Enough of their BS

[strandinthewind]

If I were TB - I'd go in to Iran with guns a blazin and get my people. Iran needs to be spanked but hard - they need to learn that their actions have consequences.

__________________________________________________________

Blair: It's Time to Press Iran to Free 15 British Troops
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

LONDON —

Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday it was time to increase the pressure on Iran to release 15 Royal Navy personnel who were detained last week.

"There was no justification whatever ... for their detention, it was completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal," Blair told the House of Commons, shortly after the Ministry of Defense released satellite data that it said proved the crew was in Iraqi waters.

Meanwhile, Britain's Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Wednesday she had frozen bilateral talks with Iran on all other issues until Tehran returns 15 British sailors and marines seized on Friday.

"No one should be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we regard these events," Beckett told the House of Commons. Earlier, defense officials produced what they said was proof that British boarding vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters when the Royal Navy crew was captured. Iran's embassy in London said the two governments are capable of resolving the incident.

• Monitor the nuclear showdown in FOXNews.com's Iran Center.

"We had hoped to see their immediate release; this has not happened. It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure in order to make sure the Iranian government understands its total isolation on this issue," Blair said.

He said he believed the crew acted sensibly in not putting up fight after being confronted by six Iranian vessels.

"If they had engaged in military combat at that stage, there would have undoubtedly been severe loss of life. I think they took the right decision and did what was entirely sensible," Blair said.

Earlier Wednesday, Britain's military said its vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when Iran seized the sailors and marines.

Vice Adm. Charles Style told reporters that the Iranians had provided a position on Sunday — a location that he said was in Iraqi waters.

By Tuesday, Iranian officials had given a revised position 2 miles east, placing the British inside Iranian waters — a claim he said was not verified by global positioning system coordinates.

"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," Style said.

Britain and the United States have said the crew was intercepted Friday after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the border between Iran and Iraq has been disputed for centuries.

Iran has said the 15 were being treated well, but refused to say where they were being held, or rule out the possibility that they could be brought to trial for allegedly entering Iranian waters.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the case was following normal procedures, holding out the possibility that the Britons could be brought to trial.

He said the Britons were being treated well and that the only woman among the sailors, 26-year-old Faye Turney, had been given privacy.

"They are in completely good health. Rest assured that they have been treated with humanitarian and moral behavior," Hosseini told The Associated Press.

In talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett demanded that British diplomats be allowed to meet with the crew to make their own assessment.

www.foxnews.com

[irishgrl]

yeah, nothing like biting the hand that feeds ya, right? I mean, what are they thinking?

[markolas]

It's not very PC of me to say this, but I think the Muslim worldview in general is very dangerous (and so is the Christian one, in its own way - I'm biased against monotheism in general, not just Islam :D ). Sure, the Brits could go in there and get their troops, but...it won't solve the bigger problem, and could just make it worse. Of course, leaving them there could make it worse, too. I don't think it's possible to achieve peace with them, and any lessons we try to teach them are not going to take. Maybe we do need to just go into all of these countries, completely gut them, and replace them, if not with a totally secular culture, at least with a more moderate religious one. But it would require the support of every other country in the world, which will never happen. Also, no one wants to admit that Islam is not really a religion of peace (neither are Christianity and Judaism, but they have been more or less tamed over the centuries; the same is not generally true of Islam).

[strandinthewind]

As I have said before, no religion I know is 100% peaceful. All have killed to further their own goals, which usually is money or power related. So, you'll get no argument from me. I will say, though, that the Catholic Church has in recent years not been about killing in Christ's name and may be the most forward thinkers in peace, which is ironic considering the RCC's past and how slow it is to act. Remember, the Pope was against the invasion of Iraq, etc.

Having said that, I do think the majority of people in religions are peaceful.

Also - Iran's foreign minister says the female British detainee seized by Iran last week will be freed Wednesday or Thursday.

[irishgrl]

Also, no one wants to admit that Islam is not really a religion of peace Well, Ive commented on it :shrug: Mohammed was known to have killed and plundered when it suited him. Quite different from the example Jesus gave us yes?

Im afraid of where I see this all going. I firmly believe there will be an eventual, all-consuming clash between the culture of the Middle East and the West. I dont see how it can be avoided really....

also, Jason: many Far Eastern religions are based on Karma which dictates right behavior to others. I would also point out that Wicca is peaceful. There is no violent history that I know of associated with either the Wiccan or the Buddhist or Shinto religions :shrug: A bit more progessive than your much vaunted Catholic Church I'd say...

[Serrart]

No.No.No.No.

Bush & Blair stay out of Iran, please.

If they attack Iran there could be the biggest crisis with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world in the last 60 years.

Iran is a Country that has a strong and very important cultural community (obviously in opposition to Ahmadinejad) that has deep links with many countries, including mine.

If US and Great Britain feel isolated in their choices now they haven't seen anything yet.

Romy

[markolas]

As I have said before, no religion I know is 100% peaceful. All have killed to further their own goals, which usually is money or power related. So, you'll get no argument from me. I will say, though, that the Catholic Church has in recent years not been about killing in Christ's name and may be the most forward thinkers in peace, which is ironic considering the RCC's past and how slow it is to act. Remember, the Pope was against the invasion of Iraq, etc.

Like I said, it has been more or less tamed, although Christians in Korea routinely assault Buddhists in the streets and burn down their temples, and over here, of course, you have the wingnuts who bomb gay bars and abortion clinics. I mean, you have your nutty factions, and they can totally justify it in the Bible, just like the Muslims justify flying planes into buildings and blowing themselves up in public squares in the Koran. The difference is, there doesn't seem to be a trend towards moderation in Islam, and I'm afraid it's starting to rub off on others, which is why I don't think humanity has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving another 200 years.

Having said that, I do think the majority of people in religions are peaceful.

I'd like to believe that, but I'd have to see the hard numbers first.

Also - Iran's foreign minister says the female British detainee seized by Iran last week will be freed Wednesday or Thursday.

Angel of mercy. :rolleyes:

[markolas]

You guys are killing me! I want to stay and discuss, but I have to be at work in 30 minutes and I haven't even taken a shower. :distress:

[strandinthewind]

. . . A bit more progessive than your much vaunted Catholic Church I'd say...

if you had bothered to read what I said - I said:

the Catholic Church has in recent years not been about killing in Christ's name and may be the most forward thinkers in peace, which is ironic considering the RCC's past and how slow it is to act. Remember, the Pope was against the invasion of Iraq, etc.

So, I was congratulating the RCC for it's relatively recent movement toward peace.

As for the others, no, they have not killed nearly as much, but a goole search or two will reveal some killing.

[strandinthewind]

No.No.No.No.

Bush & Blair stay out of Iran, please.

If they attack Iran there could be the biggest crisis with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world in the last 60 years.

Iran is a Country that has a strong and very important cultural community (obviously in opposition to Ahmadinejad) that has deep links with many countries, including mine.

If US and Great Britain feel isolated in their choices now they haven't seen anything yet.

Romy

But, at what point do we draw the line? Do we allow Iran to keep hostages again? So, I draw the line here and now. If Iran is not kept in check, the results will be far more disaterous than what you describe, esp. if the world allows Iran to make a nuclear weapon.

[strandinthewind]

You guys are killing me! I want to stay and discuss, but I have to be at work in 30 minutes and I haven't even taken a shower. :distress:

Killing you - I have even fattened you up :p

[Serrart]

But, at what point do we draw the line? Do we allow Iran to keep hostages again? So, I draw the line here and now. If Iran is not kept in check, the results will be far more disaterous than what you describe, esp. if the world allows Iran to make a nuclear weapon.

Jason, don't you feel a huge media manipulation in all this matter? This incident is the product of a big mess from British government, hopefully accidental, and not the result of some badly handled operation.

Anyway, the attempt to transform it in an excuse to attack Iran is ludicrous.

The way to deal with Iran's nuclear program is Onu. It's a hard and long way but there aren't any other acceptable options, IMO.

Romy

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I think Iran has a history of not cooperating and wanting power. Sadly, I fear the only they will listen to is power.

I mean look at Iraq. That is all it would listen to. Prior to the current invasion, Iraq was a nightmare, albeit US made, that the UN tried to control, but SH would have none of it and SH failed to cooperate and live up to the peace agreement in the early 90's, which gave W the excuse he needed to scheme to invade.

Note -- I am not justifying the invasion of Iraq. I am just using it as an example of what I see to be the mindset of that part of the world.

On edit - I think this is why the West has a hard time having any patience with the Middle East.

[madformac]

No.No.No.No.

Bush & Blair stay out of Iran, please.

If they attack Iran there could be the biggest crisis with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world in the last 60 years.

Iran is a Country that has a strong and very important cultural community (obviously in opposition to Ahmadinejad) that has deep links with many countries, including mine.

If US and Great Britain feel isolated in their choices now they haven't seen anything yet.

Romy


I totally agree. Its unfortunate for our Navy and Marines that this has happened but if you look at the mess in Iraq then any attack on Iran would be a thousand times worse. The population is huge in comparision with even Iraq. Plus of course any justification to go in is bordering on anorexic.

Britain and the US should not even be there in the first place, which is the point Iran are making with the posturing going on right now. The UK need to pull out and take their toys home before they lose them all. Britain has a small armed forces now and are not equipped for war in the traditional sense. If Iran does want to start any heavy stuff it would have happened by now. Britain has a nuclear submarine fleet that is far more effective than troops and aircraft. The mere threat alone would be quite sufficient to keep order in the gulf. No need to parade warships around.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I was talking about going in, getting the prisoners, and leaving. I was not saying an all out invasion a la Iraq should occur.

As for the US and the UK not being there. If they were not there, who would police Iran. Who would stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which is their goal. Surely you do not think the UN will have any effect standing on its own.

on edit - and, i believe it has been proven that Iran is supplying the Iraqi militants with weapons and Iran funds terrorist groups in the Middle East. So, what they are not doing with their own army, they do in effect by paying someone else to do it :shrug:

[madformac]

^^^

I think Iran has a history of not cooperating and wanting power. Sadly, I fear the only they will listen to is power.

I mean look at Iraq. That is all it would listen to. Prior to the current invasion, Iraq was a nightmare, albeit US made, that the UN tried to control, but SH would have none of it and SH failed to cooperate and live up to the peace agreement in the early 90's, which gave W the excuse he needed to scheme to invade.

Note -- I am not justifying the invasion of Iraq. I am just using it as an example of what I see to be the mindset of that part of the world.

On edit - I think this is why the West has a hard time having any patience with the Middle East.

Does anybody know for sure Iran want nuclear weapons capabilities? They still insist its for energy purposes. Its only western "inteligence" that state otherwise. If it is for nuclear weapons then they are doing it out of fear. Fear of being attacked and invaded for their natural resources by other countries. Its only since the invasion of Iraq they are running scared. Where do the US government go when they run low on oil?

If you felt intimidated by the school bully you would want to make sure you could defend yourself right? You don't see the USA and UK go marching into nuclear capable countires do you? Because they can't. The risks are too great.

The fact is there is nothing they can do now to stop Iran going nuclear so they cannot take a military approach. If they can't do it diplomatically then there is no option. Thats why Bush has been so quiet on the matter too.

[strandinthewind]

Does anybody know for sure Iran want nuclear weapons capabilities? They still insist its for energy purposes. Its only western "inteligence" that state otherwise. If it is for nuclear weapons then they are doing it out of fear. Fear of being attacked and invaded for their natural resources by other countries. Its only since the invasion of Iraq they are running scared. Where do the US government go when they run low on oil?

I cannot believe that people think Iran is developing a nuclear industry for any other reason. Moreover, once they have the weapon, it is too late to say "I told you so" :shrug: So, they need to be stopped now. I mean Germany said for years that it was not redevloping its army and then it swore to peace and then all of a sudden it invaded Poland.

[Für Elise]

I cannot believe that people think Iran is developing a nuclear industry for any other reason. Moreover, once they have the weapon, it is too late to say "I told you so" :shrug: So, they need to be stopped now. I mean Germany said for years that it was not redevloping its army and then it swore to peace and then all of a sudden it invaded Poland.
yeah but america invaded there neighbour and threatened them but if america is sent that message then they are allowed to go and attack whoever they want. I would have preparing weapons too if I were iran

[madformac]

^^^

I was talking about going in, getting the prisoners, and leaving. I was not saying an all out invasion a la Iraq should occur.

As for the US and the UK not being there. If they were not there, who would police Iran. Who would stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which is their goal. Surely you do not think the UN will have any effect standing on its own.

on edit - and, i believe it has been proven that Iran is supplying the Iraqi militants with weapons and Iran funds terrorist groups in the Middle East. So, what they are not doing with their own army, they do in effect by paying someone else to do it :shrug:


Its all power games. The US government supplied Iraq with the so called "weapons of mass destruction" in the eighties to fight Iran, Reagans (and Bush Snrs) enemy at the time.

Any incursion into Iran to get the prisoners would be considered an act of war. Which I'm sure would be countered with a wave of terrorist attacks in western countries. The UK Iranian community is far larger for instance than the Iraqi community. 99% of them are good people. But the 1% is far larger than the 1% that are responsible for previous terrorist attacks.

So what if Iran gets nuclear capabilities? They won't use them, regardless of what people may think. Its purely to gain international respect and position, albeit in way of blackmail. Nuclear capable countries enjoy good economic growth. China, India, Pakistan are all now recieving more business than previously enjoyed. Having big toys gets you noticed.

I agree that its very likely Iran are causing a lot of the problems in Iraq. But think about it. If forces are tied up fighting battles in Iraq then they are less likely to turn their attentions on the neighbours. If the UK and US pull out of Iraq then its highly likely Iran will become more diplomatic.

[madformac]

yeah but america invaded there neighbour and threatened them but if america is sent that message then they are allowed to go and attack whoever they want. I would have preparing weapons too if I were iran

Precisely, which is what Iran are doing right now. They have the resources and the capability now. Its purely a defense strategy.

They are looking after their own interests, its not about Iran attacking the world with nuclear weapons. Theres too much media hype on Iran as bad guys. CNN and friends have just been hyping things up for their own gain.

[strandinthewind]

I cannot believe you all are actually advocating allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon :eek: Hell, let's give one to Syria too.

[strandinthewind]

. . . CNN and friends have just been hyping things up for their own gain.

This is an aside, but it always amazes me that the rest of the world views CNN as the warmongering right, when in America, they are villified by the right.

[madformac]

I cannot believe you all are actually advocating allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon :eek: Hell, let's give one to Syria too.

I'm not advocating it, merely staing it is an inevitability than cannot be stopped. Its not something the west can control. The US and UK governments are worldwide control freaks lately and it bothers them they can't do anything about it.

I'm also not stating that having nuclear weapons means you don't go to war. America has proved that many times since the 50's.

It always puzzles me that America seems to be involved in so many wars when they have never been invaded, certainly not in the 20th century. War of course is great for the economy. It creates many jobs. I think a major part of the boom and rapid growth of the United States over the last century has been down to war related economics. This time however the government has got its sums wrong and Iraq has screwed the economy. Look forward to increased taxes! :lol:

[madformac]

This is an aside, but it always amazes me that the rest of the world views CNN as the warmongering right, when in America, they are villified by the right.

Its not just CNN of course. They are just the big fish. Its all business to hype and sell stories. Good for viewing figures. Nothing like fear and lack of understanding to get the masses tuning in. The BBC has to be more reserved over here due to the fact every UK home has to pay them about $260 a year. Its all publicly funded. Thats why they are less hype but also not as sharp or immediate with reporting either. Good and bad points with either approach.

[Für Elise]

This is an aside, but it always amazes me that the rest of the world views CNN as the warmongering right, when in America, they are villified by the right.
isn't it obvious cause america is more right wing than most of us :shrug: it might seem left over there I don't know

[madformac]

If Iran was invaded they would probably win it too. If we can't sort out Afganistan or Iraq what chance have we in Iran? Iran is a massive country. A war could take 25-30 years. its strategically impossible without nuclear confrontation and that is the last thing anybody needs. Ahmadinejad is rattling his sabre with the comments. He's recently said he has no plans to attack Israel too. Its all for publicity, he says things to get attention. Its all a stalemate. All this back and forth over the captured UK servicemen is posturing. It will get sorted out in a week or so.

[strandinthewind]

LOL - I know ao many Americans who go to the BBC to get the news. I guess perspective is everything!

[estranged4life]

For some reason all this talk lately about Iran & Iraq makes me wonder when "Team America:World Police" will make the world a safer place :rolleyes:

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00031TXTU.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[skcin]

Its all power games. The US government supplied Iraq with the so called "weapons of mass destruction" in the eighties to fight Iran, Reagans (and Bush Snrs) enemy at the time.

Any incursion into Iran to get the prisoners would be considered an act of war. Which I'm sure would be countered with a wave of terrorist attacks in western countries. The UK Iranian community is far larger for instance than the Iraqi community. 99% of them are good people. But the 1% is far larger than the 1% that are responsible for previous terrorist attacks.

So what if Iran gets nuclear capabilities? They won't use them, regardless of what people may think. Its purely to gain international respect and position, albeit in way of blackmail. Nuclear capable countries enjoy good economic growth. China, India, Pakistan are all now recieving more business than previously enjoyed. Having big toys gets you noticed.
I agree that its very likely Iran are causing a lot of the problems in Iraq. But think about it. If forces are tied up fighting battles in Iraq then they are less likely to turn their attentions on the neighbours. If the UK and US pull out of Iraq then its highly likely Iran will become more diplomatic.

It really IS a game, and that scares the **** out of me. Human lives should not be pawns in games, I'm sorry.

And I totally disagree with you about Iran not using the weapons if they get them. If they feel that just having them isn't getting their message across, they'll send a stronger message by using them. IMO.

[madformac]

It really IS a game, and that scares the **** out of me. Human lives should not be pawns in games, I'm sorry.

And I totally disagree with you about Iran not using the weapons if they get them. If they feel that just having them isn't getting their message across, they'll send a stronger message by using them. IMO.

Why do you feel like that Paula? How do you know. Their conflicts have been localised and no threat to the western world. Iraq were no threat. Why is it all of a sudden attention has turned to Iran? Why not a few years back?

America have used nuclear weapons before. How do you know they won't again? The UK are the only nation to have ever used a nuclear submarine in anger. Could they again? sure..

Most of the problem lies in education. And religous tolerance from both sides. Iran could use weapons of mass destruction but it would be counter productive. To have them is not. But its hidden in all the stories. The intelligence communities will just tell you the stuff I am. Its all normal posturing. ten years back everybody was worried about China having nuclear weapons. "Don't trust the Chinese, they will launch an attack on America".. Well now China is the fastest growing economy in the world. And America takes them seriously.

[skcin]

Why do you feel like that Paula? How do you know. Their conflicts have been localised and no threat to the western world. Iraq were no threat. Why is it all of a sudden attention has turned to Iran? Why not a few years back?

America have used nuclear weapons before. How do you know they won't again? The UK are the only nation to have ever used a nuclear submarine in anger. Could they again? sure..

Most of the problem lies in education. And religous tolerance from both sides. Iran could use weapons of mass destruction but it would be counter productive. To have them is not. But its hidden in all the stories. The intelligence communities will just tell you the stuff I am. Its all normal posturing. ten years back everybody was worried about China having nuclear weapons. "Don't trust the Chinese, they will launch an attack on America".. Well now China is the fastest growing economy in the world. And America takes them seriously.


I don't know. And neither do you. That's my point. It's all way too unpredictable.

What I do feel, is that the U.S. is not the big bad superpower that it once was, and that other nations (in the Middle East and elsewhre) are becoming more & more resentful of the fact that what we say goes. Who the hell are we to tell every other country what they can & can't do? If I were them, I'd hate the U.S. government too (esp. since Bush has made things so much worse.) And many of them will eventually hate the American people - those who don't hate us already. I know that the conflicts were limited to the Middle East - but we had to bust in there & start kicking ass & taking names & I think it was a huge misstep that we'll pay for dearly.

I understand your comparison with the past (the Cold War, Cuba, China, etc.), but I really feel that this is different. I can't explain how, but it is. People seem to be crazier, less apt to follow the "rules." Instead of "we'll scare them into helping us" I fear they'll say "f*ck them, who the hell are they to tell us what to do, and f*ck their citizens, they don't give a **** about ours" and just randomly attack the U.S. I don't know that this will happen - I hope to God it never does. But that's what I'm afraid of. :(

[Sarah]

The old days are over. America has a choice. Kick ass, or have ass kicked.

Personally, I prefer to kick ass. But, I know there are a lot of weenies who don't want to kick ass unless theirs personally is kicked. SO, all in all, I gotta say.. I'd rather bomb the bejesus out of them before we get hit than us get hit and then bomb the same amount of bejesus out of them after the fact. Sure, they have families, but uh, we do too. And when it comes to a "you or me" situation, sorry pal, but it's gonna be the "you" that has to go.

Flame me if you want, but I've always thought that we should take care of a certain group of countries all in one swoop, or find a way to completely isolate them so that their violence over religions I could not care one iota about - for OR against - causes the militants to just take each other out. That being said, if their governments want to make weapons that are only ranged to hit each other, that's fine, I don't give a damn as callous as it seems. If they want to make weapons with the range to hit our targets, I give a damn, and will be highly pissed off if we sit around and do nothing about it because we're sissies who can't stand violence unless it's glorified in movies.

[strandinthewind]

Anectdotal evidence from the last 50 or so years demonstrates the Muslim fundamentalists are FAR more willing to die to promote the cause and perpetuate the hatred of the West. Along these lines, I am all for W's promotion of democracy in the Middle East because with that almost always comes free thought and education - at least more so than already exists there now on the whole. Granted W has fukced that up beyond repair - but the idea is sound no matter how he pirated it.

Also, Iran is funding terrorist groups all over the Middle East in an effort to destroy Israel and the West. To me, that is proof enough of their intent.

As for solving the problem, I do not know the answer other than I know that giving them the ability to destroy several hundred thousand people in a second is not the right path to peace :shrug:

[estranged4life]

I fear they'll say "f*ck them, who the hell are they to tell us what to do, and f*ck their citizens, they don't give a **** about ours" and just randomly attack the U.S. I don't know that this will happen - I hope to God it never does. But that's what I'm afraid of. :(

on a recent doctumentary, people in the Middle East HATE the U.S. and not necessarily for the U.S. govt.

Nothing, repeat NOTHING will ever change that until they can accomplish their mission which is complete eradication of the West - and according to those interviewed in this doctumentry it that means death of millions US citizens (What was FUBAR'd in this doctumentary was the footage of radical Muslims wanting the blood of US/Israel citizens - Even as they stood in a conference room at the Myriad Convention Center in downtown OKC.)

I am scared they will attack us? No, I am not...But I wont be surprised to see it happen either - I keep thinking the next attack will make 911 seem like a "paper cut'.

"The difference in this battle is that they (the citizens of the US) are scared of death...We embrace it" - Osama Bin Laden

[Sarah]

I am scared they will attack us? No, I am not...But I wont be surprised to see it happen either - I keep thinking the next attack will make 911 seem like a "paper cut'.


Simultaneous attacks.. dirty bombs and suitcase nukes.. vulnerable food supply. There are a lot of possibilities. If we don't man-up, we're going to be waves of dead meat.

I'm surprised we haven't already suffered a large scale attack. And I'm double surprised that London hasn't seen even larger attacks.. or other large, vulnerable cities for that matter.

When I see pictures of little kids running around with AK-s, it makes me wonder why we argue about saving lives there. It's obvious to me.. that for the sake of quality of life.. they need an eraser and a do-over.

[madformac]

The old days are over. America has a choice. Kick ass, or have ass kicked.

Personally, I prefer to kick ass. But, I know there are a lot of weenies who don't want to kick ass unless theirs personally is kicked. SO, all in all, I gotta say.. I'd rather bomb the bejesus out of them before we get hit than us get hit and then bomb the same amount of bejesus out of them after the fact. Sure, they have families, but uh, we do too. And when it comes to a "you or me" situation, sorry pal, but it's gonna be the "you" that has to go.

Flame me if you want, but I've always thought that we should take care of a certain group of countries all in one swoop, or find a way to completely isolate them so that their violence over religions I could not care one iota about - for OR against - causes the militants to just take each other out. That being said, if their governments want to make weapons that are only ranged to hit each other, that's fine, I don't give a damn as callous as it seems. If they want to make weapons with the range to hit our targets, I give a damn, and will be highly pissed off if we sit around and do nothing about it because we're sissies who can't stand violence unless it's glorified in movies.

Thats the whole root of the problem. Extreme thinking on both sides. Hate breeds, whatever your choice. Hollywood only glorifies the thinking. Anybody thats been in a real war will tell you its very different.

I'm not going to attack your post although the mindset does seem to be one of the reasons there is a global issue in the first place. The whole "first strike" mentality. There seems to be a thinking that if you get missles off first everything will be ok. If America "wipes out" those countries then it will get hit by Russia, China and who knows who else for a nuclear attack. Which threatens other countries too. Even if Iran doesn't get a missle off which is highly doubtful given the range, speed and distance of attack. What will happen is Iran would take the first strikes after the Iranian missiles were launched. So what does that prove? The end result is the same.

I think half the problem with the hate against America lies in the fact they have attacked and invaded countries without due cause. Vietnam, Cambodia, Libya, Afganistan, Iraq, Iraq (again) to name just a few within the last 35 years. Not a good record. Especially when they haven't technically "won" yet. Thats the cause of the ill feeling I believe. The only time there was a real threat to US security was the Cuban Missle Crisis. Had it not been for Kennedy being a "weenie" as you put it and calling Russia against his advisors judgement then America would not be here today. Nuclear war was inevitable but Kennedy was called a communist for his actions which effectively saved millions of lives because Khruschev would not back down.. If the same thing happens with Iran under the current US administration then you and probably myself too are screwed.

Now poking a big stick at the middle east is not going to work. All it does is inflame the situation. There is a history of Iran falling in and out of favour with the USA. Same with Iraq. Do some research. Don't take my word for it. Hatred of America is only great out there right now due to propaganda and media. Both sides are brainwashed to extreme levels right now. Luckily for the public we have diplomats working on a solution.

[madformac]

"The difference in this battle is that they (the citizens of the US) are scared of death...We embrace it" - Osama Bin Laden

Which is why America can't win these wars in conventional methods.

[estranged4life]

Simultaneous attacks.. dirty bombs and suitcase nukes.. vulnerable food supply. There are a lot of possibilities. If we don't man-up, we're going to be waves of dead meat.


there was a recent doctumentary on DiscoveryTimes Channel about the 'father' of the first "Muslim' created nuclear bomb (That was detonated in Pakistan) who freely gave his tips to countries that HATE the US. He even boasts of it on this doctumentary and he has no conscience if a bomb would be used a major US city.

Now that is more of a problem than an attack on a 911 scale.


Another interesting thing occurred in this area of SW Oklahoma that I live in - not long before the 911 attack there were reports of 'suspicious' people wanting to learn how to fly a 'crop duster', how to fill its tanks and how to discharge it cargo, they werent interested in all the major details it takes to become a crop duster pilot for a living (As many do in this area) such as securing ones pilots license, maintaining their plane, figuring out which chemical works best on a specific crop, etc. - so these 'suspicious' people were denied that training.

Kinda ironic that about the same times these reports happened, one of the WTC pilots, the mastermind ______ Atta (Cannot remember his first name) was pulled over by OHP on highway 152 for speeding. That fact came to light days after 911 - Highway 152 in this area is known for it multitude of crop duster operations.




Personally, I think terrorists are behind "American Idol" because they want to make everyone in the West tonedeaf & braindead from listening to these "wanna-be-rockstar-ass-pop-tarts" :D

[estranged4life]

Which is why America can't win these wars in conventional methods.

so true.



It's funny, the first doctumentary I mentioned ("The Schematics of Hate") had some "extremists" who stated they cannot wait til America withdraws its troops for Iraq, Because they can claim that as "a victory and gather more souls for the ji-had in the celebratory fashion of defeating yet another "world power" as they did in Afghanistan."

[madformac]

When I see pictures of little kids running around with AK-s, it makes me wonder why we argue about saving lives there. It's obvious to me.. that for the sake of quality of life..

OK this will be my last insight before I move on..

Where do these kids get their weapons? AK-47s are Russian made and exported. IMW (Izhevsk Mechanical Works) of Russia own the patent and all supplies have to be approved by the Russian government before being exported. Variants on the original design are produced in China, Germany, Noth Korea and Iraq to name the biggest suppliers. So Iran and the children of Iran that "run around with guns" have to get them through one of these countries in principle.

Russia are a G8 country and have trade relations with the USA, as do China and Germany, two other members. All wealthy countries. North Korea are a rogue state however are now coming to the table diplomatically due to America backing down (weenies right?). Iraqi weapons facilities are now under American control.

Its conceivable that the weapons Iran have right now were funded by America too. Interesting thought huh?

Iranian Plutonium and Uranium were alledgedly Russian exports too, albeit through North Korea. So it would Seem Russia are your enemy not Iran. But then Russia can't be can they? Because they are now a trade nation... :rolleyes:

they need an eraser and a do-over.

I hope for your sake you are joking. You don't know who reads these boards or whose computers are data logging key words..

[madformac]

Another interesting thing occurred in this area of SW Oklahoma that I live in - not long before the 911 attack there were reports of 'suspicious' people wanting to learn how to fly a 'crop duster', how to fill its tanks and how to discharge it cargo, they werent interested in all the major details it takes to become a crop duster pilot for a living (As many do in this area) such as securing ones pilots license, maintaining their plane, figuring out which chemical works best on a specific crop, etc. - so these 'suspicious' people were denied that training.


Its very easy for anybody, regardless of origin to "launch" a weapons attack.
The danger of inciting terrorists is that they will do it with whatever they can get their hands on. There are many groups within the US and UK that I'm sure are planning such things. Its impossible to stop them all and the more conflict, the more the attacks. MI5 and SIS are doing all they can over here but I don't believe its enough..




Personally, I think terrorists are behind "American Idol" because they want to make everyone in the West tonedeaf & braindead from listening to these "wanna-be-rockstar-ass-pop-tarts" :D

Yes, Simon Cowell is a Mossad agent. Why kill Americans with bombs when you can use tragically untalented wannabes instead. Much bigger target too.. :laugh:

[estranged4life]

I hope for your sake you are joking. You don't know who reads these boards or whose computers are data logging key words..

I hope their computers log the following data:


I'm a terrorist...A musical terrorist that is!!! :D

Brian "Derka, derka, Allama Jihad, derka, derka" j.

[Sarah]

OK this will be my last insight before I move on..


Listen. I'm not going to talk to you point by point, because you can't change the way I feel.

I come from a military family, so I would appreciate you not assuming that I haven't talked to anyone who has really been in a war. And please. I am educated.

Current situation aside for one moment, I'd like to know how you suppose that the North Vietnamese practically enslaving the South Vietnamese in concentration-camp-like conditions is not due cause. Just because they aren't our people? There are people who need someone else to stick up for them.

Hatemonger, extreme thinking, whatever; America has means and damn-well should watch out for the "least of these" in the world. I feel sorry for the people in these countries. I truly, truly do. Your talk about data logs and all that does not scare me. I have nothing to hide. Don't expect me to shut up about how I feel any time soon - I don't work that way.

[estranged4life]

There are many groups within the US and UK that I'm sure are planning such things.

Tim McVeigh proved that in my backyard by killing 168 fellow Oklahomans in the Murrah Building (I know it's 169 but the severed leg that was found in camo pants was never matched with any of the other dead...)

Yes, Simon Cowell is a Mossad agent. Why kill Americans with bombs when you can use tragically untalented wannabes instead. Much bigger target too.. :laugh:

Dont insult the Mossad with Simon "Produces no talent EVER" Cowell - they may booby-trap yer Pink Floyd collection :eek: :lol:

[Sarah]

Tim McVeigh proved that in my backyard by killing 168 fellow Oklahomans in the Murrah Building (I know it's 169 but the severed leg that was found in camo pants was never matched with any of the other dead...)

Homegrowns are just as scary to me. And of course, we have native citizens on Al-Jazeera talking about spilling our blood. Blahblahblah. They need to be dealt with. That's all I'm sayin'.

[skcin]

So it would Seem Russia are your enemy not Iran. But then Russia can't be can they? Because they are now a trade nation... :rolleyes:


Oh, I think we'll be going back to being not so friendly very soon. All I keep reading about in recent months has to do with Putin disagreeing with U.S. policy, and the Russian government stopping protests, arresting people, etc.

Commmunism is alive & well in Mother Russia (as well as much of Eastern Europe.) People like to think that when the wall came down, everything automatically got better. Not so for most of these countries. So they are very frustrated that after almost 20 years, there has been little change. They'd rather have the communists back in power - at least under their rule they had jobs, food, housing, retirement, health care, etc.

[Sarah]

Oh, I think we'll be going back to being not so friendly very soon. All I keep reading about in recent months has to do with Putin disagreeing with U.S. policy, and the Russian government stopping protests, arresting people, etc.

Commmunism is alive & well in Mother Russia (as well as much of Eastern Europe.) People like to think that when the wall came down, everything automatically got better. Not so for most of these countries. So they are very frustrated that after almost 20 years, there has been little change. They'd rather have the communists back in power - at least under their rule they had jobs, food, housing, retirement, health care, etc.

Yeah, I don't think we've ever really liked China OR Russia. Grit your teeth and smile for the camera.

The whole race for space thing is so downplayed. Russia doesn't want us to put weapons in space, because that scares them ****less. If they keep up in providing weapons to terrorists and trying to block all our stuff in the UN, I say we put some damn weapons in space. Like a huge-ass magnifying glass that'll fry Moscow like an ant. Somebody's always going to be trying to be the only super power. I would much rather it be America than AHH, MOTHERLAND or China. Eff both of those scenarios.

[estranged4life]

Homegrowns are just as scary to me. And of course, we have native citizens on Al-Jazeera talking about spilling our blood. Blahblahblah. They need to be dealt with. That's all I'm sayin'.

yer saying, trust me on that.

The thing that always bothered me about the doctumentary was how our govt. allowed known allies of terror groups to gather together in an American town (That suffered a terror attack) for a 'jihad fest' and not do a damn thing about it. WTH?

If I were to go on TV right now and threaten the President my ass would be locked up faster than you can say "Stevie's playing the same setlist of songs that she did last year" or "Lindsey's doing that damned speech about 'Cycles' again".




Too bad some wack-a-loon terror group wouldnt bomb American Idol, the Grammy's, Academy Awards, the ESPY's, American Music Awards, the Golden Globes, etc. live on TV...I would gather a couple of $$$ and buy 'em 1 fruit basket for a job well done :nod:

[madformac]

There you go, you have your main threat now. Iran are just extras. Smokescreen stuff. They are not players. Give them nuclear capabilities and a platform on the world stage and who are their main allies?

Yes you have got it. The same people that have funded them. Russia have no major friends on the world stage, not now China are distancing themselves. Russia need more allies. By funding Iran they will get it. China had similar ideas with North Korea but it seems they have now changed tactics. Might have something to do whith increased trade with the USA perhaps? ;)

And there you have it. War is an extention of politics. Here endeth the lesson.

:nod: :wavey:

[estranged4life]

And there you have it. War is an extention of politics. Here endeth the lesson.


WAR is a great funk band of the late 60's/early 70's... :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_%28band%29

[Sarah]

WAR is a great funk band of the late 60's/early 70's... :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_%28band%29

Hell Yes.

But I have to agree with madformac on the China distracting themselves point. IF America was taken out of the picture, it's not like Russia and China would act like friends anymore. They'd have to fight it out themselves.

[markolas]

Life, and intelligent life in particular, is probably a very rare occurrence in the universe, and all I see is humanity squandering a really precious thing. A planet's ability to sustain life is finite to begin with, and people are just speeding up the inevitable. Why? When this is gone, there will be no Jesus or Allah to put it back together again. This is all we've got, and we're quickly screwing ourselves out of our very existence, but nobody can see that. They just go on and on with their religious fanaticism and lust for power and prestige. That is what sickens me.

[Serrart]

It really IS a game, and that scares the **** out of me. Human lives should not be pawns in games, I'm sorry.

And I totally disagree with you about Iran not using the weapons if they get them. If they feel that just having them isn't getting their message across, they'll send a stronger message by using them. IMO.

i don't now why Iran is seen in US as a monolytic system, when it isn't since Khomeini's death. Even if right now the government is right wing oriented, there's also a very strong part of the Country that's more open to the west. Khatami is an example and behind him there's a strong support. Certainly I really doubt the progressist part of Iran will have even a single chance to win at the next election if US keep showing there's nothing good in the West to treat with.

Iran is a Country with great history, and a wide burocracy. Since luckily they hadn't had in years a charismatic ayatollah as Khomeini, or a president able to unite all the factions, the Country has become a spectrum full of different lights and shadows. They wouldn't use nuclear weapons because they don't need to do it. America is already scared an hysteric enough. I wonder why US doesn't put the same effort in trying to rule Pakistan, which is a wider and more dangerous terrorists'nest. US for years has helped that Country, hoping to have some kind of control on the government, but they clearly used your money in other manners. It seems to me that the strongest Country in the world, is bad in coping with its enemies, but even worse in choosing its new friends.


Romy

[skcin]

^ That's a very pretty picture you've painted of Iran - very different than the one my coworker has told me about (born & raised there, family still there.)

[Für Elise]

^ That's a very pretty picture you've painted of Iran - very different than the one my coworker has told me about (born & raised there, family still there.)
this isnt specific to this thread just in general but just cause one person has a view of a situation because they lived there or live there doesnt make it a fact. if i asked one american about the climate in america and the attitude of americans about the government theres no way that would make there opinion the fact about what america is like. i know two people from afghanistan and one wants to go back home and one is really opposed to how it is there now and has a lot of anger about what happened. there both from there though but what i mean is that you cant judge what the whole people think cause you've heard from one person.

[skcin]

this isnt specific to this thread just in general but just cause one person has a view of a situation because they lived there or live there doesnt make it a fact. if i asked one american about the climate in america and the attitude of americans about the government theres no way that would make there opinion the fact about what america is like. i know two people from afghanistan and one wants to go back home and one is really opposed to how it is there now and has a lot of anger about what happened. there both from there though but what i mean is that you cant judge what the whole people think cause you've heard from one person.

Yes, that was kind of my point. :confused: In this case, Serrart gave one impression, I was simply stating that not everyone would agree.

[Serrart]

Yes, that was kind of my point. :confused: In this case, Serrart gave one impression, I was simply stating that not everyone would agree.

In case anyone is curious, to know something about Iran from a different perspective, there's also their art. Actually in America is going to debut Offside by one of their best directors, Jafar Panahi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0070159/). Some other fantastic filmakers they have are: Mohsen Makhmalbaf (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0538532/); the greatest, Abbas Kiarostami (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0452102/). There are also some very interesting women directors like Samira Makhmalbaf (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0538533/) and Niki Karimi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0439312/), who just made a beautiful movie about how difficult can be to have a career (the leading character is a successful publicist) and a private life

All these filmakers aren't loved by government but since they tend to win tons of awards, censorship leaves them more space to work .
Their cinema has often a neorealistic style so they usually show everyday life, but some of them like Panahi like to change fro drama to comedy. Then there's a quite frequent surreal and oniric vein in some of their films.

Some great titles:
Close up http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100234/
And the life goes on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105888/
Under the Olive Trees http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111845/
A taste of Cherry http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120265/
Bread and Flower http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117214/
The Silence http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0152438/
Kandahar http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0283431/
The White balloon http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112445/
The Mirror http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117056/
The Circle (this is about female condition, from the opposite side to the one described by Niki Karimi)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0255094/
The Blackboard http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246266/
At Five in the Afternoon http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363303/
The apple http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156901/
A Few Days Later http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0855752/

Romy