avenfoto 0 #1 February 20, 2006 discuss... http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20768&l=i&size=1&hd=0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #2 February 20, 2006 An article written with twisted words and completely uniformed opinion. The guy said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, the guy threw inspectors out and is blatantly starting uranium enrichment, the guy stated his goal is to gain nuclear weapons...I don't blame Israel or the rest of the world one bit for wanting this guy destroyed. Bottom line, he threatend Israel so Israel should shove a boot up his ass real quick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #3 February 20, 2006 QuoteAn article written with twisted words and completely uniformed opinion from an Iranian point of view. ~~~ There ya go... Fixed it for you! From an outside (non-US) point of view, the Bush Administration does appear to be once again working itself up into a righteous anger sufficient to justify invading Iran... At least to itself. Between (1990) the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the end of the Iraq liberation, little was heard of Iran's "State-Terrorism". Now that the Iraqi occupation is facing difficulties and reducing support, ANOTHER country is being reviled & vilified to the point where "Regime-Change" is seen by sufficient numbers of The American People as justified. No doubt, the ensuing continued occupation will be quietly ignored. FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT!: You cannot liberate a people from the government they have elected - That is invasion, pure & simple. Interference in the internal affairs of another country IS an act of war. Please bear that in mind if the Iranians try to fight back as a result of America's $75Mil allocation to "Fund Iranian Dissident Groups" To be blunt, The Bush Administration's present foreign policy toward The Mid-East bears more than a passing resemblance to Hitler's foreign policy toward Easern-Europe in 1938-39, & Iran may well prove to be America's "Danzig Corridor"! Incidentally, the idea of dealing in oil in Euros instead of dollars is intruiging. Still... There's nothing like a nice foreign war to divert attention away from internal mismanagement. QuoteThe guy said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, the guy threw inspectors out and is blatantly starting uranium enrichment... "The Guy" won a democratic election fair & square. He has the support of the people. If you REALLY think that countries should be invaded if they elect leaders the rest of the world doesn't like, then where does that leave America under Bush? Have you considered WHY the Iranians abandoned a moderate government in favour of a hard-line nationalistic one? Could it have anything to do with America's actions toward the Mid-East since 2001? Have they elected "The Guy" because he was the candidate most likely to preserve Iranian sovereignty against America? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,600 #4 February 20, 2006 I'm sorry. Your reality doesn't concide with the desired reality. I read an article this weekend that said that if reality doesn't coincide with the stated world view, then reality must be changed until it does. Of course, I won't state what world view that was in the article, but it sure seems to apply here Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #5 February 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteAn article written with twisted words and completely uniformed opinion from an Iranian point of view. ~~~ There ya go... Fixed it for you! From an outside (non-US) point of view, the Bush Administration does appear to be once again working itself up into a righteous anger sufficient to justify invading Iran... At least to itself. ... Have you considered WHY the Iranians abandoned a moderate government in favour of a hard-line nationalistic one? Could it have anything to do with America's actions toward the Mid-East since 2001? Have they elected "The Guy" because he was the candidate most likely to preserve Iranian sovereignty against America? Mike. ONLY since 2001? How about US actions towards Iran since 1953?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #6 February 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteAn article written with twisted words and completely uniformed opinion from an Iranian point of view. ~~~ There ya go... Fixed it for you! Have they elected "The Guy" because he was the candidate most likely to preserve Iranian sovereignty against America? ONLY since 2001? How about US actions towards Iran since 1953? You're absolutely right of course. Indeed it could be reasonably argued that between America & Britain, Iran has been the subject of Western control & interference since it's inception during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson! Within the terms of this thread, I was thinking more of the immediate threat to Iranian sovereignty and their quest for a proven & workable solution to that threat. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adriandavies 0 #7 February 20, 2006 Whilst I largely agree with what Miked10270 wrote I do take issue with the statement that the Iranian President won a fair election. All candidates had to be vetted and those who did not have the right religious or socialist background were banned from standing. Secondly foreign policy issues did not play a part in the Iranian election. Ahmadinejad campaigned on a ticket which appealed to the poor of the country by promising jobs, education and an end to corruption. Foreign policy barely got a look in, whether in the form of America, Israel or nuclear power/weapons. Neither were these issues for any other candidates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #8 February 20, 2006 The Iranian situation is a very dicey one from any perspective. Their current president is, from all outward appearances, a maniac. One cannot discount the possibility, however, that his rhetoric is in place publicly to appease the ruling mullahs and there are backchannel negotiations currently underway to diffuse the situation. I hope that is the case. If this guy is a true believer, then the world is in trouble. Iran has long supported Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Anyone believing that a nuclear armed Iran would not provide their terrorist surrogates with nuclear weapons for use against either the U.S. or Israel is living in a fantasy land. Militarily, Iran would be a far tougher nut to crack than Iraq, I believe. The country is far more rugged and their armed forces has not been weakened by 12 years of international embargo. Another factor playing into the overall equation would be the fact that a large majority of the Iranian populace is, in fact, pro-West and doesn't really care for the ruling mullahs (so I've read). The US royally screwed up years ago by supporting the Shah of Iran when his SAVAK security forces were brutalizing the populace there. Tough situation regardless of how you look at it. I don't think the Israelis will sit idly by while Iran becomes a nuclear power. I'm at a loss with regards to how we should proceed without a much longer and in-depth examination of the situation. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #9 February 20, 2006 Quote.... I do take issue with the statement that the Iranian President won a fair election. All candidates had to be vetted ... Yeah, the choices were somewhat limited, but from that you'd expect that if the people couldn't vote for a candidate they wanted, then they'd vote for the candidate nearest to what they wanted. From there it's interesting that the more "right-wing" candidate won. I believe that the Iranians, like most people, are attitude-mirrors. When the perceived US threat to Iran was lessened, we saw a relaxation in the regime & moves towards (dare I say it) reform, and a more secular government. Now that the perceived threat level has increased, we see a resurgence of "Bunker-Mentality" in Iran with a distinct hardening of attitudes towards The West. Any time now I'm expecting the term; "Great Satan" to come back into fashion! As for America responding to the threat of Muslims with nukes goes... What about Pakistan & (allegedly) Saudi Arabia? Or is it OK for those Muslims to have nukes, but not Iran? At the moment, there are only 2 scenarios which would reduce Mid-East tension. The most likely one is that Iran acquires nuclear weapons (discussed to death elsewhere). The less likely one is that The Coalition admits that it has achieved the aims of it's invasion of Iraq (liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's regime) and withdraws its forces from Iraqi territory. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
avenfoto 0 #10 February 20, 2006 QuoteI do take issue with the statement that the Iranian President won a fair election. well i take issue w/ the statement that the current american president won any election at all, but thats a different argument/thread... QuoteAhmadinejad campaigned on a ticket which appealed to the poor of the country by promising jobs, education and an end to corruption. that sounds like just about every political candidate ever...but lets pay attention to the italicized phrase, "end to corruption" ... president bush, beat that horse to death promising to "restore dignity to the whitehouse" if that isnt enough irony and flat out bullshit to make you cry, then i dont know what is..... were sliding down a slippery slope here folks, and that pit at the bottom dont look pretty.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #11 February 20, 2006 QuoteAn article written with twisted words and completely uniformed opinion. The guy said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, the guy threw inspectors out and is blatantly starting uranium enrichment, the guy stated his goal is to gain nuclear weapons...I don't blame Israel or the rest of the world one bit for wanting this guy destroyed. Bottom line, he threatend Israel so Israel should shove a boot up his ass real quick. this reminds me of an old F111F driver joke! Knock knock, who's there? Ka,....Ka who? KABOOM! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adriandavies 0 #12 February 20, 2006 Yep and BOTH Presidents have received messages from God telling them what to do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #13 February 20, 2006 Viper you get the feeling that guy might not want to spend alot of time outdoors for fear of getting one pickled off on him? the intel weenies in Iran might hear someone say SHACK! ....in Hebrew of course! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #14 February 20, 2006 We will be at war with Iran within five years.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,600 #15 February 20, 2006 QuoteWe will be at war with Iran within five years.And I hope that we don't have a focus in the next election on "not changing horses in mid-war" Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #16 February 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteWe will be at war with Iran within five years.And I hope that we don't have a focus in the next election on "not changing horses in mid-war" You've pretty much just predicted the election rhetoric for 2008. Remember Election 1988, and G.H.W. Bush's "Stay the Course"?. No policy, no real ideology; certainly no vision. Just "stay the course". Same ole same ole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #17 February 20, 2006 No, that won't happen. The democrats are done as a force in national politics. They are unable to field any electable candidates either now or in the near future. We will have only republican presidents for the foreseeable future.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #18 February 20, 2006 Hopefully one day we will see the Liberatarian party actually have an equal playing field instead of the same old shit we get thrust upon us now by both parties... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #19 February 20, 2006 QuoteNo, that won't happen. The democrats are done as a force in national politics. They are unable to field any electable candidates either now or in the near future. We will have only republican presidents for the foreseeable future. Corporate America moves jobs overseas. Without jobs, many of our youth turn to the military, and the whole country fills up with illegal cheap labor while we keep a large standing army overseas. This is "business as usual" for both parties. Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #20 February 20, 2006 >We will have only republican presidents for the foreseeable future. I have a feeling that people will get sick enough of the culture of corruption to elect a yellow dog in the next election - as long as he's not another pro-torture, pro-war republican. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #21 February 20, 2006 Quote>We will have only republican presidents for the foreseeable future. I have a feeling that people will get sick enough of the culture of corruption to elect a yellow dog Hilary Clinton? in the next election - as long as he's not another pro-torture, pro-war republican. Let's see... Jeb Bush? Condie Rice? Hilary Clinton? some Kennedy? What HAVE you reduced yourselves to? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
