anybody in regards to their disagreement with our governments policies. My argument is with the notion that our military is weak, and that somehow because insurgents are able to do what almost anybody would in a situation where the occupying force was actually concerned with civilian life at least somewhat, that they are somehow defeating our military. In direct battles, we mop the floor with them. My argument is also with ridiculous notions that Russia and China somehow have a soft spot for a religiously controlled government, and would commit the suicide of their nations as well, to defend them. As long as they get something out of it, they won't do a thing but pretend to protest and demand we cease our actions, like they always do. My argument has NOTHING to do with the policies behind any of these battles. As for going somewhere else, there's no need. If WWIII breaks out like some love to predict every other week, it won't matter too much.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by 27jd]

im sorry west coast but if you are implying that our national security comes first, bound by no laws, I must disagree. reason being, many times our presidents (almost every one in fact) have done things in the name of "national security" that was really about money in corporate pockets. I dont believe someone labeling something "national security" should ever over rule the human rights of americans or foreigners.
As to tanks and planes....i know several people who are and have been front liners in iraq, and no one has ever mentioned tanks or planes. If anyone on this board has personally seen a tank or plane of iraqs as it gets destroyed in this war, let us know...otherwise i think that is all hearsay.
Yes, it is true that we have only lost about 4000 soldiers to direct attacks (though 11,000 more veterans have committed suicide since this war began) to the iraqi's 1.2 million deaths. However, one thing i have noticed from my personal historical studies is this. In almost all wars there is a powerful aggressor looking to take something that is not theirs, and a weak country trying to defend themselves. You can generally tell who is in the wrong by the vastly unequal numbers of deaths on each side, and generally the side of the more "righteous" has VASTLY more casualties. You can see this in palestine, in vietnam, in all the south american issues the cia has been involved in, in rawanda, indonesia, the phillipines, panama, cuba, the sino/chinese war, and even in WWII. Such is the case here, in our unjust war, yes, we are killing many more iraqis (mostly civilian) than they are of us.
Now i dont know if these battles are being won, because everything i see is that the situation is worsening.... yes, on the msm you see news every day that "things are getting better", "we are turning a corner", " there is less violence", but they also said all these same things through every escalation in violence, and in all the worst months of the war as well.
As to the welfare state, our welfare here is pitifully inadequate when compared to all other industrialized nations where healthcare is free, as is education. Not to mention the fact that this "welfare" that everyone is so scared of is miniscule when compared to the subsidies handed out by our government to millionaire owners of rich companies. A FRACTION. So why should our tax dollars be given out to already rich people who are secure in their property and homes (which were also funded by our tax dollars) and not to poor people as well, who still NEED homes and food? Basically we are socializing costs for everyone to bear, but privatizing the profits for the rich business owners, so please no more crap about piddling handouts to poor folk for basic necessities. If its ok to give billions to billionaires it should be ok to give them to the poor as well.
As for knocking out two of the worlds most vile governments....well if you did a poll of who people the world over think are the greatest threats to international security are, i doubt iraq and afghanistan would be on the list, though the united states and isreal are definitely in the top three in most international polls, check the pipa. Besides, we put both of those governments IN power in the first place. In fact, before we armed and raised the taliban in afghanistan to overthrow their original government, they were actually on their way to building a good democracy and were one of the most egalitarian and forward thinking of the arab countries in the middle east. But due to our red fear, we helped overthrow that government, put a dictatorial group in power and now we have to deal with the consequences. And this is pretty common american practice all over the world when people have something we want, such as venezuela, el salvador, columbia, etc. This is not debated, its all right there in our history for anyone to read.

pexx421 - I think you deserve a pat on the back for being one of the most astute and honest US observers of US history. Now duck as the deniers start to throw rocks.......

Originally posted by pexx421
im sorry west coast but if you are implying that our national security comes first, bound by no laws, I must disagree. reason being, many times our presidents (almost every one in fact) have done things in the name of "national security" that was really about money in corporate pockets. I dont believe someone labeling something "national security" should ever over rule the human rights of americans or foreigners.

You're absolutely correct in your belief, and I share it. However, it gets VERY old reading about the US doing this or that in the interests of greedy men. Can you name ONE government with any influence over the world that doesn't have a shameful past? I'd be very interested to hear about it. Are you one of those who look to Russia and China as the future saviors of the world from the grip of the US? As much of an ass hat as Bush is, the leaders of Russia and China are no less evil and if they had the ability to project their military the way we do, they'd probably be doing the same or worse. It's like looking to a rapist to save you from an armed robber.

reply to post by pexx421


I did mention earlier that I was there during the invasion in 2003 and I mentioned burning armored vehicles. Heck there's even video on the Internet showing an armored battalion on its way to Baghdad engaging BMPs. Its not remotely hearsay in fact after the war, the Kurdish Militia took and kept the remaining Iraqi tanks and armored vehicles from Northern Iraq. These are well known Facts. Well Known.

Saying the VC and Fatah/Hamas is righteous is completely silly.

We armed Mujahideen( not the Taliban) to fight the Soviets not overthrow Afghanistan. The Soviets, again the Soviets invaded and crushed Afghanistan in 1979. After they left Afghanistan was in Anarchy and Civil War. The Taliban appeared later after the Soviets left in Pakistan and were supported by the Saudis and Pakistan. They were successful because they tried to restore order to the anarchy.

We didn't put Saddam in power either. We may of helped him intially against Iran but he a threw a fit when he thought we were playing everyone (during the Iran-Contra scandal): We were publicly supporting Israel, selling weapons to Iraq, and giving weapons to Iran that were ending up in the hands of Hezbollah who were killing Israelis with them. Saddam's reaction essentially was what kind of craziness is this.

Seriously you should take some college level history courses, maybe go to the library and check out some books on current events, American history or something. I'm not trying to be rude or insulting, but to me you seem to be intentionally ignoring whats out there, formulating your own opinion based on false information and spreading propaganda. I'm asking you to be Objective. The world is not Black and White, its shades of Grey. The world is not like the movies or comic books, no superheroes or supervillains. America has done some bad stuff in its history, but so has everyone else. Thats how the human race operates. We fantasize and glorify virtues and ideals, but when it really boils down to it we all act like animals.

So go out get some books, research and study, takes some classes, and I will be more than happy to debate or discuss with you the complexities of foreign policy, military history, and espionage.







[edit on 10/4/08 by MikeboydUS]

yes, everything you say matches up with the "official" versions, and with what is taught in schools. But do your research outside and you may find a bit of a different story. Read the stories of the vc and even many of the american soldiers that were there. Read the "pentagon papers" from our own government describing the fact that the south vietnamese government was essentially an american creation. its written by our own government.
As far as Hamas, it was a legally voted in party and a force formed in resistance to isreali aggression, as is hizbollah. But as usual, when america demands elections but then their golden boy is not chosen, they 1.refuse to recognize the newly elected authority, and 2. designate them as terrorists.

Further, we armed the mujahideen (taliban by another name) in order to INSTIGATE an afghan war with russia...which succeeded.

I dont think its black and white, and i criticize things other governments do as well, however, i think their governments are pretty much run by the same international corporations that dictate to us, plus other countries arent trying to claim their S(&*&!! dont stink, and dont get involved in the politics of nearly as many countries as the US does.

Originally posted by pexx421
Further, we armed the mujahideen (taliban by another name) in order to INSTIGATE an afghan war with russia...which succeeded.

Taliban by another name? You really don't have a good grasp on history, do you??

The Taliban initially had enormous goodwill from Afghans weary of the corruption, brutality and incessant fighting of Mujahideen warlords. Two contrasting narratives of the beginnings of the Taliban[12] are that the rape and murder of boys and girls from a family traveling to Kandahar or a similar outrage by Mujahideen bandits sparked Mullah Omar and his students to vow to rid Afghanistan of these criminals.
en.wikipedia.org...

Sure, the Taliban may have obtained US weapons back in the 80's, if it even existed in the same way, as did Bin Laden, but we weren't giving them the weapons directly. They were made available through various channels to just about any radical muslim who wanted to fight the Soviets. We certainly didn't put them in power, since they didn't come to power until 1996.

The first major military activity of the Taliban was in October-November 1994 when they marched from Maiwand in southern Afghanistan to capture Kandahar City and the surrounding provinces, losing only a few dozen men.[16] Starting with the capture of a border crossing and a huge ammunition dump from warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a few weeks later they freed "a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia" from another group of warlords attempting to extort money.[17] In the next three months this hitherto "unknown force" took control of twelve of Afghanistan's 34 provinces, with Mujahideen warlords often surrendering to them without a fight and the "heavily armed population" giving up their weapons.[18] By September 1996 they captured Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.

As for "instigating" war with the USSR, again, wrong....

www.marxist.com...

another link...

The Soviets sent troops into Afghanistan in 1979 for a number of reasons. First, they wished to expand their influence in Asia. They also wanted to preserve the Communist government that had been established in the 1970s, and was collapsing because of its lack of support other than in the military. Third, the Soviets wanted to protect their interests in Afghanistan from Iran and western nations.
nhs.needham.k12.ma.us...

plus other countries arent trying to claim their S(&*&!! dont stink

Are you serious? You must be living on another planet. I can't think of one country that thinks it's sh_t stinks. Read some of the active threads on Tibet, and the claims of the Chinese government. Talk about thinking your sh_t don't stink.

and dont get involved in the politics of nearly as many countries as the US does.

Once again, it's not because they wouldn't if they were able. We're the only country able to project our influence so strongly, at this point in time.



[edit on 10-4-2008 by 27jd]

[edit on 10-4-2008 by 27jd]

Originally posted by West Coast

[quote]When it comes to Americas national security, and interests, there is nothing illegal to "it."

Keep telling yourself that, you're probably the only person foolish enough to believe it..

What is quite ironic is, people with your mindset only have your blinders pointing directly toward the US. Do you honestly think everyone "else" plays by a set of "rules?" You are more gullible than I thought.

I call things as I see the, and don't rely on Fox news for my opinion. Thank you.

Which has been a rather useless weapon for the enemy, as it has not been Kalashnikov's taking soldiers lives, but IED's.

The AK is probably the best gun ever made. It Sturdy, reliable, east to repair, has a moderately powerful round, and it can be used and mantained by practically anyone. See how long a M16 poodle shooter will hold up to adverse conditions without constant cleaning and repair. Yeah, it's pretty amazing how mere peasants can take out some many professional soldiers with such a simple, homemade device isn't it?

Yes, right, because those were all destroyed in the first week of battle. Again, we have already established the fact that the US military destroyed Iraq's conventional forces with relative ease. That is a pretty good indication why there are no tanks, and planes.

They were all destroyed in Gulf War I, thats why. There was only a disorganized resistance to deal with, because all the Iraqi troops deserted. Big Victory.. Go team America!


(

This type of debate is not your forte. Stick with conspiracy issues.)

Not when I'm debating with a parrot that repeats the same old BS constantly..

I was going to reply to the rest of your post, but I'm really tired of typing the same things over and over again for someone who obviously has reading difficulties. Your post are too long, make little sense, and are backed up by nothing but your own opinions.

In addition to all that, you're rude, obnoxious, discourteous, and make responding an unpleasant experience. Stop spouting the Bushian rhetoric please! I'm tired of reading it. Try thinking for yourself once...





[edit on 4/10/08 by LLoyd45]

reply to post by pexx421


Much of the stuff I learned in college is not the "official" versions. Why do you think there are so many activists in college? There's more truth in what a university teaches than any of the crap in public schools, the news media, or TV.

Hamas won't negotiate and their goal is to destroy Israel and kill Jews. thast why Israel, the US and even Fatah have problems with them.

The Mujahideen did not start that mess. This is well, very well know facts that the USSR invaded Afghanistan and to support a communist regime there. Very well known. We did not get involved until later when we armed the various guerilla factions to Resist Soviet Occupation.

The Taliban was a seperate movement that began in Pakistan. They didn't get involved until after the Soviets pulled out. We did not support them.

I think your getting Al Qaeda and the Taliban confused. Al Qaeda or Bin Laden we either indirectly or directly supported against the Soviets. The Taliban is a whole other entity.



[edit on 10/4/08 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by LLoyd45
In addition to all that, you're rude, obnoxious, discourteous, and make responding an unpleasant experience. Stop spouting the Bushian rhetoric please! I'm tired of reading it. Try thinking for yourself once...

You're responding to a member who HAS ACTUALLY BEEN THERE! Your posts are a joke, you have ZERO knowledge of military combat, weapons, world politics, etc. As soon as you lose the ability to come up with a ridiculous response off the top of your head, you say we're spouting "Bushian rhetoric". Have you EVER fired a weapon? I doubt it. Please explain why you say M16/M4's are "poodle shooters", I'd love to see that. For the record, I love my AK, but if I had the money to spend on an AR15 or an M4, I would have bought one instead.

reply to post by 27jd


Sorry, but I'm a bit confused by this.

Why is it OK for the US to circumvent laws/treaties/conventions when faced with a threat, but it's not OK for other countries to do the same?

The US can own nuclear weapons but no-one else can?
Oh, apart from the folks who already have them and have the capability to fight back in a meaningfull way.

The US can look after it's national interests, but no-one else can?


I don't get it.

What makes a US administrations actions right and everyone else's wrong?

Why do UN resolutions only matter when they are in the US's favour?

I'd suggest that the rest of the world has more to fear from the US than the US has to fear from the rest of the world.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I think your getting Al Qaeda and the Taliban confused. Al Qaeda or Bin Laden we either indirectly or directly supported against the Soviets. The Taliban is a whole other entity.

Actually, it was just the plain old Mujihideen that we supported. They were joined by Islamic militants from other countries (Bin Laden, etc.), similar to Iraq I'm sure, and there were elements among them that likely branched into many different factions. But Al-Qaeda didn't "officially" form until after the Soviet conflict.

Al-Qaeda, alternatively spelled al-Qaida, al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah, (Arabic: القاعدة‎; transliteration: al-qā‘idah; translation: The Base) is an international alliance of Sunni Islamic militant organizations founded in 1988[4] by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam (later replaced by Osama Bin Laden) and other veteran "Afghan Arabs" after the Soviet War in Afghanistan.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is a funny story because you can't stop freedom. How are they supposed to have a missile-shield when freedom cannot be stopped? It just doesn't make sense!

Originally posted by budski
Why is it OK for the US to circumvent laws/treaties/conventions when faced with a threat, but it's not OK for other countries to do the same?

I'm confused too. Where did I say it was "OK"?

The US can own nuclear weapons but no-one else can?

Um, no. Russia has more than we do. There is a counter balance already in place. There is no need for MORE nuclear weapons, there is a need for ALOT less, preferably none.

The US can look after it's national interests, but no-one else can?

Once again, please show me where I said that. I said we're the only ones currently able to project influence the way we do. I never said I agreed with the actions of my government.

What makes a US administrations actions right and everyone else's wrong?

Nothing.

I think I've made it clear I believe ALL governments to be controlled by greedy men, and ALL major governments to be wrong in many ways.

Why do UN resolutions only matter when they are in the US's favour?

Dude, you've totally lost me. What UN resolutions did I say didn't matter?

I'd suggest that the rest of the world has more to fear from the US than the US has to fear from the rest of the world.

Really? And what would lead you to suggest that? Because we have the ability to project military power more effectively? If China arises as the world's main super power able to project power the way we are, do you think they will be fair and just? You're in the UK, do you HONESTLY fear the US? Are you really afraid your little brother is going to attack you? I'm confused as well...

reply to post by 27jd


Yep, you're right - I got hold of the wrong end of the stick in quite spectacular fashion there as far as your post was concerned.

I got mixed up whilst reading more than one post at once.

My apologies, and I must remember not to try multi-tasking in future.

D'oh

reply to post by budski


No worries. I know how you feel, I sit here at work and try and do my job while posting, it gets so damned addictive sometimes, and it's easy to get things mixed up, lol.

reply to post by JanusFIN


what would be the point in a missile shield? If the US really wanted too they would fly over iran with a few b52's and carpet bomb the country with nukes